Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
BSD Operating Systems News

FreeBSD 4.0 Code Freeze 270

Posted by Nik from the brrr-it's-cold dept.
FreeBSD has now entered code freeze for the up and coming 4.0 release. In the words of Jordan Hubbard, the release engineer; The code freeze will last for 15 days, during which time the 4.0 snapshot server (current.freebsd.org) will be cranking out its daily snapshots (and, in the last half of the release cycle, ISO images as well). 4.0 is the first release from the latest FreeBSD -current development branch. Work also continues on the 3.x -stable branch.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FreeBSD 4.0 Freezes More

FreeBSD 4.0 Freezes

Comments Filter:

  • Re:Actually (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Look at your AmigaOS disks, in the tool's drawer you'll find a program called Backup, mark it and use information, there, it starts BRU.

    BRU is made by Fred Fish, and IT IS Amiga software.
    He later ported it to UN*X in the mid 80's.

  • Re: GPLing BSDLed code (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    GPLers often do that sort of thing and I don't read of any complaints from the lisensors, but if you read the BSDL and think about it, it should leave you wondering how the BSDL is less viral than the GPL. The BSDL says that derivative code must carry the original copyright statement (along with yours which I'll ignore hereafter). With that copyright alone, the next guy must assume the copyright holder retains all rights. The only license the next guy CAN have from the copyright holder is the BSDL in the original code. You don't get to change the original holder's license on stuff on which he owns even shared copyright.

    I think BSDL licensors haven't known what they are doing. The dude that wrote it was no lawyer, though I've seen BSDLed code come out of companies who must have lawyers. I think we need a new-and-improved-lawyer-approved license that explicitly allows the kind of use BSDLed stuff usually gets.

  • You are talking about how the linux kernel is developed whereas the entire freebsd base system is developed together. developing all the base system together makes detecting and fixing system problems easier because more of it its developed at the same time whereas in linux land there is a linux kernel and a GNU system. Being split like that is good for things like code reuse, but can make solving interoperability problems harder. All in all the differences are superficial because both work to make a quality product.
  • The support in the 2.2.x kernels is very basic. You'll be better of with a backport of the 2.3.x kernel code:

    Usb backport [www.suse.cz]

    More information:

    Linux USB site [linux-usb.org]
  • Daily CVS update for the *OS*? And what if someone would make really stupid thing on CVS that will cut off your CVS ability after make world?

    And believe me, it's a real PITA to work on a system that more-or-less work, especially if you accidentally hit the "less" part and all your other work stops until that part is corrected.
  • Recently installed my first BSD. Almost exactly the same as an average Linux install. The ports part is really nice, but the extra is not so different that I'd abandon my Linux habits fo it. Not used it yet seriously, though. But looks nice, as it should :)
  • 'Make oldconfig' will reuse your previous .config file, only asking questions for new options, so you don't have to re-enter the same stuff again. Never heard of that one? I'm surprised.

    'Make xconfig' (X-based proggy) has the option of importing any .config file you may have. I assume 'make menuconfig' (ncurses-based) has the same option.

    If you really want to edit text files by hand so much, edit your .config and do a 'make dep' straight away, no need for doing 'make {x,old,menu}config' beforehand. Where do you get the docs to be able to edit .config? You've got the source to the whole damn thing, so read it. Don't stare at me like that, you wanted it the hard way :)

    Since you're using a 386 for a dedicated purpose, you shouldn't have any need for the newer features, so 'make oldconfig' should suit you fine.

    I have recompiled the FreeBSD kernel once, and for a first time user, it's definitely much harder than the equivalent process under Linux. No question about that. Under Linux, you can do it any way you like, from mega-macho-text-file-fundamentalist to super-point-n-click-weenie. Under FreeBSD you simply don't.
  • They already do, if you haven't seen it, then it's been bought out. There should be "FreeBSD Powerpacks" available at most major software retailers. If they don't have it, then ask.
  • Linux is not committed to following unix standards, it's "sort-of posix" "sort-of unix" it's really none-of-the-above.

    I applaud Linux on having the gall to step up and say "these standards are stupid and holding us back", however in the same breath they are ditching the guarantees that unix promises.

    Linux is _not_ unix, don't fool yourself.

    Specific examples include write atomicity, and FS stability issues.
  • I can't speak for the reset of the linux community, but I for one welcome improvement in freebsd. I do not welcome the spreading of FUD by a community that I think has much more to gain as brethern. It seems a good portion of the *bsd community is too busy being eleetist to show any respect for Linux or its user base. Which is fine if thats how they feel.. however I will continue to ask for facts instead of "feelings" and baseless opinions.
  • Wow feel the hate.. This is exactly what I meant. FUD, no facts.. "LINUX CRASHES IN 30 SECONDS ON OUR NETWORK" . there are web sites doing HUGE volumes of traffic without any problems on Linux. etoys (you know the one that supported all those xmas shoppers??) went without a hickup this christmas season. My position still stands.. the day a *bsd user shows me some creditable evidence that *bsd is a superior system is the day I eat my shorts. p.s. It's interesting that my post got moderated down to "troll". :)
  • Was in reference to the common theme among the &bsd posters on slashdot :)
  • Linux is commited to doing the "right thing" (tm). *bsd seems more concerned with recreating what has already been created i.e. another UNIX. We will see which approch proves more useful :)
  • Do you have some examples of how FreeBsd has better MAN pages then Linux? I would like to do some research on this, as it sounds like it *might* have some evidence? And if it can be proven to be true then hell I might even help resolve that issue for you :)
  • Granted it was off topic, and thus the RANT ON RANT OFF was an attempt on my part to counter that. You are right, that this is not a court of law, nor would I expect it to be ran as such. However I think opinions are well and good as long as they are stated as such. When someone goes on to say "Linux is unstable and a toy os, and oh by the way its not a real UNIX anyways" People who do not know better believe it. Hell I know a number of X linux users who switched to freebsd for no other reason then they heard Linux was unsecure and unstable. Never had any evidence other then what they heard. It's like the old saying goes. It's much easier to believe something Bad then someting Good. It is easier to deface a painting then it is to repair it. However for the most part I agree with you.
  • If you have hacked on both kernels why are you unaware that Linus and Alan both have stated that it is not the kernels job to protect against the root user. Wether you agree with this or not, this is the instead intent, and this is why Xfree can crash the system. It has nothing to do with "bad code" unless you are saying their decision is wrong? If so I think it would be your place to justify why it is wrong.
  • No he did not, re-read the post again.
  • RANT ON
    The day a *bsd users comes out with a solid conclusive arguement as for why *bsd is a superiorly designed system is the day I will eat my own shorts.

    *bsd has it's good points, and it's bad points like any operating system.

    The fact that it is a "TRUE UNIX" is not one of them, however it's CAM SCSI subsystem is.

    The majority of what you hear these days as to why Freebsd is superior to linux are out dated myths, much like found on a certain microsoft web page.

    Linux's networking stack was completely redesigned for Linux 2.2, and *bsd advocates would be hard pressed to outline how the current BSD networking stack is superior.

    I have seen no evidence to support Freebsd being more stable, more secure or faster. I would like to see some, comparing current versions of both OS's.

