Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
BSD Operating Systems

FreeBSD 3.1 Released 149

Posted by CmdrTaco from the stuff-to-hack-on dept.
Jason C. Wells writes "FreeBSD, Inc. has released FreeBSD 3.1. Please read the release notes. You can install FreeBSD 3.1 by following the instructions. Have fun with it! "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FreeBSD 3.1 Released More

FreeBSD 3.1 Released

Comments Filter:
  • this might be a little off the topic, but i was wondering if anyone has gotten token ring support to work with fbsd? the documentation for this is scarce, and what i could grudge up were some source and header files to compile into the kernel that didn't work very well at all.

    anybody got any insight?
  • Time for the latest release! Being the second release on the 3.X branch, a lot of things were worked out that were strange in 3.0. I now wholeheartedly recommend a FreeBSD 3.X release to anyone!

    Honestly, this is the best FreeBSD release ever; so many new drivers have been added, features added, bugs fixed, and so on. When everyone does their best to improve upon such a great OS, it's evident wonderful things [read: 3.1] happen!
  • What in the HELL are you talking about?
  • Posted by Eidos:

    HA! AHAHAAHAHAH!!! Sorry, that had to be said. I'm sorry, but I do NT for a living and I've found this to be FAR from the truth.

    And no, it isn't because I'm a lousy NT admin. IMHO, the only good MS people I've met tend to despise the OS.

    STABLE!!? One poorly written app can easily bring down the whole show. Example. We had to upgrade to McAfee's 4.0 engine to pick up an Excel Macro virus we had picked up. The file/print server would BSOD EACH AND EVERY time we clicked on shutdown. The mail server BSODed in the middle of the install. Finally, I had to pull off the 4.0 engine and put 3.0 back on.

    And its far from fast, as well. I have Wks installed in a PII350 128MB ECC Dell desktop workstation. If I attempt to burn CDs while doing anything else, it can choke my system (SCSI optimized) to the point where an alt-tab to a new app can take minutes. And yes, latest drivers, latest SPs, hours optimizing the system via the registry.

    I do NT begrudgingly. I think its a fine solution for small workgroup solutions (Such as my work situation, 150 clients), but for large companies, I cannot imagine how they pull it off without vast numbers of NT-skilled employees.

    If I had to set up a pure router, DNS server, mail server, etc, I would choose a Unix solution. Hell, I'd choose Novell if I had to over NT in that situation.

    Face it, in 20 years when NT had the maturity of Unix, MAYBE it will be an excellent solution. But, for now, its hideous, still missing pure home directories and share scripting (Without resorting to kix32), it has no drive quota support until Windows 2000, etc....

    Its featureFULL because MS spends far more time including new features, then redesigning weak points and working out bugs.

    I'd be THRILLED to wait 2 years to see a new release of NT that included no new features but fixed thousands of bugs, updated drivers, and improved overall performance.

    Done ranting..thansk :)
  • I totally agree that the FreeBSD philosophy rocks and was thinking of starting a project like FreeBSD based on the Linux kernel. But it seems as though I am a bit late now. I just subscribed to the FreeLinux mailing lists and lets see how well they are doing. I will be glad to help.

  • Of course now that I've got cooling fans on my overclocked processores. (well I had them before, but one fan died, and the toher heat sink fell off. this time I got quality, maybe they will last more then 3 months) my system has been solid as a rock.

    I wish my linux system was as stable, but not enough to upgrade all the deamons to something a little better then the secureity hole ridden versions I've got. (for one I think I'm running a 4.x version of sendmail) The kernel is fine, at least when I compile it with the right options.

  • FreeBSD (Score:1)

    by mackga ( 990 )
    I'd like to try this out, but it doesn't support my scsi controller - Future Domain 1680. No big deal, but that's where the extra disks hang off of, and so, for now, no joy. I'd like to give it a whirl; anyone want to donate an older 'puter so I can experiment? :)
  • At the risk of a flameware, I'll ask:

    Does the e2fs support work this time?

    I tried 3.0 shortly after release, and found out that it did some Bad Things to my e2fs system. Particularly, it inserted random data during writes.

    I'd like to give it a longer try, but that's not possible until it can share /home with my linux install.

  • >Aside from a few booboos (pine falters on FCCing >email, and netscape crashes the machine >occasionally on file save)

    Not just X, but the whole machine???

    >it works just fine. The netscape thing sounds a
    >bit severe, but after compiling a lot of stuff >off ext2fs, (where all my cvs trees are) I feel
    >safe with it. The thing is that FFS+SU is faster, >so perhaps move your home over to FreeBSD?

