Solve real business challenges on Google Cloud and run workloads for free. For Slashdot users: Get $300 in free credits to fully explore Google Cloud. Get started for free today.
Posted
by
timothy
from the freebers-creepers dept.
gammelgul writes "Jem Matzan has written a review of the new FreeBSD 5.4 release on NewsForge. He writes about enhancements and the 64bit edition of the OS."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Saturday June 11, 2005 @03:46PM (#12790279)
The FreeBSD 5.4 Release is dedicated to the memory of Cameron Grant [dbsi.org]. Cameron was an active FreeBSD Developer and principal architect of the sound driver subsystem despite his physical handicap. His is a superb example of human spirit dominating over adversity. Cameron was an inspiration to those who met him; he will be fondly remembered and sorely missed.
This is a rather shallow review and has been discussed over at OSNews [osnews.com]. Just read the comments and you'll finde you don't need to read the actual review.
Someone mentioned a better review here [ofb.biz]. Enjoy!
I can't believe this is posted. Here is why. [osnews.com]
On a sidenote: I just finished compiling openoffice1.9m107 a few days ago (now that the port is updated to m109, I'm there compiling again) - with KDE support. Running it under KDE with native widget support is simply amazing speedwise. Startup times don't change much, however, opening various dialogues (options for instance), the help, etc. is instantaneous - just like konqi when preloaded. Not that it was very slow before, but still, once oo starts up, it is l
Is there a way we can turn off reviews coming from OSNews in our preferences? Please?
I'm getting sick and tired of reviews that in no way reflect the experiences I have with the very same product. This guy has weird bleeding edge hardware, and then tells us it's not ready for me with my mainstream hardware. FreeBSD WORKS on with my CPU. FreeBSD WORKS with my NIC. FreeBSD WORKS with my harddrives.
I don't expect operating systems to be perfect and support every piece of hardware ever built, but I do expect reviewers to base their evaluations on hardware that ordinary people out in the real world are using.
I'm an ordinary person who'd like to be able to run FreeBSD 5.4 on my Sun Java Workstation W2100z, but guess what, I can't due to the same issues as described in this review.
The net result, losing another potential FreeBSD user/developer.
True. I don't know why such absolutely non-informative reviews get submitted in the first place, when there are much better sources of information and reviews. In a post above, I mentioned this [ofb.biz]one, which I enjoyed a lot.
Well, to be fair, it did say 'most', and since 'most' are stuck on 2.4 and i386-centric userlands and kernels made with some old compiler, and tack on the extra daemons and tools and rubbish, yes, it's entirely reasonable to suggest FreeBSD 5 will be faster than those. It's worth remembering that Linux has more distros than there are atoms in the sun, and 'most' of them are a load of shit. I don't need a benchmark to tell me that, exploration and experience has enough of it.
Then again, for a release that is basically minor enhancements like security patches, updates of contributed software, and more work on SMP/thread safe drivers and other kernel subsystems... what else can you say?
I think untill 6.0 (and possibly even of 6.0; since it's basically focussed on VFS scalability and not new features) you'll keep having such reviews. In the now stable 5.x series they won't roll out big new features.
There aren't big exciting reviews about every 2.6.x release of linux too, th
the box couldn't run Apache 2.0 (worker MPM) compiled with libpthread for a single day without a panic! at some point apache child starts boimbarding kernel with syscalls (500k syscalls/second), soon, if left unattended, the box panics. had to get back to i386 for stability.
this is all on common hardware - Intel (EM64T) Xeons, Pro/1000 (em) network. and mind you, we still use SCHED_4BSD.
conclusion? 5.x is by NO means -STABLE on amd64 yet.
I've been reading the freebsd mailing lists, and as far as I know there are still lot of "small issues" left in 5.x...the 5.x branch has been quite painful for the freebsd people, and that's why 5.4 took so long, and why 5.4 still has issues, like stability in some places but specially from the performance POV (like the threading subsystem, the freebsd guys would rather release a slow kernel than trying to speeding up and unstabilize everything so they released 5.4 despite of having some patches to speed up
that same Apapche 2.0 is running happily on that same box withe the same configuration, only recompiled for i386. i had 2 or 3 occasional panics since then, but i suspect these were due to previous filesystem corruption.
Could you please reference some sources for these problems?
I run half a dozen AMD64 boxes and I've had minimal problems running the following threaded APPS:
apache-worker-2.0.54 perl-threaded-5.8.6_2 (Just disable the port warning) php5-5.0.4_2
Along with all perl modules compiled with thread support.