    Reading freebsd's release notes shows that freebsd is not immune to security holes, or system failures. And seeing as freebsd ships with about 1/3rd of the installed applications its not surprising there are slightly less security anouncements (they stick everything in ports, and if you use something from ports it is at your own risk).

    In summary I would very much like to hear some hard supporting facts rather then rantings by those *bsd users who complain about linux not being a real unix, and it being a toy os.. and how it's insecure, unstable.. and definitly not as well designed as *bsd.

    p.s. seeing as freebsd is based off a OS (BSD 4.4) which has had 20? some years to evolve and stabilize that linux has done extreamly well to (in my opinion) match freebsd in most areas and surpass it in others.
    RANT OFF/
  • Torx is obviously a better implementation, but has the problem that a lot of people don't own Torx drivers. It even does a good job of holding the screw for you in most instances. It's main downfall is its lack of a critical mass of installed users.
  • I guess it's because of all the linux hype that gives people a sense of "well we're in all the news and wall street so obviously we have to be better"

  • Now they announce the 4.0 freeze just one week after I shelled out $39.95 for 3.4. I guess it's time to subscribe...

    The 4.0 isn't necessarily the upgrade path from 3.4. 4.0 is a release from the CURRENT branch, whereas 3.4 is a release from the STABLE branch. Unless you really want to be on the cutting edge, or you really need a facility that is only in CURRENT, then it probably makes sense to stay with STABLE for the moment.

  • Im sorry, but thats just retarded. Amiga is dying, BeOS is getting better, who would want BeOS to 'catch up' to Amiga? Plus BeOS is not designed as a replacement OS like all misinformed seem to think it is. I run BeOS on one drive and Win98 on the other just because I like BeOS for development and Win for gaming..
  • "Even BeOS"? BeOS is not Oper Sourced and therefore can only be purchased in a store and cannot be downloaded for free (excluding warez) online. Where would one purchase BeOS if not in a store? Thats where many people hear of products that otherwise they would have no idea existed.
  • I would think not.

    Even if they saw themselves as a direct competitor to Debian theyd have no reason to push it ahead and have more problems.. then nobody would want to use it.
  • Here's my attempt at humor. You're opinion may vary...

    Little boy: Mommy! Mommy! there's a c***-goblin under my bed!!!
    Mother: No dear, thats just a troll.



  • BSD *IS* Linux! -- Re:Why is this "news" here?

    Despite the names, BSD and Linux development is interwoven. Both benefit from each other. Please educate yourself on the history of BSD and Linux.

    Understand that I'm a pro-GPL'er. I prefer GPL licensed code. But without a number of the BSD, artistic and other licensed code out there, Linux would not be complete.

    There is a good ammount of code exchanged between Linux and FreeBSD. If anything, start with the Net2/3 code.

    -- Bryan "TheBS" Smith

  • You can use XFree86 for your X. Note that if Solaris x86 supports hires VESA modes you might do fine (no way but to try it).
    Take care with laptops which are more "exotic" with their BIOS structure, e.g. with their peripheral and APM handling.

    One other option you could try is to run UnixWare 7.1.1. It generally has decent laptop support, asnd is a full SVR4 (5) system, with CDE,Motif and all the other stuff. Faster than Solaris on x86, and has far better hardware support.
    You can get an "educational" license from SCO's site. If you can't get a media set you might have to order one from SCO.
    One gotcha with UnixWare is the while 7.1.1 is coming out now, if you install 7.1.0 you'll have to install something like 30 patches to make it 100% mission critical. If you just need it as a client system (e.g. laptop or desktop), you'll just have to install about 10.
  • Um... You can already buy FreeBSD at CompUSA.
  • Using the PAE36 extensions found on recent Intel processors. As the name implies, they give you an extra four address lines, allowing you to address 64Gb.
  • Current 2.3 releases support up to 64M on Intel hardware.

    D'oh... meant 64 Gb
  • I rather run a real UNIX that the UNIX wannabe you promote.

    I'll take the fact that you must resort to insults as an indication that you don't have any facts to back up your position.

    XFree86 has crashed Linux(It just the kernel) several times, never had a problem with that on any of the BSDs.

    XFree86 requires root access to operate. Any program that requires root access may trivially crash the kernel, be it Linux or FreeBSD.

    USB sucks anyways.

    Do I detect a hint of sour grapes?

    C'mon, guys. If FreeBSD is as superior to Linux as you say it is, you should be able to bring up some facts which prove it, right?
  • This is exactly what I've been looking for for a long time... an unbiased, OS-bigotry-free comparison of Linux and FreeBSD. I was beginning to think that I wasn't going to find one. Thanks.
  • Well, it's pretty darn obvious where you stopped reading. :P
  • Things evolve quicker in a competitive or hostile environment.

    With FreeBSD frequently saying things like "Our [insert component here] is better than yours" or Linux saying "Yeah, but our [insert component here] is better than yours", the other operating system (whichever is losing the pissing contest at the given moment) develops to fill those shortcomings.

    Linux wouldn't be as good as it is now if it wasn't for FreeBSD.

    FreeBSD wouldn't be as good as it is now if it wasn't for Linux.

    I see this (supposedly) friendly competition and banter as extremely beneficial to both projects.
  • I wouldn't be caught dead buying anything from Borders. It's about as bad as Walden Books, only bigger. The selection is crap, the stores are tasteless, and they force many smaller (and much better! For people in the Worcester, Mass area, compare Tatnuck and Borders: Borders can't hold a candle to Tatnuck in variety, customer service, or taste) bookstores out of business.
  • You know what I'd like to see? A packaged version of FreeBSD (or OpenBSD for that matter) in CompUSA. They already have 5 or 6 Linux distros, and they even carry BeOS. I think it's well-past the time to get FreeBSD in there.


    -----------

    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  • Fortunately, in my area, the nearest CompUSA (Braintree, MA) is only a couple hundred feet from the nearest Borders. Not a big deal, but I'd still like to see it in CompUSA.

    -----------

    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  • The point was that BeOS isn't very popular, yet CompUSA is carrying it anyway. FreeBSD is arguably *more* popular, yet CompUSA doesn't carry it. Is that because they choose not to, or because no one is packaging it? I don't know -- is anyone packaging FreeBSD? By that I mean, selling it in a box, not just slipping it in with a SAMS book.

    -----------

    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  • I will look for that next time I go there... I've certainly never seen it before (could be an indicator of the quality of the CompUSA near me).

    -----------

    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  • Look, that wasn't an attack on BeOS, I'm simply stating that it isn't the most popular OS out there -- Don't take it personally.

    -----------

    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  • Well polite letters are generally the best way. Find someone who actually *packages* FreeBSD and send the stores some contact information with a clear description of the product.

    -----------

    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  • Excellent points, all well made. But, I would have to add that for me, as a web developer at least, there are at least two good reasons to use Linux over FreeBSD- IBM and Beowolf. Huh? IBM?
      1. DB2
      1. Websphere
      1. Visual Age
    Personally, I'd rather be using BSD on a Macintosh, but forget love, I have a house to pay for.
  • We don't really need to keep MS around - we just need to make sure that no sinlge copany ever dominates the linux/bsd market to a great extent after linux or bsd has achieved world domination.
    If there are 15 companies sharing the market, no problem. Having BSD and Linux both around will help that happen.