    If it works, I could do that. The fear is losing *everything* if i have to move it back. hmm, i suppose i could copy a tarball to a fat, then boot the other OS to untar it . . .

    But I still needto run long enough to be sure i want to make the switch.

    >I haven't really tested Linux's latest UFS
    >driver... the one before the 2.2-pre series
    >sucked.

    It was also read-only . . . and the linux partitions in an extended partition after a bsd partition changed numbers depending upon what you were doing unless your ufs support was just right.

    >Currently (thanks to netscape and pine), I just
    >made a separate home dir in FreeBSD with
    >a few symlinks for stuff like ".ssh", and one
    >symlink to the entirety of my home dir.

    that could work, too . . .

    Thanks

    When I have a couple of hours, i'll move around a few partitions & install.
  • "Anything goes"? Linux is controlled by *one*person*.

    Faugh.

  • FreeBSD wasn't very friendly with my 486. Succeeded in making me waste a full weekend before I got it running. Linux, OTOH, worked nicely out of the box (RH 4.2). Admittadly, old, and FreeBSD was nice enough once I got it installed, but I like the general feel of Linux better.

  • You've been in a cave for awhile, haven't you?

    Microsoft bought Hotmail, and tried converting the service to NT, but NT failed to handle the load, so FreeBSD remained there. I know a few people that work at Hotmail, and they warned Microsoft that they wouldn't be able to do it...

  • Nice. (Score:1)

    by hazard ( 2541 )
    After installing a 2.2 on one of my systems, I was somewhat disappointed by the number of inconviences it introduced in the networking area, like no aliased interfaces in "route" and ipchains do not support interface IP numbers.
    Also, 2.2 sometimes sort of blocked.. although I must admit it is much faster under HDD load.

    Maybe its time to try one of the *BSDs again... Do *BSDs support routing by source/TOS/port well? portfw? Whats the packaging system used - is it as easy to use as RPMs/DEBs, i.e. dependencies, checkable PGP-signatures on packages (for automatic upgrades) and so on..
  • Anyway, my server lost a disk the other day, the one that contained most of my system stuff (because in reality my server is junk box) so I'm like hey, I'll try freeBSD on it. Downloaded the boot disk today, not even knowing what version it was and it just happened to be 3.1, from the web site. About 12nn today. Good luck for me I guess, that I didn't start a few hours earlier.
  • cheapbytes [cheapbytes.com] will have em in a few days or so.

    ---
  • I do.

    ---
  • bluGill wrote:

    2.7.2 I belive. 2.8 doesn't work for sure, and egcs doesn't normally work. In anycase something in the 2.7.x range.

    FWIW, I believe that most of NetBSD-current is now using egcs 1.1.1-release. At least, my NetBSD-current/i386 box (compiled today) tells me:

    ac /usr/src# gcc -v
    Using builtin specs.
    gcc version egcs-2.91.60 19981201 (egcs-1.1.1 release)

  • As much as I love copyleft and despise the advertising clause of the BSD license, even I as a tried-and-true, 4 1/2 year Linux lover have to say that I think Chuck is a much cooler looking mascot than Tux.

    Tux is "cute;" Chuck kicks ass.

    However, given the choice between Linux and *BSD, I'll pick Linux any day of the week. Better hardware support and a better license. However, were Linux not to exist, I'll dump some of my weird hardware and run FreeBSD long before I switched to NT.

    (NT is a registered trademark of Northern Telecom.)
    --
    Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
  • Well, whatever het name is, s/he/it's cooler looking. =) I haven't spent a lot of time investigating FreeBSD specifically, so a lot of what I've picked up is probably wrong.

    So, could you be helpful and tell us what s/he/it is called?
    --
    Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
  • However, given the choice between Linux and *BSD, I'll pick Linux any day of the week. Better hardware support and a better license.

    "Better hardware support" is no longer true, as far as I can tell.

    "Better license" is a question of viewpoint - either you want a restrictive license like the GPL because you want to kill the commercial software market, or you think that providing people with the software that fit their needs is a good thing, and thus don't want the GPL.

    Of course, you could also start the paranoid game about the evil companies using your nice code and being able to do more profitable work that way than by doing quite different programming due to not having the same starting point - but we all know that which license a codebase is under influences who works on it, so it is obvious to most of us that this is just propaganda. We're also aware that talking of 'making code proprietary' just is a play of words used by GPL-zealots to try to convert those that don't really consider supplying people with what they need as evil. (Code cannot be 'made properitary' after being released under an open source license, unless all copies are lost - it is already available. Changes can be properitary to the people that make them, though - and IMO it is quite natural that they should own their own changes - it is their effort that create the changes, after all.)