I've seen no stability issues.
I find it interesting that you mention using the AMD64 FreeBSD, yet say you're running it on EM64T. I was not aware that EM64T is actually considered to be an equivalent implemen
yes, technically EM64T is the equivalent of x86-64. it might not be as microarchitecturally efficient, but it is 100% compatible (as far as i know).
hm... what you mean by referencing sources? i had the behavior i described (syscalls burst then panic) repeatedly, which was corrected by rebuilding-reinstalling the i386 world and kernel. no problems since then.
Apache (2.0.54) wasn't even doing any heavy-duty php/perl, just static content, SSI and some proxying. alongside apache there's a lightweight httpd servin
yes, technically EM64T is the equivalent of x86-64.
it might not be as microarchitecturally efficient, but it is 100% compatible (as far as i know).
There are small differences. The ubuntu apt repository gives me the option of installing an amd64-generic kernel, an amd64-k8 kernel and an amd64-xeon kernel.
Speaking as a former FreeBSD user, I want this operating system to work again. I was disappointed to find that that didn't happen with 5.4-RELEASE. If you have FreeBSD 4.11 production machines and are thinking of upgrading, I suggest you leave them as they are for now.
This is sad. I too remember fondly the 4.x days. FreeBSD hasn't made the transition to these "enterprise" features like the ULE scheduler, and getting out from under the "big lock" SMP.
The 4.x series is still alive and well, but the writing is on the wall. If the FreeBSD 5.x series doesn't start fixing some of those show-stoppers, it risks becoming irrelevant.
NetBSD and OpenBSD seem to have found their niche to a certain extent. I suspect that some network equipment vendor like HP will start putting OpenBSD in switches and routers. It seems like Cisco and IOS have the most to lose from OpenBSD gaining ground.
NetBSD seems to chug away at its own pace making solid incremental gains. They tend toward evolutionary rather than revolutionary changes. When they do make more revolutionary changes, they tend to include them in small numbers, and only after a long period of vetting in the current branch.
The laundry list of improvements to FreeBSD 5.x makes me wonder if that project didn't bite off more than it could chew. That the BSD faithful are starting to raise questions about the long road to stability with FreeBSD 5.x should be a warning to other Open Source projects to stick to regular release cycles with clearly defined and narrowly scoped improvements.
I suspect that FreeBSD development may have slowed somewhat due to the "fun factor" waning. Announcing Big Gigantic Changes can be good to generate enthusiasm in a user base, but it can be oppressive to the poor developers caught doing the work. Lots of small, discrete tasks can be fun for experienced developers, and a good way to snag novices.
Despite these problems, FreeBSD has very recently been a very vibrant project. They have traditionally had a level of coordination rarely seen in any other Open Source project. I think this can work, but FreeBSD 5.x may fall into the "lessons learned" category.
Or, as I mention in my blog [thoughtspot.net], Darwin may see a surge in popularity following Apple's Intel announcement. -Peter
I find the following comments from the article to be not accurate:
I was disappointed to find that Linux binary compatibility was still 64-bit only for 64-bit FreeBSD. That means no 32-bit Linux binaries.
Here's what you need to do:
reference/usr/src/tools/lib32 which will tell you to:
add "WITH_LIB32= yes #This makes buildworld compile lib32 linux code support" to/etc/make.conf
buildworld/installworkd in/usr/src
be sure the following options are in your kernel config:
options COMPAT_43 # Compatible with BSD 4.3 [KEEP THIS!]
options COMPAT_IA32 # Compatible with i386 binaries
options COMPAT_FREEBSD4 # Compatible with FreeBSD4
options COMPAT_LINUX32 # Compatible with i386 linux binaries
# Linux 32-bit ABI support
options LINPROCFS # Cannot be a module yet.
Recompile kernel, install kernel, reboot.
Certain programs may require you add:
linprocfs/usr/compat/linux/proc linprocfs rw 0 0
to/etc/fstab
Ditto. These instructions may sound difficult, but if you're going to run a wierdass configuration, such as running binaries built for one processor on a completely different processor, then read the damned instructions!
Although ULE may be 'more' fixed in FreeBSD 5.4, I still find it to be very unstable. I'm unable to have a system booted for more than a few minutes before it kernel panics. (I'm also ironically unable to recompile a GENERIC kernel all the way through).
I was very excited to try the ULE Scheduler for FreeBSD after having read the excellent article: ULE: A Modern Scheduler for FreeBSD [chesapeake.net].