    We still need MS as a lowest common denominator, maybe, or at least a something to laugh at.
  • Daniel C. Sobral obviously *didn't* point out exactly what I had to do

    I did. I said you had to compile/install a new kernel, reboot, and then make world. This is exactly what you had to do.

    since his information was quite incorrect. /usr/src/UPDATING has been long out-of-date on FreeBSD 3.x

    Since you were talking about running 4.0-CURRENT, I thought it would have been obvious that the correct file should be /usr/src/UPDATING from 4.0-CURRENT.

    I'm well aware that -CURRENT is reserved for Big Important Busy People like yourself

    -CURRENT is not supported. If you run into problems, you are expected to deal with them by yourself (which includes searching freebsd-current archives for a report on the problem). Furthermore, -CURRENT does not work all the time. Sometimes it just plain doesn't. It's very, very easy to end up with an unusable system while running -CURRENT.

    Now, since the problem you described has been WIDELY reported on the mailing list, and since it is mentioned in /usr/src/UPDATING, of which all -current users should be aware of, you can't blame us for thinking you do not fit the profile of people who can run -current without much fear. That's why both bugg and me have advised you to stay away from it. It's not that we want to exclude you, it's just that we haven't got it to the user-friendlyness level you seem to be expecting.
  • not one but two FreeBSD advocates/developers had to insult him

    Can you please quote exactly what I said to offend the guy?
  • You obviously have not read /usr/src/UPDATING. Please, unless you take the time to read -current mailing list and search on it for problems, stay away from -current.

    FYI, you must first compile a new kernel, reboot, and then make world. But that's just one of the many things you should take care of, so I recommend you wait until it becomes -stable, at which time a proper upgrade procedure should be in place.
  • AFAIK, it's not a code freeze, but a feature freeze.
  • That on my 3.4-STABLE box, the obvious thing to update from.

    I fail to understand how the 3.4-STABLE source tree is the obvious place to get information on how to upgrade to 4.0-CURRENT. Perhaps, if you would update the source first, the file will then contain useful information?
  • Well I don't know about you, but I've worked for *LARGE* companies using both FreeBSD and Linux, and wherever possible FreeBSD prevailed. Some places it didn't because we were doing stupid things like using DBI with Oracle. But FreeBSD won out because it didn't crash all the time, didn't eat file systems (unlike 2.2.5-2.2.14 Kernels), didn't choke when it smacked into 400 to 1000 httpd processes. It didn't die when pushing Gig-E, it could actually push Gig-E to a reasonable place, it worked the shit out of our High-Performance RAID's. When FreeBSD did crash, it didn't leave the FS in a shitty state that required manual intervention like ALMOST EVERY LINUX CRASH I've ever had/seen. I still have yet to see Linux handle a crowded webserver well at all. Quite often, I had problems where the server would just drop all connected sessions, as if we had triggered some DOS protection or something. That just doesn't work in the scheme of things.
    FreeBSD served our 50+ million page views per day on like 6 machines, all dynamic content. FreeBSD still serves Yahoo's inordinate traffic load. Just for kicks, I stuck a Linux box into the mix to see what would happen when we got some volume turned onto it, and it died about 30 minutes later. Thats pretty crummy, especially when it couldn't even use all of the 1GB of memory in the box, nor the SCSI adaptor correctly.

    Until those kinds of things get cleared up, I still won't tell people to use Linux anywhere than the desktop. Linux certainly has its neat lil sound card drivers, X drivers, all kinds of stuff that make it useful on the desktop, but till they dump ext2fs, till they re-write the vm system, till they fix the SCSI subsystem, its not worth the pain.

    BTW, FreeBSD 4.0 has support for USB Ethernet adaptors, like those on the Sony VAIO's. Linux barely supports USB, not to mention anything other than a Keyboard and Mouse. Where's that desktop now? :)
  • Well I don't know about you, but I've worked for *LARGE* companies using both FreeBSD and Linux, and wherever possible FreeBSD prevailed. Some places it didn't because we were doing stupid things like using DBI with Oracle. But FreeBSD won out because it didn't crash all the time, didn't eat file systems (unlike 2.2.5-2.2.14 Kernels), didn't choke when it smacked into 400 to 1000 httpd processes. It didn't die when pushing Gig-E, it could actually push Gig-E to a reasonable place, it worked the shit out of our High-Performance RAID's. When FreeBSD did crash, it didn't leave the FS in a shitty state that required manual intervention like ALMOST EVERY LINUX CRASH I've ever had/seen. I still have yet to see Linux handle a crowded webserver well at all. Quite often, I had problems where the server would just drop all connected sessions, as if we had triggered some DOS protection or something. That just doesn't work in the scheme of things.

    FreeBSD served our 50+ million page views per day on like 6 machines, all dynamic content. FreeBSD still serves Yahoo's inordinate traffic load. Just for kicks, I stuck a Linux box into the mix to see what would happen when we got some volume turned onto it, and it died about 30 minutes later. Thats pretty crummy, especially when it couldn't even use all of the 1GB of memory in the box, nor the SCSI adaptor correctly.



    Until those kinds of things get cleared up, I still won't tell people to use Linux anywhere than the desktop. Linux certainly has its neat lil sound card drivers, X drivers, all kinds of stuff that make it useful on the desktop, but till they dump ext2fs, till they re-write the vm system, till they fix the SCSI subsystem, its not worth the pain.



    BTW, FreeBSD 4.0 has support for USB Ethernet adaptors, like those on the Sony VAIO's. Linux barely supports USB, not to mention anything other than a Keyboard and Mouse. Where's that desktop now? :)
  • Ok, well, if you want, make your own BSD distribution, and GPL it. You can do that, the BSD license allows you to do such a thing I believe. Has anyone done it? No, because the GPL doesn't promote the truest sense of free, taking without giving. Granted its not necesarily the nicest to take and not give back, but the point is you *CAN*
  • They carry it at the local Hastings (in Norman, Oklahoma, US). However, they are usually a release behind.

    *PLUG*
    I would suggest getting a subscription from Walnut Creek CD-ROM. You get the official 4-cd set, and you get each new release of it way before non-subscription people or stores. $25 is charged to your credit card as soon as each release ships. You can cancel it at any time. I have one and I like it.
    */PLUG*
  • > Daily CVS update for the *OS*?

    Yes.

    > And what if someone would make really
    > stupid thing on CVS that will cut off
    > your CVS ability after make world?

    What if some person did ? Hmm... AHA! You would _fix_it_.

    > especially if you accidentally hit
    > the "less" part and all your other
    > work stops until that part is
    > corrected.

    Yeah, that's a bummer. But that's RELEASE QUALITY SOFTWARE for you.

    Wow. Was that a flame?

  • I seriously can't believe this.... I've seen FBSD sold in Imbi Plaza, Kajang,Serdang, Ampang Park.. and that's just in the klang valley. unless

    That's the point you miss. We're talking of the original stuff released by Walnut Creek. Not some ripoff sold by a scam artist which I must add is only in business because worms patronize his warez.