    Eivind.

  • Anybody know a good place to get a FreeBSD 3.1 CD?
    Downloading it off the net using a modem is extremely painful.
    I would get it from Walnut Creek, but it costs like $39.95. Ouch. Not good for someone with serious budget problems.


    dc
  • ...than the Windows NT/9x proponents you so despise. FreeBSD sucks and Linux is cool? Give me a break. Both of them are good OS's, and while Linux certainly has more users, sheer numbers alone do not indicate superiority. If they did, that would make Windows 9x superior to Linux.

    JB

  • good luck (Score:1)

    by atw ( 9209 )
    BSD is gonna need it, considering current hype over Linux.
  • Well, if you do packet-capturing, youre surely going to thrive with *BSD instead of Linux.

    If you're using NFR (Network Flight Recorder), sniffers, etc. the *BSD-implementations is better than Linux. 2.2-kernels has LSF capturing, but I haven't seen any performance figures yet.

    For other things, I think they both are nice OS'es.

    ArneD
  • Short post:

    One open source O/S makes makes far more sense than competing ones. Developers need to spend more time making new features rather than making separate versions of roughly the same thing. In an ideal world, everyone would use a base linux kernel for their architecture with custom additions and loadable modules for their specific needs (diff. filesystems, devices, features). I feel that by dividing our resources like this developers are wasting their time by duplicating work. Ideally we'll see optimized and customized versions of Linux- accelerated for servers, for high intensity graphics, etc.


    Ex Machina "From the Machine"
    xm@GeekMafia.dynip.com [http://GeekMafia.dynip.com/]

  • Mascot (Score:1)

    by N1KO ( 13435 )
    FreeBSD may have a cooler mascot, but the penguin is a better logo than other ones like an apple or a window that looks like a flag
  • Some of the ipchaining and aliasing stuff has been supported in the FreeBSD kernel for a while. You can do NAT (ipmasqing), port forwarding, and standard firewall stuff.

    As for the source, it's all distributed via CVSup, if you prefer to compile yourself, or daily snapshots are available on current.freebsd.org. Application packages are handled through the Ports Collection. You find the package you want, type 'make', it goes out, grabs the source, patches it, compiles it, then you type 'make install' and it installs it. If you don't like it, just type 'pkg_delete foo' and it's gone. Simple, painless. Beats the hell out of searching for that obscure library that some guy used for his app.
  • Suprisingly, some ISP's looking for people won't look at your resume unless you've had experience in running a UNIX other than Linux.
  • http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Bay/6986/ya hoobsd.htm

    and while you're looking at that:

    http://www.futuresouth.com/~fullermd/freebsd/bsd vlin.html

  • Would you kindly do everyone else the favor of not flaming their favorite OS without proof? Where on earth do you BSD is more powerful than Linux statements come from? They may be true, you might well be able to back them up. But please, either back them up or don't make them. If one OS is superior, and this can be factually proved, then fine, state that (with proof) if you wish. What on earth can be gained from "*BSD is more stable and powerful than Linux, listen to me all you Linux wet-behind-the-ears suckling babes. Come try a real man's OS. My penis is bigger than yours and I have more chest hair."

    Maybe there should be some rule that the only people who get to make unjustified statements about Operating Systems have to include some sort of credentials, such as having written 60% or more of two or more operating systems with 5000+ users each?
  • Well, your question's been answered several times here, so I'll respond to your painful modem issue.

    I've performed several installs via a 56K modem using the FTP method. It's sweet compared to my attempts at doing the same for a Linux dist. Here's the basic process:

    Download a boot.flp image (1.44M)

    Transfer image to floppy and boot

    Perform your disk setup process (nothing rights to disk until you complete all of the setup info)

    Select FTP and the closest mirror to you as the source

    Configure your PPP connection info (if you have a lame ISP and DNS resolution fails, ping the site and use the IP address instead of site name)

    Select Base System as your pre-packaged source (this installs the basic system, no X, no source)

    Reply YES to the do you really want to do this

    Leave it alone for a few hours (because it doesn't require the entire source to be downloaded just to do a basic install, it is far quicker that Linux)

    Once the system is installed and rebooted, setup PPP and connect to your ISP. Re-run the /stand/sysinstall program and select Configure - then Packages.

    Install the CVSUP-BIN package and configure it to pull the source tree and ports tree to your PC (make sure you have lots of space on /usr)

    Kick off the cvs update and leave it alone for several hours.

