FreeBSD 5.2.1 Released 110
Kalev writes "The FreeBSD Release Engineering Team has announced FreeBSD 5.2.1-RELEASE. This is intended to address several bugs and vulnerabilities discovered in the FreeBSD 5.2 release. See the Release Notes. The release is now available for downloading. If you are currently running FreeBSD 5.x, you can easily cvsup to it or use binary upgrade feature of sysinstall."
Re:Point point releases? (Score:5, Informative)
That is usually the problem, 5.1 ran so well that people didn't want to test the RC's, thus some bugs didn't get ironed out for _their_ hardware.
The thing is, if these people had downloaded the livecd of RC2 and sendpr'ed this release wouldn't be needed.
You should blame people for their lack of will to test but strong will to always complain.
Re:Point point releases? (Score:5, Informative)
You're right. The only other one was 4.6.2-RELEASE. (I'm not counting the 2.2.x releases -- 2.2 was a major version number
Almost seems like 5.2 was a bit of a rush job.
5.2 was right on the boundary between "experimental" and "stable". As such, lots of people started using it once it was released, but few people actually participated in testing it. I believe that 5.2 had one of the longest ever periods between code freeze and release.
Updating from 5.2-RELEASE to 5.2.1-RELEASE. (Score:5, Informative)
In order to provide an easy update path for i386 systems from
FreeBSD 5.2 to FreeBSD 5.2.1, FreeBSD Update will now update
systems running FreeBSD 5.2-RELEASE to 5.2.1-RELEASE. To take
advantage of these updates, install and run FreeBSD Update, and
reboot into the new kernel:
# cd
# cp
#
#
# shutdown -r now
If you have recompiled any files locally, FreeBSD Update may
not be able to update them automatically (it will complain).
With the latest version of FreeBSD Update (version 1.5), you
can use one of the following commands:
#
or
#
depending upon whether you installed the "crypto" distribution,
to force files to be updated. (If you're not sure if you
installed the "crypto" distribution, you almost certainly did).
FreeBSD Update will update a 5.2-RELEASE system to the exact
binaries distributed with 5.2.1-RELEASE, with the following
exceptions:
1. Files under the following directories will not be updated:
The ports and src trees can be updated using cvsup; the files
in
automatically.
2. FreeBSD binaries include, in their headers, the value of
__FreeBSD_version on the machine where they were compiled.
This value was bumped from 502000 to 502010 as part of the
release engineering process; binaries for which this is the
ONLY change will not be updated.
As always, this is something I'm providing personally; it is
in no way endorsed by the Security Officer, Release Engineering
team, or the project as a whole.
Colin Percival
Re:Point point releases? (Score:5, Informative)
As Colin pointed out in a peer post here, 5.2 had quite a long release cycle. If you look at the 5.2 release schedule [freebsd.org] you'll note that we spent almost 2 months on it. Add in that 5.1 was released in June of 2003, and you have quite a long dev cycle. We did the best that we could to manage risks in the 5.2 cycle, but shortly afterward it became apparent that there were some significant bugs in certain modules that didn't gain much attention until after the release was made.
Re:Point point releases? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Point point releases? (Score:5, Informative)
FreeBSD 4.1.1 existed also, and was tagged. However, it was a branch off of RELENG_4 instead of RELENG_4_1 and turned into a disaster. But yes, ever since 3.0, we've had few point releases.
Re:Point point releases? (Score:5, Informative)
You would have noticed that 4.1.1 was the first point point release in almost two years after the decision that they were unneccesary extra work.
For 4.1.1 it was decided it was worth it because of the expiring of the RSA patents, it allowed the security pieces to be more easily merged in for US users.
Re:Cool! (Score:5, Informative)
The release engineering team certainly does have high standards. Trying to live up to the stability reputation. But keep in mind that 5.x still is considered in testing and major changes can still be afoot that can cause instabilities. So please still keep in mind what -current means, http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/
5.x will get better and better as it approaches 5.3R, so while some of the problems running a -current release are lessened, one should still be aware of all this and the higher standard for fixing one's own problems when running 5.x. RTFM is not an insult when running 5.x, its simply a price of entry to a great OS.
Re:How's FBSD on AMD64? (Score:5, Informative)
Current Tier 1 platforms are i386, Sparc64, AMD64, PC98, and Alpha.
Current Tier 2 platforms are PowerPC and ia64.
Current Tier 3 platforms are S/390(R).
All systems not otherwise classified into a support tier are Tier 4 systems.
All information lifted verbatim from the FreeBSD website most of it from Section 10 of the Committer's Guide, Support for Multiple Architectures [freebsd.org]
So expect as much support for AMD64 as you would for the standard PC version, the only thing keeping AMD64 back is it's not a widely distributed and therefore not as well tested.
Re:How's FBSD on AMD64? (Score:5, Informative)
It works, except for the kernel modules. Currently, you need to compile everything you need into the kernel. kldload-ing does not work yet.
The 32-bit emulation is supported and turned on by default, although some 32-bit binaries, may have problems controlling some hardware with ioctl-s, because the sizes of structures are often different.
I wouldn't recommend it as a workstation, because too much stuff out there (open source and not) is poorly written and thus unportable and will break during compile time (at best) or at run-time (at worst). Think about all the foolish assumptions, that sizeof(int) == sizeof(void *) and shudder.... I don't think NVidia offers their drivers for amd64 either, and so on.
Makes a (very) nice server, though...
Re:Thank Apple (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Cool! (Score:3, Informative)
IPSEC still broken (Score:4, Informative)
see here [google.com].
Re:Simply question (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I'm confused... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Fuck Apple. (Score:5, Informative)
Mach is from Carnegie Mellon, by way of NeXT.
Windows NT / 2000 / XP runs on a variant of the Mach kernel.
XP does not run on Mach. It was a microkernel, made with a lot of input from DEC VAX guys. Over the years it has shed a lot of Microkernel attributes and become more of a macro style kernel.
Mach is a fairly standard, well documented design principal.
Microkernels are a fairly standard, well documented, design principal. Mach is an instance of them.
I actually agree with some of your other statements, your parent poster was an uninformed fanboy. Apple has contributed to BSD though, check out the BSD project list and see where.
Re:Point point releases? (Score:5, Informative)