I eagerly await the next version of FreeBSD, in hopes that ULE is mature enough to take advantage of the performances in
ULE works for me just fine. What's your setup? Because as far as I know, stability issues come up in smp environments with ULE. On single processors it should work - and it works very nicely: desktop interactivity remains top notch when using ULE even while doing CPU intensive tasks (like I do right now, compiling oo.o-2) - meaning smooth playback of movies with mplayer and all. See my kernel config here [unideb.hu].
People often forget that 4BSD has gotten several of the features that ULE has during the last two releases of 5.x. The advantage of 4BSD is obvious when you consider people who manually enable HTT, or buy dual core cpus. In my case, my system must run under 4BSD because of the SMP issues.
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Saturday June 11, 2005 @05:03PM (#12790698)
Does anyone who actually has a service provider/network engineering job even care about these fbsd is dead/dying lines of thought anymore? FreeBSD has been quietly running a good chunk of the net for years. If your idea of a solid OS is something to run whatever the latest eye-candy is on your desktop then good for you, go compile Gentoo until you turn blue. For me, and a lot of folks like me, if I can run a web server that never fails, a DNS farm that never fails, mail servers that never fail, etc, etc then I could care less if my iPod doesn't automount or whatever other new technology isn't supported.
I agree..I have 3 boxes running 5.4 and it's absolutely stable. As far as I can tell nothing's broken at all. The only reboots I have had are intentional. I have them all configured as web servers, servers, and routers (only using one at a time)and file servers.
I have a couple of Slackware boxes and they all are neck and neck. I like the FBSD better as a DSL router because of PF and kernel ppp support.
I like the FBSD better as a DSL router because of PF and kernel ppp support.
I'm curious why people would use FreeBSD as a router with PF? Why not OpenBSD? OpenBSD now also has pppoe in kernel, BTW.
On a related note, I found recently that my Netgear DG632 ADSL MODEM/router would perform flawless half-bridge mode when in MODEM mode. This allows me to use PPPoA with an MTU of 1500 and still have my OpenBSD firewall see my external IP and all traffic directed to it. Allowing me to avoid PPPoE and avoid MTU i
I have several hardware routers. None of the Cisco class however have a Cisco at work. OpenBSD is a good choice. I like it well also however they just added kernel ppp.
Reasons for me to use a computer for a firewall/router are:
I like to learn and experiement with the os(es) and packet filter(s). I have tried linux (most distros), freebsd, openbsd, netbsd, dragonfly, etc. IPTABLES, PF, and IPF. I like PF, IPF, and IPTABLES in that order.
I have tested dsl throughput and FreeBSD betters linux by about 10
I'm not a server operator, i'm more of a web developer. I have tried to get FreeBSD5.4+Apache1.3+Mysql+PHP4 running on at home, an old 'test-server' and it's a bit hard to get it 100% right (it now only lacks session suport). I suppose this is the job of the IT admin, but FreeBSD lags a bit behind Windows in the 'it-just-works department' IMHO.
Everyone pleae stop reading reviews done by this guy. They're uninformative, biased, and it's blatently obvious he's unwilling to actually learn FreeBSD beyond installing it two or three times each new release and writing a review catering to the already pre-established opinions of Linux users.
The author has managed to prove that FreeBSD is not suitable for beginning desktop users who have no interest in reading the documentation. I wasn't aware that they were a target market.
"It looks like FreeBSD just tries to follow Linux, ie. make something that tries to do a bit everything without any focus."
FreeBSD is older than Linux.
"The software is the same. Running Gnome, KDE, Firefox or Emacs on FreeBSD or on Linux doesn't change anything, it's the same source code.
The common userland apps are the same. There are minor differences like "cp -a" that doesn't work on FreeBSD, but it doesn't really make any difference, the same things can be done the same way."
Linux was started before FreeBSD, this is how the age of something is measured.
Maybe with software, but with people you generally calculate the age based on the release date, not when the developers started working on the project.
You stupid, sub-chimpanzee illiterate retard. I can't fathom how you have managed to use a computer. You significantly lower the average collective IQ of slashdot, and that is really saying something.
Bravo!
That's the Linux spirit!
It is only the way to tell 'em how Linux's better!
Right, bro?
Really? Tell me how FreeBSD would be vulnerable to a bad implementation of linux's passwd, for example.
Obviously not all of the software is shared, but nearly all of the network server software is and that's where it's the most important because that's where you have the most exposure.
Actually Linux followed FreeBSD. While older, FreeBSD is also free'er (as in speech). That is its fundamental difference. Which is better entirely depends on what you want to do.