  • Walnut Creek CDROM [cdrom.com] does sell packaged versions of FreeBSD Releases as well as the snapshots which can be gotten on a subscription. Buy a copy off the web site or get the bundle along with Greg Lehey's excellent book, The Complete FreeBSD.

    However, I too would agree that FreeBSD off the shelf is scarce, even in Malaysia where I am. Perhaps a proper marketing push should be done here. We definitely need more commercially focussed effort here, not in a move to make money but in order to reach the masses who somehow think that anything not on the shelves isnt any good.

    No beef on the Linux folk, but FreeBSD is opensource as well. It ain't fair that Linux gets all the press inches.

  • If you have ever installed an older Linux distro, or a newer Debian, you will have no trouble with FreeBSD.

    There is a lot of very good online documentation available too, some of it much better than available for Linux.

    FreeBSD is interesting because it is generally faster and more stabile than Linux from my experience. However, it is not as good for using as a personal/workstation OS. To be honest, I can see few reasons why Linux would be better than FreeBSD for server functions, but in actuality they are not that far apart.

    Hope this helps... it is late, ugh
  • I'm a seasoned Linux user, that is I've figured out pretty much how to use Linux as a desktop computer. I'm fidgeting around right now, wanting KDE 2.0 and XFree 4 to be released so I can toy around with them.

    I'm wondering if trying out FreeBSD would be at all interesting? How much help is there with installation problems? HOWTOs?

  • They have the book + cd set at Borders. I can't recall having seen FreeBSD at a CompUSA though
  • Where ya from? Randolph here.

    Matt
  • DCS helped the guy first off, and then instead of a "thank you" or a "oh, cool" he got lipservice about his help not being good enough. Yes, we both (I speak for him because we were discussing this on IRC at the time) have respect for users, but respect can be lost.
    dcs needed to reply no more than see UPDATING, yet he even went a step further and pointed out what he had to do. Everyone is free to try -CURRENT, but it is highly advised against for people who aren't developing at any level. One thing for sure is that tech support is _not_ readily available for it.

    dcs just pointed out that -CURRENT may not be what he should be running, and then went ahead to point him to UPDATING, which again, needs to be read before the make world process continues.

    The mentality of a user like you (I've seen it in many linuxites) is that FreeBSD people have sticks up their asses and think that they are the most elite people to ever walk the earth.

    For as long as you enter the discussion with that mentality, the result of the conversation will be negative. We didn't call anyone lame, or dumb (*we were talking to another freebsd user, anyway*) yet we get pointed at and called elitist.

    Well, we aren't. Perhaps some people are, but if you point a finger at a group and generalize, then the battle has already been lost.

    As for the atomosphere of a community, I don't really see/understand/feel the vibe behind the idea that if two people use the same OS, they should be friends.

    Think about what you say, because being called elitist, when you've gone out of your way to help people, hurts.

  • I highly doubt either group set their date based on the other, of course.

    Debian had a set freeze date since Novemember? I thought they played it by eye.

  • Oh, recent intel processors.
    Which ones? From the way you said it, it made it seem like you could take any x86 box and address 64gb.
  • I'm not sure how it compares with the *BSD support

    I can speak for Free and Net's USB stack, and Free's drivers... Both are coming along quite well, getting better and better every day (Free imported Net's stack and worked from there, and of course Net is taking major improvements back into itself)..
    As for support:

    Human Interface Devices (anything with buttons and dials)
    Keyboards and Mice
    Printers
    Iomega Zip 100 Drive
    The ADMtek USB ethernet devices.. these are the LinkSys USB100TX, Billionton USB100, the Melco LU-ATX, the D-Link DSB-650TX, the SMV 2202USB, and the ADMtek AN986 Pegasus evaluation board.
    The CATC USB-EL1201 USB ethernet devices.. these are the CATC Netmate, Netmate II, and the Belkin F5U111.
    KLSI's ethernet devices.. Linksys USB10T, Entrega USB-NET-E45, Peracom Ethernet Adapter, the 3Com 3c19250, the ADS Technologies USB-10BT, the ATen UC10T, the Netgear EA101, the D-Link DSB-650, the SMB 2102USB and 2014USB, and the Corega USB-T.
    And thats it.

  • If anything thats the other way around.
    Go to the freebsd-current archives, this date
    was set circa December 15th.
    And the -CURRENT feature freeze started the 15th, a day BEFORE debian.
    Slashdot just isn't the quickest on BSD things all the time, you have to understand.
  • Try scrolling down?
    I think you should be a little more polite to dcs and I, we are pretty busy here.
    the changes were about the 17th of Novemember, if that helps. You must recompile the kernel before make world.
    Daniel C. Sobral basically just pointed out to you exactly what you had to did, and all you had was some sarcastic comment. *sigh*



    Again, read the handbook to see who -CURRENT is for and who it is not.
  • It as not as good as linux for a personal workstation because..?

    I've used both on my workstation, and FreeBSD is the only one that remains.
  • He's got a lot more then that in..


    And the person to blame for adding in support for 17 USB nics is Bill (William) Paul (wpaul), who
    likes to go by Anti-Bill.

  • Just wondering, but what exotic hardware are you talking about? I'm seeing less and less cases where this is true, every day.

    As a nice little side-note, I started using FreeBSD because Linux didn't support my nic [well].. I'm not sure if things have changed since then, to be honest.. Its an Intel Etherexpess PRO/10+

    Not as if I'd switch back now, I'm hooked. ;)

  • Re:BSD and Linux newcomers. (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Taking your example:

    cp -Rv

    there is no direct BSD equivalent, but I'd tend to use something like:

    tar cf - src | (cd dst;tar xvf -)

    in any case. cp has entirely too many options as it is. It's easier for me to remember the tar pipeline than the two dozen options that GNU cp supports.

    Except that that is NOT the equivalent command. cp -R preserves all permissions. tar -cf doesn't. To use your method, I'd have to remember a ton of obscure tar options (something like tar --preserve-permissions -cf).

    Furthermore, I'm well-aware of (and use and abuse ;-) the Unix philosophy of daisy-chaining tools, but why would any sane person use tar (a tape archival program) to copy files around on the hard drive, especially given the existance of a copy program (cleverly named cp to confuse the non-elite)?

    Doing a "make config" (or its curses or X11 equivalent) in Linux is a tremendous leap of faith compared to configuring a BSD kernel. There are over a hundred questions to be answered, and a wrong answer to any one of them can torpedo your chances at a working kernel. You're no more vulnerable editing a BSD config file, and in fact if you have a listing of the LINT config you usually know just what you need to know to enable/disable any given option or driver.

    I have no idea what makes you say that. The linux compilation system has online help. Wondering if you should pick High Memory? Look at the built-in help and see that no, you probably shouldn't. The equivalent for FreeBSD is scanning LINT, seeing

    # POSIX P1003.1B

    # Real time extensions added int the 1993 Posix
    # P1003_1B: Infrastructure
    # _KPOSIX_PRIORITY_SCHEDULING: Build in _POSIX_PRIORITY_SCHEDULING
    # _KPOSIX_VERSION: Version kernel is built for

    options "P1003_1B"
    options "_KPOSIX_PRIORITY_SCHEDULING"
    options "_KPOSIX_VERSION=199309L"



    and still not having a clue whether you need it or not, because LINT doesn't tell you what it does (and yes, I know what that particular example is for; it's just an example).