    When it completes:

    cd to /usr/src and make world (compiles and installs the entire system - now you have much more than the Base System you started with)

    cd to /usr/ports/x11/XFree86 and make;make install X (if desired)

    cd to /usr/ports/(insert favorite app here) and make;make install

    It's that easy - The several times I've installed this way, I started the initial install around 8pm on a Saturday night. By 11pm the system was installed and running so I kicked off the cvsup and let it run overnight. Sunday morning, I kicked off the make world to install the complete system. By Sunday afternoon I installed the various ports I wanted and by Sunday evening the entire system was complete.

    NOTE: There are obviously manual configuration steps necessary during/between the above steps. Times are approximate - Your Milage May Vary.

  • I can't believe you posted this. Is this supposed to state that FreeBSD didn't work or that your incompetent. At least you posted as an AC.

    Anyone who upgrades any system should have read all available documentation[1] (and understood it) before even attempting the process.

    [1] This refers not only to README's and such, but a quick search of the mailing lists would have provided more than enough warnings.
  • I think www.dejanews.com is run by a bunch of linux machines.
  • If you wait a little while cheapbytes.com will have 3.1 ready, thier freebsd cd's usually go for $4.99. www.cheapbytes.com
    linuxmall may also have it soon, they usually cost $1.89
  • Already at 'as a professional' I knew you had to
    be a looser. And when you call NT 'perfectly stable', it's just obvious that you have to be
    a "web designer" or "VB programmer" or something
    other in the 'air,food and money wastement' area
    of work.

    Of course you could be paid by Microsoft too.
    Logs, anyone?
  • Several os'es means competition, and competition accelerate improvement. Open os'es are getting better than commercial alternatives, but we don't want to stop there. And duplicated work don't waste that much time when the competitor is open. :-)
  • Alpha support is pretty good now. I recently installed a 4.0-CURRENT snapshot [rcn.com] on a AXPpci system, and it felt almost exactly like the many PCs I have made run FreeBSD.

    SMP support on FreeBSD/i386 is standard now, but it is not as good as one might want it. In particular, there is no scheduling of a MT process to multiple CPUs. Apart from that, SMP support works as expected. -Hans

  • Do you have any factual information to support your claim that the linux kernel is superior to FreeBSD's?

    Further more, unified development will likley lead to less innovation. FreeBSD takes whats good from linux, linux takes whats good from FreeBSD. This leads to a better, faster, more secure and stable platform for both parties. Were we both to run Generix I suspect a "its not broke, don't fix it" mentaility would set in.

    considering you would have to compare how similar things run on NT to get a feel of how well your OS is running. (not much of a compitition.) I've never found the claims of superiority over windows impressive, I do however find claims of superiority over xBSD or linux worth looking into.

    IMHO the developemnt of these two similar operating systems, and that of all the other opensource OSes (OSie?) spur competition between each other that makes each respective enviroment better for the end user.

  • cheapbytes will probably come out with a $5 cd
    sometime soon.

    -jason
  • Who's reinventing the wheel, old boy?

    BSD UNIX has been "the wheel" since the early '80s. It's the Linux folks who seem to be imbued with the "Not Invented Here" problem.

    Linux is neat, no doubt about that, and I'm a big fan of diversity... I'm an Amiga fan, I've got a Mac and I've had Ataris and CP/M boxes and god only knows what else. I'm not saying Linux people shouldn't go ahead and burn the midnight oil looking for better solutions... but for god's sake, it's really amazingly daft to argue that it's FreeBSD that's "reinventing the wheel".

  • Nice. (Score:1)

    by argent ( 18001 )
    To set up an alias on an interface you use ifconfig, not route.

  • > Who the hell wants a wheel-of-a-BSD when we have our smooth hotrod Linux?


    I personally find BSD to be a smoother and hotter system, but that's not the point. I'm not trying to put down Linux, I'm trying to provide a bit of perspective to the people flaming about BSD being somehow derived from or inspired by Linux.

  • > It sounds like you never have done any coding yourself.


    You talking to me, boy? You talking to me?

    I've written software that automatically converted 16-bit PL/M code on a proprietary Intel O/S to C that had to run on Solaris and Digital UNIX. The convertor ran on both UNIX platforms plus Xenix-286. The resulting code is not the prettiest stuff in the world (PL/M's pointer handling is baroque at best) but it's maintainable and portable.

    Writing code that will run on BSD and Linux is no harder than writing code that will run on Debian and Red Hat and the old libc and the new libc and all the different versions of GCC... until you have one OS and one version and one implementation of every library... and that won't happen, ever, without someone like Microsoft being in a position to dictate that beyond this day ALL OLD CODE WILL BE BROKEN (and not even Microsoft has that power)... writing portable code is just part of being a programmer.

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close