FreeBSD heaviliy depends on GPL software. It can't even exist (be compiled) without gcc and binutils. So saying that it is freerer is bullshit.
BSD predates GPL'd software. The use of gcc and whatnot is a convenience. It's all replacable. Switching from cc to gcc is not a one way trip. Intel's icc is a pretty good gcc replacement.
So what is this BSD over GPL stuff all about? Politics? It's funny to bash GPL while BSD itself can't exist without GPL tools.
Linux certainly predates FreeBSD, and while Bill Jolitz' work on 386BSD predates Linus' first efforts on Linux, even 386BSD first release was as late as march '92.
Linux certainly predates FreeBSD, and while Bill Jolitz' work on 386BSD predates Linus' first efforts on Linux, even 386BSD first release was as late as march '92.
386BSD and FreeBSD were just the i386 ports
of BSD. And BSD 1.0 came out on March 9 1978.;-)
Linux 1.0 came out on March 14 1994.
Since you're self-proclaimed clueless, maybe next time you could limit yourself to asking "Why should *I* use FreeBSD?", instead of asking "What's the point in FreeBSD?" - that definitely sounds like a troll, looks like a troll and smells like a troll.
Anyway, here are my humble reasons for choosing FreeBSD over any Linux distro.
The main one is definitely the wonderful ports system [freebsd.org]. The only thing that comes close to it in the Linux world is Gentoo portage: I didn't try it, but those who did [osnews.com] didn't find it
I have been a FreeBSD server operating system user for a very long time. Over the period of my usage of FreeBSD I had been very happy with it. Then after 5.0 it has gone down hill. I have to agree with some of the points that people note in the article. The main one. It does appear as though they are trying to optimise the code that doesnt work rather than make it work. For example why are they working on 6.x already when there are so many problems in the 5.x one? are they just trying to move past a
5.0 through 5.2.1 was DEVELOPERS previews, FFS! I'm soo getting tired of hearing the whining about 5.0-5.2.1 as they were ONLY for early adopters. I'm sorry but sane people can't help it if you can't take a clue from the REALEAS ENOTES.
5.3 and even more 5.4 have been very stable on the hardware that we've been using it and that includes SMP machines for bioinformatics as well as UP servers for web/mail/routers.
5-STABLE is IMHO so much better than 4-STABLE that it just isn't funny anymore.
We only went to NetBSD in the last few weeks. That was after holding off and holding off for a stable 5.x branch. We understood that it was a developers release.
There has been some really good inroads with 5.x however it didnt suit our requirements as well as NetBSD.
Parent, Dragonfly is pretty unusable in its current state.
Most of the entries in ports are broken and the team even insist it is only for development use.
If it can sustain its initial growth it could be a BSD contender in some time. But not just yet!
The dfports system is not recommended any more, because it is very painful to add specific DragonFlyBSD tweaks.
DragonFlyBSD efforts are now focusing on pkgsrc. So, please use pkgsrc instead of FreeBSD ports.
Most ports are properly working. And the whole system is definitely ready for production (and documented as such) as long as you stick with the stable branch (even PREVIEW is usually rock solid).
The HEAD branch is a fast moving target, especially these days since huge work on the core infrastructure i
I'm quite satisfied with FreeBSD 5 (running 5.4R right now on two machines), I find it fast and stable, but I've heard many complaints from others. If you find FreeBSD 5 disappointing, you may want to wait for FreeBSD 6, which was code-frozen a few days ago and should be out by August. I am looking forward to it, especially to WPA support.
If you find FreeBSD 5 disappointing, you may want to wait for FreeBSD 6, which was code-frozen a few days ago and should be out by August.
Hope they fix the installer, though. I just installed FreeBSD 5.4 today for testing, and the installer would not recreate filesystems if there was an existing partition of same size before. Real annoying as the installation will bork due to filesystem filled up. Just deleting and then recreate the old partitons (from an earlier 5.2.1 installation) was not enough. I ac
I am very happy with 5.4, which I have running on 4 of my machines, which are all single processor pentium 4 or single processor xeon.
I am very unhappy with 5.4 on SMP systems...
I upgraded two xeon SMP systems to 5.4 a few days ago.
The 1st machine was a web server running FreeBSD 5.3. The 2nd machine was a database server running FreeBSD 4.11. The web server queries the database server over a gigabit cross-over link.
These machines handle a daily average of about 15k unique visitors, with the web serve
It's not because MySQL is a buzzword. It's because MySQL works, that's what their data is currently sitting in, and their web site it programmed to talk to MySQL.