    Furthermore, though, I'm still not sure why you think saying yes to an option you should have said no to in a GUI (the Linux kernel compilation error model) of some sort is qualitatively more error-prone than not typing in an option you should have typed in in a text editor (the *BSD compilation error model). Your argument is specious.

    I agree (as would a fair amount of the BSD community) that Linux is getting an edge in SMP. The fact is that this is often of limited importance for well-designed server installations.

    That's nice, but not all the world is needing single-cpu server installations. I'm in the sciences. We use SMP workstations. Our servers are computing servers (eg, number-crunching, not data-slinging a la Yahoo!), and you can bet that they're seriously SMP. The Linux model of supporting both styles of computing is why we use it both places. Your poor SMP performance is relegating you to two places:

    (a) extremely small / focused servers [which is where I use FreeBSD: departmental print server, various routers, etc.]

    (b) rather unusual large-server farms [like Yahoo! and Hotmail]

    And note that Linux fits into those niches quite nicely as well. We have an SMB Linux server for the department, and DejaNews is the classical example of (b) for Linux.

    However, Linux also at the same time makes a much better OS for my four-way PIII number-cruncher.
  • The article didn't even mention *bsd being superior to Linux, it just mentioned that FreeBSD was undergoing a code freeze in anticipation of the 4.0 release. It seems somebody is being a bit defensive...

  • I often hit no where I mean yes in make config under linux. My linux system is a 386 with 8 meg of ram, 80 meg hd, no monitor (normally). I telnet in, (from a TERM that isn't in linux's termcap database, at least not for my distribution, and with my space limits I won't want to fix it. this is a headless router after all)

    On the above system I know exactly what I have and what I want. So I start out fine, and get to ethernet. I select my card, but then need to say no to the next 20 options. On a loaded 386, there is a noticeable lag between hitting a key and the next option coming up. I hit n (no) 20 times, and go to the bathroom. Get back, and the system is still churning my inputs. Opps, should have hit n 19 times, I needed the 20th option. Start over. I know I shouldn't work like this, but take a close look, there are many options in a row that I don't need before the next one I need - this is boring to watch. It gets worse the second time around, now all the defaults by one are correct, so hit enter a million times hoping I don't get bored and hit enter right through the option that I wanted.

    I much prefer the config on my FreeBSD system. Once it is setup, it is always there, and I only need to glance at LINT to see if I want something new.

  • does anyone know of a decent pointy clicky or curses info viewer?)

    pinfo. It made me like info pages :-)

    Daniel
  • It is certainly different in the sense that FreeBSD development is more integrated than Linux. FreeBSD is after all a complete distribution and not "just" a kernel with several alternative distribution. Probably it is more fair to compare the development processes of Linux kernel + FSF + Debian to FreeBSD.

    obFreeBSDExperience
    I mostly use Linux, but I tried FreeBSD for a short time. It's extremely cool if you have a fast internet connection since it is extremely simple to decide one day that you want to try tcsh, go to the tcsh ports directory and type
    make. The build script will grab the source for tcsh, patch it for FreeBSD if necessary, build it, and you can intall it with make install.

    FreeBSD also has more complete and accurate man pages than Linux (and none of that info nonsense either (does anyone know of a decent pointy clicky or curses info viewer?)). It doesn't support all the exotic (crappy?) hardware that Linux does. And it uses BSDish utilities and config files (surprise surprise).

    Currently the last point is keeping me from switching to BSD on my home box. (well that and the fear of destroying my Windows partition (blush)).






    --
  • After all, *BSD is true UNIX

    In what sense? There's probably not a current "UNIX" on the planet that has code that's identical to the last UNIX released by UNIX System Laboratory, unless you count Unixware (on the grounds that SCO bought USL from Novell who bought it from AT&T) - the other major commercial licensees have generally added a fair bit of their own code, and the Berkeley folk replaced rather a lot of it as well.

    Linux never started with AT&T code, but I'm not sure how much that matters at this point.

    By the way, (never checked into it yet) but does Linux support USB yet?

    Yes, there's some support in the current 2.2.x kernel. I'm not sure how it compares with the *BSD support; in the drivers/usb directory of 2.2.13 there appear to be keyboard, mouse, and audio drivers.

  • Well seeing as I have been running both BSD and Linux servers in production for about 5 years now. I can honestly say I have never experinced any of the formentioned problems with either system.. Which is odd if you ask me, since you seem to have multiple differnt problems all at once. I suggest you go to redhat's site and verify that you are not using tier 3 hardware? :)

  • Don't know about yours, but my tar preserves permissions. Admittedly, using tar in this way is idiomatic--one of those arcane Unixisms (though it goes back 30 years). Perhaps you'd prefer cpio which was explicitly created to facilitate pipelined use, and has a more intuitive name.

    As for configuration, if you don't understand what something is in a BSD config file, just leave it alone. If you know just what POSIX scheduling or syscall compliance mean, the configuration you quoted from "LINT" makes perfect sense. If you don't know just what these things are, one-paragraph Linux-style help isn't going to be nearly enough--except that it might say "you probably want this" or "you probably don't want this." In BSD-land the attitude of "don't touch what you don't understand yet" will pull you through as least as well, though perhaps without the personal touch of the computer addressing you in the second person. In either case, a good session of RTFM is called for.

    You keep defensively referring to "You" and "Your" in your post; who are you speaking of? Me? I use both FreeBSD and Linux, and see no need to defend one side against the other. Yahoo! uses Solaris, Linux, and WinNT--whatever is appropriate for a task--and not just FreeBSD (though the latter does all the heavy lifting).

    FreeBSD wouldn't be my choice, either, for a scientific computation server. I'm curious, though, why you chose Intel P-III's for a platform. Most science codes aren't written for SMP (often the algorithms used don't adapt to concurrency in any case) so you're limiting them to the speed of a single P-III, which has pretty anemic floating-point performance. Why not use Alpha, which runs Linux very well and has world-class FP performance, both SMP and UP? Scientific computing is one of the few areas where Alpha is still cost-effective compared to Intel.

    Like I said, whatever is appropriate for a task...

    -Ed
  • "And seeing as freebsd ships with about 1/3rd of the installed applications its not surprising there are slightly less security anouncements"

    And that right there is a huge advantage (and one that Slackware shares). Debian may come with thousands of packages, but they aren't the OS. In a lot of Linux distros, it's very hard to draw the line between the operating system and the optional packages. But with FreeBSD, the OS is the OS is the OS. Ports and packages are distinct.
  • If I understand correctly, the reason FreeBSD does not use DOS-Extended is because it's just that, DOS. BSD style slices may have been a great idea in the past, but new harddrives are large enough to hold multiple and complete operating systems. It's getting harder and harder to give each OS it's own primary partition under 1024 cylinders. But harddrives are also cheap enough to give each OS it's own drive (at Fry's yesterday there was a 4.5Gig drive cheaper than the Win98 upgrade).

