FreeBSD 4.6.2 Released 85
MobyTurbo writes: "FreeBSD 4.6.2 has been released. It primarily cures a few security problems in the 4.6 release. If you are impatient it will be available at various mirrors, or upgrade your existing FreeBSD installation via cvsup, or support the FreeBSD project by purchasing it at a vendor that supports the FreeBSD project."
It's very stable (Score:2, Interesting)
This time officially? (Score:1, Flamebait)
so, and a reply from a developer to only post
announcements when they are pgp-signed from a
freebse developer.
nah, all not my stuff - we release on
December 1th
June 1th
of every year, and a bit earlier this year.
There is nothing to interpretate...
Yep, I'm a happy OpenBSD sysadmin and user.
Re:This time officially? (Score:1)
A release is not official until the announcement has gone out on the mailing list and it is visible on http://www.freebsd.org/releases/index.html. Some bozos don't seem to understand that (and Slashdot never seems to learn how to verify these stories). Looks like this one went off without incident for once.
Re:This time officially? (Score:1)
and will be in the regular archive in a week from now...
Now, I'm a bit frustrated because I *DID* submit the news myself earlier today but got it rejected.. Oh well. The release is official, but the website takes a while to be rebuilt from the SGML sources committed to CVS.
Re:This time officially? (Score:1)
Re:This time officially? (Score:2)
The secret to getting a story on slashdot is not being a "favorite son", it's to submit early, submit often, and don't whine when your story is rejected or scooped by someone else because that's what will happen to the majority of your submissions. BTW, thanks for the implied complement concerning my choice of handle. :-)
Re:This time officially? (Score:2)
Instead of working together we smash each others head in. Fun isn't it?
Re:This time officially? (Score:2)
* I know from earlier that FreeBSD-releases have been
announced by Slashdot when this announce was not
yet fully official.
* I found it quite amusing when I read, back then, a
comment from a FreeBSD developer, asking for
only post such stories again when they come, pgp signed,
from a developer.
* I wondered whether it was officially this time, that's
why I asked.
* I got a comment which showed me that it was - and
which author wondered about this NOT happening...
Furthermore I wrote about the OpenBSD release scheme,
to show that we don't have this kind of problems. My
post was not intended a flamebait in any way.
Re:ya (Score:1)
Re:ya (Score:1)
Re:ya (Score:2)
Yes, OS X is heavily based on Mach, but it's not a "pure" microkernel. A pure microkernel only abstracts the hardware, everything else is in userland "servers". In a microkernel UNIX, you'd have the UNIX API as a server, and your app would have to pass messages through the kernel to make syscalls. Check GNU/Debian, this may be an example of it, UNIX server running under the HURD mk. Maybe also mkLinux, the old linux for macs. Check these, I'm not sure, too late/tired to do real research.
The problem with this, is UNIX doesn't run well this way. UNIX is designed monolithic, and microkernel implementations just add an extra layer. The message passing slows you down, thats why Microsoft dropped the GUI subsystem into the kernel in going from 3.51 to 4.0, speedup. Anyways, since the base of OS X is UNIX they put this in the kernel to speed things up. The microkernel handles the hardware, and running old MacOS at kernel level handles prettty much everything else.
As an aside, the UNIX part of the core is a hybrid. Apple started with NetBSD (better cross platform?) but added a lot of 3.x FreeBSD cause they liked it so much. An apple employee (forgot which, see above comment on being late) has commit access to the FreeBSD cvs tree. The next major rev of the kernel is rumored to be freebsd 4 series.
Re:ya (Score:3, Informative)
If they are interested in what it is, they should stear clear from your explanation.
Yes, OS X is heavily based on Mach, but it's not a "pure" microkernel.
No, Mach is not a "pure" microkernel. And OS-X isn't a ukernel at all, it's an OS. AFAIK, Darwin provides the kernel functionality using a single-server on a microkernel. OS-X runs on top of Darwin, and provides most of the userland functions (GUI, most notably).
Check GNU/Debian
That would be GNU running on Debian, as GNU/Linux is GNU running on Linux? I think you mean Debian GNU/Hurd or GNU, though your description of what it is suggests that as far as microkernels go, you don't know shit from rusty ice-cream.
UNIX server running under the HURD mk
First point, a server runs on top of an 'mk', not under it.
The Hurd (not HURD, Hurd or whatever) is actually a number of servers running on a microkernel (at the moment GnuMach, but also L4 projects exist). Contrary to Darwin and MkLinux which are mono-server implementations (ie one large server running on a ukernel), the Hurd has a number of servers running on a ukernel that attempt to provide POSIX functionality. The Hurd is simply not UNIX (as in GNU is not UNIX). As you correctly point out, monoserver implementations of microkernels don't add a great deal of anything except hardware abstraction compared with a monolithic UNIX kernel. The hardware abstraction was the reason why Apple initially liked MkLinux, as it allowed Linux to run on their machines without them having to give away precious info about how they worked.
These are just the blatant mistakes, I'll leave people who aren't too tired, late or lazy to do real research to fine tune this and the other stuff.
Other vendors (Score:4, Informative)
Other vendors include DaemonNews/BSDMall [bsdmall.com], and Hinner EDV [hinner.de].
Crap :( (Score:1, Interesting)
Given that this is only a (very) minor point release, I don't expect I'm missing too terribly much.
Re:Crap :( (Score:3, Informative)
Keep in mind however that even if you have download a version of FreeBSD (maybe the same is true for Net) too soon, you can cvsup to the latest -RELEASE or -STABLE without much of a hassle; and 5.0-CURRENT if you want to be on the alpha/beta version edge.(Since I'm tracking -STABLE I don't need to download anything to upgrade; I already am running a system similar to 4.6.2 if not somewhat more cutting edge.)