Switching to PostgreSQL, or any other database, entails a lot of work. Reprogramming anything database specific, and moving about 20GB from MySQL to PostgreSQL without losing *any* data.... and it should all be done with minimul downtime, because their 15k visitors/day don't care what database the da
Well, I wouldn't normally respond to this but there is one bit of truth here. I have witnessesed the 5.* series corrupt its own file system several times. Usually it tends to fail to write correctly to the master.passwd file thus corrupting it. But I have also seen times where the binaries have been corrupted as well.
That being said, FreeBSD is not all bad. The 4.* series clearly is a top notch OS. I have seen the 4.* take slashdot-type spikes of traffic as a server and not blink an eye when similiar
Oh, it can handle high loads, and Linux 2.0 or something might have crashed:)
But admittedly recent (>2.4) has been no worse than FreeBSD in scalability, and 2.6 has often proven to be much better. There are some issues on both sides, but Linux seems to be doing a much better job now - large development team, simpler models for things, numerous corporations doing testing and reviews... hard to imagine any problem staying in for too long.
And yet, eth1394 is still a heap of shit. Somebody fix that. Ple
Real advice here: don't be a ding-dong and use a test-grade OS for a production-grade job. FreeBSD 4.x is production grade, and it has served me well for YEARS of uptime, no matter the tinkering I do to it.
The ones people pay for are running 4.11, the ones I'm using are running 5.4 and I've had no complaints, but my personal stuff doesn't get driven all that hard.
My biggest gripe was not being able to use 4.x ipf setup on 5.x... turns out they've gotten even more particular on 'keep state' for TCP inspection - got that sorted out and I've been moving forward with it ever since.
Hmm, you don't mention what version of FreeBSD you're talking about, so it may have been a beta. You don't mention what filesystem, so could have been extfs2 support for all we know (which is specifically mentioned as unstable). Some developer lost an unknown amount of time because his project was on a local disk with no backup, and not in a central source control. (You mention FreeBSD on client machines only, so I don't believe you corrupted your central CVS repository).
I think you should get your GED. "a while" should be "awhile" and you need a period or a conjunction in there as you've got a series of run-on sentences.
5.4 Dedication (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.4R/announce.htm
Re:5.4 Dedication (Score:2)
Goodbye, Cam. Hope the next world treats you a bit better than this one did.
Re:5.4 Dedication (Score:1, Offtopic)
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=148927&ci
Boring (Score:5, Informative)
Someone mentioned a better review here [ofb.biz]. Enjoy!
Re:Boring (Score:3, Informative)
ahref=http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/archive/2005/f
look for "Negative Review of FreeBSD 5.4"
Re:Boring (Score:3, Interesting)
On a sidenote: I just finished compiling openoffice1.9m107 a few days ago (now that the port is updated to m109, I'm there compiling again) - with KDE support. Running it under KDE with native widget support is simply amazing speedwise. Startup times don't change much, however, opening various dialogues (options for instance), the help, etc. is instantaneous - just like konqi when preloaded. Not that it was very slow before, but still, once oo starts up, it is l
Re:Boring (Score:5, Informative)
I'm getting sick and tired of reviews that in no way reflect the experiences I have with the very same product. This guy has weird bleeding edge hardware, and then tells us it's not ready for me with my mainstream hardware. FreeBSD WORKS on with my CPU. FreeBSD WORKS with my NIC. FreeBSD WORKS with my harddrives.
I don't expect operating systems to be perfect and support every piece of hardware ever built, but I do expect reviewers to base their evaluations on hardware that ordinary people out in the real world are using.
Re:Boring (Score:1)
The net result, losing another potential FreeBSD user/developer.
Re:Boring (Score:2)
Re:Boring (Score:1)
That FreeBSD 5.4 (Score:1, Funny)
Review Formula (Score:5, Funny)
1) Describe the OS, being sure to mention its Unix origins. If the OS is not Linux-based, mention Linux.
2) Comment on the weird piece of hardware by brand name in your box that made it crash
3) List the new and improved features in the kernel and the daemons. (Note: security patches are feautures too)
4) Base everything else on how easy it was to install.
Re:Review Formula (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Review Formula (Score:2)
He did not say, for instance, t
Re:Review Formula (Score:1)
I think untill 6.0 (and possibly even of 6.0; since it's basically focussed on VFS scalability and not new features) you'll keep having such reviews. In the now stable 5.x series they won't roll out big new features.