    I blew away Windows so that FreeBSD would have it's own harddrive, and I've not regretted it one bit :-)
  • The "Right Thing", trademarked by MIT, has already been tested against the "Good Enough" mindset of UC Berkeley. Unix is here to stay. Now what was the name of that MIT operating system again? I forget.

    Linus followed the the UCB mindset and had a Good Enough kernel in no time. GNU followed the MIT mindset (of course) and they still don't have a halfway stable Right Thing kernel.
  • This is news for nerds and stuff that matters. Nowhere does it say that Slashdot is GNU or Linux only.

    I would suggest checking your bigotry and zealotry at the door...
  • Now they announce the 4.0 freeze just one week after I shelled out $39.95 for 3.4. I guess it's time to subscribe...

    Anyway, for newbies to FreeBSD (and I am certainly still one of them), you will find that it is yet another Unix :-) It's pointless to ask if *BSD can do this, that or the other, because it can. The installation was very easy, and anyone who has ever done an old-fashioned Linux text-based install will have no problem. The disk partioning scheme is a bit different. FreeBSD will not use logical partitions, so don't expect to install it to hda8 :-)

    And one feature I exceedingly like is the size of FreeBSD. Like Slackware (my other OS), the core of FreeBSD is very small and minimal. You can install it in about 10 minutes. Unlike R*, D*, or S*, you don't have to wade through thousands of packages for a custom install. You can do that afterwards if you want. This may not seem like a big deal to some people, but thousands of packages to choose from can be intimidating to newbies.

    And it has a Linux compatibility package, so you can run those closed source Linux apps like Civ:CTP and WP8.
  • Wow, I hadn't cvsup'd in a little while
    but when I did, suprise suprise -
    kue0: 3Com Corp. 3C19250 Ethernet adapter, rev 1.00/0.02, addr 2
    kue0: Ethernet address: 00:90:04:bb:76:2a

    USB nic's. Thanks whomever snuck that in under the
    wire :-)

    That little Vaio I've had my eye on is looking
    so much better now.
  • That's what finally swung it for me: on FreeBSD you can guarantee that random command "foo" that you found in /usr/sbin has a man page.

    On Linux, you've got roughly a 50/50 chance if you installed a decent distribution. Failing that, there might be a HOWTO. Or maybe some dude with a web page he knocked up one afternoon to tell you what the flags mean.

    It's maybe a small thing, but it makes the world of difference.
  • Agreed. Both 3.0-RELEASE and 3.1-RELEASE were fairly flaky releases (3.0-RELEASE still contained a lot of a.out binaries, and still required you to build an a.out kernel; I can't remember what went wrong with 3.1 but I _do_ remember I went out and bought 3.2 fairly shortly after!) Newbies to FreeBSD would be well advised either to get 3.4-RELEASE, or to wait for 4.1.

    On this whole tired argument of Linux vs. *BSD vs. any-other-OS-you-care-to-name - what does it matter what OS you use, as long as you're happy with it? It's your computer, after all.

    At one time or another, I've used (in no particular order) HP-UX, Solaris (Intel and Sparc), FreeBSD, Slackware, Debian, Red Hat, MacOS and various versions of Windows. They all (yes, even Windows) have their strengths and weaknesses. That the only OSes which are still installed on my machines are Windows 98 and FreeBSD (until I find another hard disk, at which point Debian goes back on there) probably says more about me than the OSes in question.

    Computers are mere tools. OSes are the nuts and bolts. If you want to use a Phillips screwdriver, I see no reason to flame you just because I prefer to use a Torx. Chill out, folks!

    --
    "This isn't the post you're looking for. Move along."
  • Well people say that Linux has a little ways to go in terms of ease-of-setup, but those are the people who've never installed a BSD. If you're used to the Unix way of life, these installations are pretty straightforward, but people coming from Windows (and Linux-distros geared for Windows-users) will find them hard to setup. Particularly the hard drive partitioning section.

    Once you've got a BSD system up and running, it's a very similar experience to running Linux. Some system commands are a little different, and the system configuration is sometimes *very* different. However, the documentation is excellent, and there are a number of good books out there on setting up FreeBSD systems.

    -----------

    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  • p.s. It's interesting that my post got moderated down to "troll". :)

    Not so interesting, I think. Had I been asked to meta-moderate this one, I probably would have called it "fair." By the author's own admission, bracketing his statements with the phrases "RANT ON" and "RANT OFF," the response was not substantive and was quite arguably a troll.

    I would have preferred that the down grading be predicated on its being off-topic rather than controversial, because the request for "evidence" is always reasonable. However, as noted elsewhere, neither the article nor its source materials invited any linix or FreeBSD bashing -- it was the mere announcement of a code freeze.

    Furthermore, I think a fair reading of the posted messages comprise reasonable, albeit anecdotal, evidence with specifics. Of course no posting made there comprised a refereeable study, but so what? This is not a court of law or a thesis committee review. Whatever criticisms that were posted in reply to the clearly off-topic, more arguably trolling, message, were simply ignored in the response. Moreover, whatever standard the author uses to determine whether "evidence" has been provided, he certainly has not applied those standards to himself, leaving us with only naked and unsupported allegations that straw man claims are unjustified.

    I agree that a full and fair discussion of this issue would be interesting to me. But neither the posting nor the moderation complaint was calculated to provide the same. For that reason, the moderation probably was fair.

    I do, however, encourage others to hit this issue hard in a truth-seeking and unabashed fashion. It would be nice to fathom this in a somewhat more informative and less cynical manner.
  • Fry's: May I check your receipt?
    Me: No thank you.
    Fry's: Sir, I need to check your receipt.
    Me: Call the cops. Walk out the door.

    Ryan Salsbury
  • FreeBSD is sold at compusa as the FreeBSD powerpack, which includes the 4CD FreeBSD set, the 6 CD toolkit, and the Complete freebsd book by greg lehey. You can of course buy all this at Walnut Creek CDROM [cdrom.com].
  • Bias? Was that in the story or the two links from it?

    If you aim is to get a `why might anyone prefer FreeBSD to Linux'
    response, then why don't you just ask instead of trolling? My own
    reasons are:

    - I can get my ATAPI CD-ROM drive to record painlessly under FreeBSD,
    which I never could under Linux (a long and sorry story);

    - I trust the security model more.

  • You've got me. I personally use both FreeBSD and Linux (though i have more experience with the latter), and I think that *BSD and Linux are coexisting in a way of keeping eachother on their toes.

    It was mentionned quite recently on slashdot that Linus was helping patch BSD code. Frankly, that shows what kind of cooperation we can have between the two freenixes. The more my-os-is-better-then-your-os bickering we have, the less seriously the general public will take our opinions, and the more difficult it will be to take on the operating system that truly is our competition, if only by happenstance.

    Lets unite, people, we have a common goal, lets work together. Drop your debian-is-better-then-redhat or redhat-is-better-then-debian or open-bsd-kicks-all-other-freenix-s-rear-ends arguments and lets see how we can put our umpteen thousand heads together and put together software unmatched in the history of computer science.