Hmm, *BSD is releasing new versions. It must not be "dead" after all. ;-)
Re:Crap :( (Score:2)
Re:Java??? (Score:2)
Re:Java??? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:freebsd 4.7 (Score:2)
Re:freebsd 4.7 (Score:1)
Surf at -1, and you'll see plenty of people saying it. (wink)
Re:Another word (Score:1)
Re:Another word (Score:2)
They probably meant to say OpenBSD, which to my knowledge still doesn't offer SMP support.
Personally, I think FreeBSD is thing to run on a server. Leave Linux at home.
Re:Another word (Score:2)
Where did 4.6.1 go? (Score:2)
Re:Where did 4.6.1 go? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Where did 4.6.1 go? (Score:1)
Re:Where did 4.6.1 go? (Score:1)
Re:Where did 4.6.1 go? (Score:1)
Re:Where did 4.6.1 go? (Score:1)
Re:Where did 4.6.1 go? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Where did 4.6.1 go? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Where did 4.6.1 go? (Score:2, Informative)
Tracking -RELEASE with cvsup (Score:2)
I'm testing out my first real FreeBSD installation on a colocated server, and I'm using the ports tree for installing just about everything. I'd like to be able to keep on top of the latest security releases and pretty much make sure I stay in line with all the -RELEASE releases. The problem is, I have no idea how to do this. It seems like most examples I see for using cvsup are for -STABLE or -CURRENT. There doesn't seem to be a nice guide for doing so on the FreeBSD site or on my system.
Will the example ports-supfile, as-is, do the trick? Or should I use a different supfile?
Does anyone have any pointers or advice?
Re:Tracking -RELEASE with cvsup (Score:3, Informative)
The RELEASE tag is only slid for security fixes that come out after the release tag is initally laid and before the CDs are gold. In other words, if you really want to keep on top of security issues, you should be tracking -STABLE; but of course with this comes no express or implied guarantee that your tree will build, that everything will work properly, etc. But thankfully, -STABLE tends to be pretty much just that, STABLE, with few exceptions. If you're concerned about the latest security patches, either update STABLE every time there is a security advisory, or apply the patches from -STABLE to your release tree, but that's probably not worth the time. So -STABLE tends to be the best in terms of having security patches applied, but on a colocated box you could run into issues setting it to upgrade automatically (in the rare, but possible event -STABLE is fubared when you cvsup) - but unfortunately you can't have it every way- there's no way to have a guarantee of successful working automatic builds with all of the security patches. That's pretty much true with any OS.
But you didn't ask that, you asked how to get -RELEASE sources. Open up your supfile and set the tag to RELENG_4_6_2_RELEASE in this case (or RELENG_4_6_0_RELEASE for 4.6, or RELENG_4_0_0_RELEASE for 4.0, etc.)
Have fun!
Re:Tracking -RELEASE with cvsup (Score:5, Informative)
*default host=cvsup14.freebsd.org
*default base=/usr
*default prefix=/usr
*default release=cvs tag=RELENG_4_6
*default delete use-rel-suffix
*default compress
src-all
ports-all
Re:Tracking -RELEASE with cvsup (Score:1)
Well, anyhow, I think the OP has enough information to help him now.
Re:Tracking -RELEASE with cvsup (Score:2)
Re:Tracking -RELEASE with cvsup (Score:1)
Glad to see that there's some civility on slashdot. I'm impressed that we handled that well. (Insert wisecrack about only in the BSD section can you find nice slashdotters...)
Re:Tracking -RELEASE with cvsup (Score:2)
On a colocated box, perhaps it would be wise to cvsup and wait at least a day or two to check for any problems reported to that mailing list before updating the running system.
--
As noted in the History section, one of the biggest problems with sysinstall is its user interface which could only be charitably described as Evil Incarnate. -libh Project [freebsd.org]
Re:Tracking -RELEASE with cvsup (Score:1)
Re:Tracking -RELEASE with cvsup (Score:3, Informative)
Use the RELENG_4_6 tag in your cvsup file to stay on the 4.6-release branch, of which 4.6.2-release is a part.
Be sure to check out Chapter 20 of the FreeBSD Handbook [freebsd.org], especially the sections on Synchronizing Your Source and Using make world. Also read the top of
The real trick is going to be doing the upgrade to a remote server. Since you can't really drop to single user mode you'll have to do the installworld, installkernel, and mergemaster on a live system. Make sure your kern.securelevel is at -1 for that (you can always raise it back up afterwards). You may even want to go through the process on a spare box in front of you before attempting to do so remotely.
Only 2 ISO's? (Score:1, Interesting)
XFree86 3-4 (Score:2)
How can I remove XFree86 3.3.6 from FreeBSD 4.2.6 since there is no entry in
Re:XFree86 3-4 (Score:4, Informative)
But be sure to also remove all ports that might have installed stuff under
(use some bourne shell, like
cd
for i in *; do if grep -q '^@cwd
Then remove those packages in ~/packagelist
After this, just install
HTH
Re:XFree86 3-4 (Score:2)
Re:XFree86 3-4 (Score:1)
Get your source media, and do tar tzvf on the archives you installed (Xbin.tgz, Xcfg.tgz), and remove those files.
I usually move
does ssh and ssl fixes without make world (Score:1)
Upgrades from 4.6 Stable to 4.6.2 using cvsup fail (Score:1)