There aren't big exciting reviews about every 2.6.x release of linux too, th
Re:About time (Score:5, Informative)
Re:About time (Score:1, Troll)
Anyone realeasing after that must *really* be behind the curve!
Re:About time (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Re:if that's what Jem thinks (Score:2)
Re:if that's what Jem thinks (Score:1)
5.4 amd64 is seriously broken thread-wise (Score:4, Informative)
at some point apache child starts boimbarding kernel with syscalls (500k syscalls/second), soon, if left unattended, the box panics.
had to get back to i386 for stability.
this is all on common hardware - Intel (EM64T) Xeons, Pro/1000 (em) network. and mind you, we still use SCHED_4BSD.
conclusion? 5.x is by NO means -STABLE on amd64 yet.
Re:5.4 amd64 is seriously broken thread-wise (Score:3, Informative)
Re:5.4 amd64 is seriously broken thread-wise (Score:2)
Re:5.4 amd64 is seriously broken thread-wise (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps Apache 2.0 is not as clean as one might think? That's why I'm still using Apache 1.x.
Re:5.4 amd64 is seriously broken thread-wise (Score:1)
i had 2 or 3 occasional panics since then, but i suspect these were due to previous filesystem corruption.
Re:5.4 amd64 is seriously broken thread-wise (Score:3, Insightful)
I run half a dozen AMD64 boxes and I've had minimal problems running the following threaded APPS:
apache-worker-2.0.54
perl-threaded-5.8.6_2 (Just disable the port warning)
php5-5.0.4_2
Along with all perl modules compiled with thread support.
I've seen no stability issues.
I find it interesting that you mention using the AMD64 FreeBSD, yet say you're running it on EM64T. I was not aware that EM64T is actually considered to be an equivalent implemen
Re:5.4 amd64 is seriously broken thread-wise (Score:3, Interesting)
it might not be as microarchitecturally efficient, but it is 100% compatible (as far as i know).
hm... what you mean by referencing sources?
i had the behavior i described (syscalls burst then panic) repeatedly, which was corrected by rebuilding-reinstalling the i386 world and kernel.
no problems since then.
Apache (2.0.54) wasn't even doing any heavy-duty php/perl, just static content, SSI and some proxying.
alongside apache there's a lightweight httpd servin
Re:5.4 amd64 is seriously broken thread-wise (Score:2)
it might not be as microarchitecturally efficient, but it is 100% compatible (as far as i know).
There are small differences. The ubuntu apt repository gives me the option of installing an amd64-generic kernel, an amd64-k8 kernel and an amd64-xeon kernel.
Complaints about stability have plagued 5.x (Score:5, Interesting)
This is sad. I too remember fondly the 4.x days. FreeBSD hasn't made the transition to these "enterprise" features like the ULE scheduler, and getting out from under the "big lock" SMP.
The 4.x series is still alive and well, but the writing is on the wall. If the FreeBSD 5.x series doesn't start fixing some of those show-stoppers, it risks becoming irrelevant.
NetBSD and OpenBSD seem to have found their niche to a certain extent. I suspect that some network equipment vendor like HP will start putting OpenBSD in switches and routers. It seems like Cisco and IOS have the most to lose from OpenBSD gaining ground.
NetBSD seems to chug away at its own pace making solid incremental gains. They tend toward evolutionary rather than revolutionary changes. When they do make more revolutionary changes, they tend to include them in small numbers, and only after a long period of vetting in the current branch.
The laundry list of improvements to FreeBSD 5.x makes me wonder if that project didn't bite off more than it could chew. That the BSD faithful are starting to raise questions about the long road to stability with FreeBSD 5.x should be a warning to other Open Source projects to stick to regular release cycles with clearly defined and narrowly scoped improvements.
I suspect that FreeBSD development may have slowed somewhat due to the "fun factor" waning. Announcing Big Gigantic Changes can be good to generate enthusiasm in a user base, but it can be oppressive to the poor developers caught doing the work. Lots of small, discrete tasks can be fun for experienced developers, and a good way to snag novices.
Despite these problems, FreeBSD has very recently been a very vibrant project. They have traditionally had a level of coordination rarely seen in any other Open Source project. I think this can work, but FreeBSD 5.x may fall into the "lessons learned" category.
Or, as I mention in my blog [thoughtspot.net], Darwin may see a surge in popularity following Apple's Intel announcement.