    The day *linux and *bsd users work together is the day freenices will rule the operating system market.

    (but lets keep microsoft around so we don't get sued by the DoJ)
    #include <signal.h> \ #include <stdlib.h> \ int main(void){signal(ABRT,SIGIGN);while(1){abort(-1); }return(0);}
  • It doesn't seem like support for "logical partitions" would be a difficult thing to add. I'd recommend it to the BSD set because it would make it can be a fairly big obstacle for linux heads who want to try BSD. Is there some reason not to?

    BTW, in the other direction, Linux would do well to support a few "slices" of the BSD scheme. It allows multiple "logical" partitions to live in any single partition, not just the DOS-Extended. This would allow more easier co-residence with the BSDs, and more flexible after-the-fact repartitioning without having to shuffle everything around. Seems trivial to port both ideas in both directions.

    P.S. is the largescale lack of moderating up in this topic because interest in BSD as a percentage of slashdotters is low, so there are only a few moderators? just asking; this piece of news is not particularly controversial... not, for instance, like a Beowulf cluster of these things would be :)

  • Well, I hate do disagree with you, but I must. Here is Southern Caifornia, there's not a better bookstore than Borders.

    Walden Books and Super Crown are garbage and have little or no selection.

    Barnes & Noble and its Automation BookStar are much better, but really nothing beats a Borders for size or selection. Specifically their computer section is superior to any other bookstore other than a technical bookstore. The one by my house used to be a supermarket and I love the fact that it is all on one floor. Most of the BNs around here are 2 or even 3 floors, and so everybody ends up crowding around the bottom floor.

  • If I may quote Jordan from the freebsd-arch mailing list:

    >> By the way, feature freeze 15th means
    >> -can put some feature until 14th midnight?
    >> or
    >> -can put some feature until 15th midnight?

    >Feature freeze means that no new feature work should be started. Work
    >already in progress, like IPv6, can proceed right
    >up to the code >freeze date.

    >- Jordan

  • New Features (was Re:15 days?) (Score:3)

    by Dom2 ( 838 ) on Monday January 17, 2000 @02:23AM (#1366100) Homepage
    Well, for me, the biggy is full IPV6 support. However, you can view the release notes in CVS already, to get an idea of the feature list that will be posted with the release. Point your browser at RELNOTES. TXT [freebsd.org], and click on the latest revison number (1.54 as of writing).

    -Dom

  • Re:BSD and Linux newcomers. (Score:3)

    by edhall ( 10025 ) <slashdot@weirdnoise.com> on Sunday January 16, 2000 @11:50PM (#1366101) Homepage

    A few comments:

    The BSD toolset tends to be a little less user-friendly than the equivalent tools from Gnu. Eg, with Gnu tools, you can decide after the fact to add the switches, and they work
    If by "user-friendly" you mean "lots of sometimes-confusing options" then, yes, the GNU tools tend to have more features, and you can arrange your command-line arguments twelve different ways from Sunday. That's not necessarily a good thing, though I admit it's a matter of personal taste. Taking your example:
    cp -Rv

    there is no direct BSD equivalent, but I'd tend to use something like:

    tar cf - src | (cd dst;tar xvf -)

    in any case. cp has entirely too many options as it is. It's easier for me to remember the tar pipeline than the two dozen options that GNU cp supports. It's the Unix way--combining tools into pipelines and sequences like LEGO blocks--while the GNU way has tended more towards the all-in-one approach. So when you say "there's no equivalent for *BSD" you really meant "there's no equivalent command." It's not impossible or even necessarily harder to do in BSD-land (though I admit it's more typing, and less intuitive to folks used to DOS-land).

    You also say that:

    Kernel compilation is more like the Bad Old Days under commercial Unixes.

    I couldn't disagree more! Doing a "make config" (or its curses or X11 equivalent) in Linux is a tremendous leap of faith compared to configuring a BSD kernel. There are over a hundred questions to be answered, and a wrong answer to any one of them can torpedo your chances at a working kernel. You're no more vulnerable editing a BSD config file, and in fact if you have a listing of the LINT config you usually know just what you need to know to enable/disable any given option or driver. I've experienced the Bad Old Days (having edited SunOS config files more times than I'd like to admit) and I have to say that BSD configuration has improved a lot, both in terms of documentation and of things you can leave for the kernel to figure out itself.

    You also mention:

    Performance differences--FreeBSD SMP is noticeably slower than under Linux on the same hardware.

    I agree (as would a fair amount of the BSD community) that Linux is getting an edge in SMP. The fact is that this is often of limited importance for well-designed server installations. It's actually an advantage (if you can architect it) to distribute load over n entirely separate hardware entities than some n -CPU entity. That way, a failure won't take out n units of capacity, just 1 . Harder to do? Sure, in some ways it is. A bunch of processors sharing memory allow solutions that isolated processors connected only via an LAN cannot. But this hasn't been that much of a limitation for my employer, Yahoo!. Your mileage, of course, might vary.

    I've run both Linux and FreeBSD for several years, now, both at work and at home. They both have their strengths. As a "Fundamentalist" Unix person, BSD seems a bit more like "home" to me. But I'm typing this into my home Linux box (a foot from my home FreeBSD box), and I have to admit that there is greater breadth and depth in the current Linux scene--in general, though not necessarily in specific areas. And sometimes the Linux folks seem to be adding legs to the [painted] snake (to use a Zen aphorism). But I see nothing but "synergy" (what a polluted word at this point, but I know of none better) between BSD and Linux, or even between the GNU and Unix (non-commercial and commercial) camps. (And you though the "Gnu's Not Unix" acronym was merely cute.) I'll likely be using both of these great systems for a long time--until something better comes along. (Not likely :-).

    -Ed

  • Re:Wow, talk about biased. (Score:3)

    by sec ( 20916 ) on Monday January 17, 2000 @01:38AM (#1366102)
    didn't eat file systems (unlike 2.2.5-2.2.14 Kernels)

    Exactly _one_ of those versions had known fs integrity problems -- 2.2.8. You'll find that 2.2.9 was released about one day later.

    it didn't leave the FS in a shitty state that required manual intervention like ALMOST EVERY LINUX CRASH I've ever had/seen.

    Really? The only Linux crash I've had that required manual intervention to reboot I managed to trace back to a hardware problem.

    Thats pretty crummy, especially when it couldn't even use all of the 1GB of memory in the box,

    Current 2.3 releases support up to 64M on Intel hardware.

    BTW, FreeBSD 4.0 has support for USB Ethernet adaptors, like those on the Sony VAIO's. Linux barely supports USB, not to mention anything other than a Keyboard and Mouse. Where's that desktop now? :)

    Right. Current Linux 2.3 releases support USB mice, keyboards, joysticks, cameras, scanners, printers, serial ports, audio, and more. But, I guess, without those USB ethernet adapters, Linux is toast on the desktop. :P

    Looking at the supported hardware list for FreeBSD 4.0, I don't see any other USB peripherals supported other than your precious ethernet adaptors. Where's the beef? :)

    You know, you're exactly the kind of BSD user that the previous poster was complaining about. A lot of 'FreeBSD is more stable/faster for me', a bunch of demonstrably _wrong_ facts, and not one iota of solid proof to back up your claims.