-Peter
FreeBSD 5.4 64bit Support for Linux 32 Binaries (Score:5, Informative)
Here's what you need to do:
options COMPAT_43 # Compatible with BSD 4.3 [KEEP THIS!]
options COMPAT_IA32 # Compatible with i386 binaries
options COMPAT_FREEBSD4 # Compatible with FreeBSD4
options COMPAT_LINUX32 # Compatible with i386 linux binaries
# Linux 32-bit ABI support
options LINPROCFS # Cannot be a module yet.
linprocfs
to
Re:FreeBSD 5.4 64bit Support for Linux 32 Binaries (Score:1)
ULE_SCHED (Score:2)
I was very excited to try the ULE Scheduler for FreeBSD after having read the excellent article: ULE: A Modern Scheduler for FreeBSD [chesapeake.net].
I eagerly await the next version of FreeBSD, in hopes that ULE is mature enough to take advantage of the performances in
Re:ULE_SCHED (Score:2)
Re:ULE_SCHED (Score:2)
I'll also follow the below comment and try -CURRENT and see if the SMP ULE situation has improved.
Re:ULE_SCHED (Score:1)
FreeBSD is always dead on /. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:FreeBSD is always dead on /. (Score:1)
Re:FreeBSD is always dead on /. (Score:2)
I'm curious why people would use FreeBSD as a router with PF? Why not OpenBSD? OpenBSD now also has pppoe in kernel, BTW.
On a related note, I found recently that my Netgear DG632 ADSL MODEM/router would perform flawless half-bridge mode when in MODEM mode. This allows me to use PPPoA with an MTU of 1500 and still have my OpenBSD firewall see my external IP and all traffic directed to it. Allowing me to avoid PPPoE and avoid MTU i
Re:FreeBSD is always dead on /. (Score:1)
Re:FreeBSD is always dead on /. (Score:2)
Kernel ppp has been in OpenBSD for a while. What was recently added was kernel PPPoE.
I prefer FreeBSD and PF over OpenBSD because of ports and desktop refinement (my server boxes usually have everything installed on them).
Ahh, right. When I think PF, I think dedicated firewall and forget that you could be wanting PF to filter the single machine it's being run on.
I quite like OpenBSD ports and use OpenBSD as a desktop. But I would not argue agains
Re:FreeBSD is always dead on /. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Jem Matzan (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing New (Score:1)
What's the point in FreeBSD? (Score:1, Interesting)
NetBSD is about portability. Okay.
OpenBSD is about security. Okay.
What is FreeBSD about?
It looks like FreeBSD just tries to follow Linux, ie. make something that tries to do a bit everything without any focus.
So what is the point in running FreeBSD over Linux?
The software is the same. Running Gnome, KDE, Firefox or Emacs on FreeBSD or on Linux doesn't change anything, it's the same source code.
The common userland apps are the same. There are m
Re:What's the point in FreeBSD? (Score:3, Informative)
FreeBSD is older than Linux.
"The software is the same. Running Gnome, KDE, Firefox or Emacs on FreeBSD or on Linux doesn't change anything, it's the same source code.
The common userland apps are the same. There are minor differences like "cp -a" that doesn't work on FreeBSD, but it doesn't really make any difference, the same things can be done the same way."
What's the point in runn
Re:What's the point in FreeBSD? Only one ? (Score:1)
Re:What's the point in FreeBSD? (Score:1)
Maybe with software, but with people you generally calculate the age based on the release date, not when the developers started working on the project.
Re:What's the point in FreeBSD? (Score:2)
Bravo!
That's the Linux spirit!
It is only the way to tell 'em how Linux's better!
Right, bro?
Re:What's the point in FreeBSD? (Score:2)
Obviously not all of the software is shared, but nearly all of the network server software is and that's where it's the most important because that's where you have the most exposure.
keyword "FreeBSD" --> Found: 76 Secunia Security Advisories, displaying 1-25 keyword "Linux" --> Found: 3264 Secunia Security Advisories, displaying 1-25 ...
outchie...
Of course, you wouldn't want to weed out a
The point of FreeBSD is the "Free" part (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually Linux followed FreeBSD. While older, FreeBSD is also free'er (as in speech). That is its fundamental difference. Which is better entirely depends on what you want to do.
Re:The point of FreeBSD is the "Free" part (Score:2)
BSD predates GPL'd software. The use of gcc and whatnot is a convenience. It's all replacable. Switching from cc to gcc is not a one way trip. Intel's icc is a pretty good gcc replacement.
So what is this BSD over GPL stuff all about? Politics? It's funny to bash GPL while BSD itself can't exist without GPL tools.