    Is a little bit of integrity too much to ask?

  • Re:BSD and Linux newcomers. (Score:3)

    by dcs ( 42578 ) on Sunday January 16, 2000 @07:55PM (#1366103)
    FreeBSD does not have HOWTOs, we have documentation. :-)

    Anyway, I do not know if it would be interesting for you, in particular to try FreeBSD. Some people like it better, some don't. It's a matter of taste.

    For help, check out the official website [freebsd.org] for general information, the handbook [freebsd.org] for general documentation, the FAQ [freebsd.org] for frequently asked questions (including some installation problems) and the FreeBSD Diary [freebsddiary.org] for the most recommended beginner's site.

    BTW, FreeBSD installation is generally known to be easy and painless. It can be done through the net by downloading just two floppy disk images, and there are mirror sites all over the world, and this list of mirror sites is shown to you during the installation. :-)

  • Re:15 days? (Score:3)

    by bugg ( 65930 ) on Sunday January 16, 2000 @07:21PM (#1366104) Homepage
    Many, many things are new with 4.0.
    Dillion reworked a lot of the VM subsystem.
    Much more USB drivers, including a dozen or so USB ethernet adapters.
    Uh, lots of stuff has been being worked on.
    As for two week freeze period, it isn't too short
    as basically before the freeze everything was going well (minus the small softupdates fiasco)
    as the only stuff in -CURRENT is (supposed to be) tested by the programmer.
    I'm using my time to make what ever doesn't compile with -Wall -Werror go by without a hitch.
    And I'm not sure where you got that 15 day quote. I talked to Jordan about 15 minutes ago and he said he'll play it by ear-- but -RELEASE should come at the end of this month.

  • Re:15 days? (Score:4)

    by edhall ( 10025 ) <slashdot@weirdnoise.com> on Sunday January 16, 2000 @07:38PM (#1366105) Homepage
    Anyway, what's up with that two week freeze period? Isn't that a little short?

    FreeBSD does things a bit differently than Linux. All code is in a CVS server. Every day (more or less) many developers bring their code up-to-date (with "cvsup" or equivalent) and do a "make world," perhaps after reviewing that day's changes first (which are posted automatically to a mailing list). Then they run their favorite tests and/or applications. So you can say that the FreeBSD system (not just the kernel--everything needed to run a FreeBSD system) is under continuous integration and testing. Everything is known to more-or-less work and play together before the freeze. The 15-day shakedown is thus a time to focus on finding issues that somehow got missed during the continuous develop/integrate/test process.

    This is different from Linux; in some ways it's slower and more restrictive, but I rather like it. Although 4.0 has a lot of improvements over the 3.x series, most of them are evolutionary, especially compared to some of the wholesale reworkings of kernel mechanisms between major Linux releases (1.2, 2.0, 2.2, 2.4...). This, combined with the FreeBSD development methodology, mean that instead of a mad scramble to get everything integrated for a final release, it's more a matter of dotting i's and crossing t's until the system passes muster with the core team and the CVS tree is labeled RELEASE.

    As to just what is new and/or different in 4.0, there are folks here who know much better than I do...

    -Ed

  • Re:BSD and Linux newcomers. (Score:5)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 16, 2000 @08:21PM (#1366106)
    I'm wondering if trying out FreeBSD would be at all interesting? How much help is there with
    installation problems? HOWTOs?

    You'd probably find it interesting if you're the kind of person who installs different Linux distributions from time to time out of interest ;-).

    My basic comparison:

    * Installation feels about like Slackware in terms of package selection and such

    * Base install is very small, as very little comes with the OS--everything is in ports instead.

    * FreeBSD has packages like real Linux distributions (and no, Slackware people, tgz is not a package ;-), but they're arguably less-advanced. The FreeBSD package system doesn't support versioning of packages (eg, it can distinguish openssh-1.20 from openssh-1.21, but it can't distinguish openssh-1.21-10 from openssh-1.21-11 like debs / rpms do, which I find to be a pain when I'm upgrading my installed ports)

    * The ports system is pretty cool. It's somewhere between Red Hat and Debian in terms of size (at least for FreeBSD; the other two *BSD ports trees are somewhat smaller), and a little more slow about updating (and, oddly enough, a little *more* buggy, contrary to expectation) than the Debian system. At any rate, it's an archive of scripts + patches necessary to integrate all the standard software into your system. Want vim?
    $ cd /usr/ports/editors/vim5 ; sudo make install
    and it will download the source, apply any necessary patches, compile the package, and install the package (which you can remove later either by make deinstall or by pkg_del vim5)

    * Documentation is quite good and thorough, though a little out-of-date (it's basically for 2.x, though is being rapidly revised to reflect the 3.x that most people are now running). It tends to be a little more basic than Linux HOWTOs in terms of what it covers, but it's a lot more thorough about covering essentials than the HOWTOs are.

    * Usage-wise, FreeBSD is mostly BSDish. That means no SysV init that you're probably used to (the vast majority of Linuxen use SysV init for various reasons) and similar differences like that which you'll have to pick up as you go with the help of the FreeBSD Handbook alluded to above.

    * The BSD toolset tends to be a little less user-friendly than the equivalent tools from Gnu. Eg, with Gnu tools, you can decide after the fact to add the switches, and they work:

    rm foo -rf
    rm -rf foo

    are both acceptable with Gnu rm, but not with *BSD rm. Similarly, the Gnu toolsets tend to support options that the *BSD ones don't:

    cp -Rv

    on Gnu will show you what it's copying. There's no equivalent for *BSD.

    * Some technical differences. In the Linux world, the "standard" Microsoft scheme of primary partitions + logical partitions within an extended partition is used. For the *BSDs, you make one partition, and then set up slices within it (conceptially, this is like logical partitions w/in an extended partition).

    * Performance differences--FreeBSD SMP is noticeably slower than under Linux on the same hardware. FreeBSD is Intel-only (with Alpha port progressing and Sparc planned) whereas Linux runs just about anywhere, more like NetBSD. FreeBSD's net stack is rumored to be faster / more correct than Linux's, though you'll never find anyone to substantiate that one way or the other (beyond some of the Linux developers pointing out pathological cases where standards conflict and they argue Linux does the Right Thing and FreeBSD doesn't). UFS, the FreeBSD file system, is slower than ext2 (even with soft-updates--basically "go faster" stripes you can add in when you recompile your kernel ;-) for most operations, though not for things like deleting large directories; of course, *BSD advocates will tell you it's a safer filesystem than ext2, so your mileage may vary.

    * Kernel compilation is more like the Bad Old Days under commercial Unixes. You have a flat text file full of all the options you want in your kernel, and if the ones you need aren't there, you try to steal them from a different one and add them in ;-). There's no menuconfig / xconfig / config like in Linux. Honestly, though, that's really not something to pick an OS on one way or the other ;-)

    I'm tired, so I'll quit now. Others, feel free to add in other differences.

Slashdot Top Deals

Bus error -- please leave by the rear door.

Close