Who bashed GPL? All that was said was that B
Re:The point of FreeBSD is the "Free" part (Score:1)
Re:The point of FreeBSD is the "Free" part (Score:2)
386BSD and FreeBSD were just the i386 ports ;-)
of BSD. And BSD 1.0 came out on March 9 1978.
Linux 1.0 came out on March 14 1994.
Re:What's the point in trolling? (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, here are my humble reasons for choosing FreeBSD over any Linux distro.
The main one is definitely the wonderful ports system [freebsd.org]. The only thing that comes close to it in the Linux world is Gentoo portage: I didn't try it, but those who did [osnews.com] didn't find it
Re:What's the point in trolling? (Score:2)
Netcraft confirms it- BSD is..... d'Oh!!
Re:What's the point in FreeBSD? (Score:1)
sorry... (Score:1)
Re:sorry... (Score:1)
FreeBSD Usage (Score:2)
I have been a FreeBSD server operating system user for a very long time. Over the period of my usage of FreeBSD I had been very happy with it. Then after 5.0 it has gone down hill. I have to agree with some of the points that people note in the article. The main one. It does appear as though they are trying to optimise the code that doesnt work rather than make it work. For example why are they working on 6.x already when there are so many problems in the 5.x one? are they just trying to move past a
Re:FreeBSD Usage (Score:1)
Re:FreeBSD Usage (Score:2)
There has been some really good inroads with 5.x however it didnt suit our requirements as well as NetBSD.
Re:FreeBSD Usage (Score:1)
I think it's great to see the FreeBSD team setting some lofty goals and working towards them.
Re:DragonFlyBSD (Score:5, Informative)
Most of the entries in ports are broken and the team even insist it is only for development use.
If it can sustain its initial growth it could be a BSD contender in some time. But not just yet!
Re:DragonFlyBSD (Score:2)
DragonFlyBSD efforts are now focusing on pkgsrc. So, please use pkgsrc instead of FreeBSD ports.
Most ports are properly working. And the whole system is definitely ready for production (and documented as such) as long as you stick with the stable branch (even PREVIEW is usually rock solid).
The HEAD branch is a fast moving target, especially these days since huge work on the core infrastructure i
Re:DragonFlyBSD (Score:1)
Re:DragonFlyBSD (Score:1, Informative)
Re:DragonFlyBSD (Score:2)
Hope they fix the installer, though. I just installed FreeBSD 5.4 today for testing, and the installer would not recreate filesystems if there was an existing partition of same size before. Real annoying as the installation will bork due to filesystem filled up. Just deleting and then recreate the old partitons (from an earlier 5.2.1 installation) was not enough. I ac
Re:DragonFlyBSD (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:DragonFlyBSD (Score:2)
I am very unhappy with 5.4 on SMP systems...
I upgraded two xeon SMP systems to 5.4 a few days ago.
The 1st machine was a web server running FreeBSD 5.3. The 2nd machine was a database server running FreeBSD 4.11. The web server queries the database server over a gigabit cross-over link.
These machines handle a daily average of about 15k unique visitors, with the web serve
Re:DragonFlyBSD (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not because MySQL is a buzzword. It's because MySQL works, that's what their data is currently sitting in, and their web site it programmed to talk to MySQL.
Switching to PostgreSQL, or any other database, entails a lot of work. Reprogramming anything database specific, and moving about 20GB from MySQL to PostgreSQL without losing *any* data.
Re:This is my experience with FreeBSD (Score:3, Interesting)
That being said, FreeBSD is not all bad. The 4.* series clearly is a top notch OS. I have seen the 4.* take slashdot-type spikes of traffic as a server and not blink an eye when similiar
Re:This is my experience with FreeBSD (Score:2)
But admittedly recent (>2.4) has been no worse than FreeBSD in scalability, and 2.6 has often proven to be much better. There are some issues on both sides, but Linux seems to be doing a much better job now - large development team, simpler models for things, numerous corporations doing testing and reviews... hard to imagine any problem staying in for too long.
And yet, eth1394 is still a heap of shit. Somebody fix that. Ple
Re:This is my experience with FreeBSD (Score:5, Insightful)
So you were fired because you hadn't been making backups, right?
Re:This is my experience with FreeBSD (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is my experience with FreeBSD (Score:2)
The ones people pay for are running 4.11, the ones I'm using are running 5.4 and I've had no complaints, but my personal stuff doesn't get driven all that hard.
My biggest gripe was not being able to use 4.x ipf setup on 5.x
Re:This is my experience with FreeBSD (Score:2)
As others have mentioned, you sho
Re:Interesting (Score:1)