FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE Status Update 186
Dan writes "FreeBSD Release Engineering Team's Bruce Mah provides the latest status of what's holding up the official release of FreeBSD 4.8. We fully support FreeBSD RE's approach to fixing necessary problems before officially releasing the product."
Who's "We"? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Who's "We"? (Score:1, Funny)
Well, we cansay WHO stands for World Health Organization and WE stands for US.
So we can safely state that The World Health Administration is US, also known as THE WHO (without Roger Daltrey).
Hope that made it clear
Re:Who's "We"? (Score:2)
Just to let you know.
Re:Who's "We"? (Score:1, Funny)
"Mother, we need a new 60 watt bulb in the basement. It is dark there."
Re:Who's "We"? (Score:5, Funny)
Guess you haven't heard "our" song.
Re:Who's "We"? (Score:1)
Re:Who's "We"? (Score:1)
Re:Who's "We"? (Score:2)
Womans perspective: "If you do not know then I am not going to tell you."
Last non-merged? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Last non-merged? (Score:2)
BSD is cool (Score:4, Funny)
Re:BSD is cool (Score:4, Informative)
hmm [freebsd.org]
Yes (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Yes (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:BSD is cool (Score:5, Informative)
Re:BSD is cool (Score:2)
nope, doesn't "run Linux"... but it DOES runLinux applications. [freebsd.org]
Re:BSD is cool (Score:2)
Re:BSD is cool (Score:2)
Re:BSD is cool (Score:1)
Re:BSD is cool (Score:2, Informative)
Does it run VMware 3.x or the about-to-be-released 4.x?
I didn't think so. Sorry, I'll stick with Linux even though I feel many things in FreeBSD are coded better.
Seriously, now that the nVidia drivers are ported (sorta; not up to date though) the only reason I don't use FreeBSD is because of VMware. And yes, I know 2.x works, but that version is missing too many things that I need.
Re:BSD is cool (Score:2, Insightful)
As a consultant it is one of the most valuable tools I own. I can run any Linux, BSD, or Windows version I want. I keep a respository of clean installs which lets me instantly extract a clean system to test with. This lets me test installs, different system configurations, software I wouldn't normally install, etc. I can setup entire networking environments (including mixed OS's, Linux, BSD, Windows, etc.) for testing...
I could
OT, but I *have* to ask this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OT, but I *have* to ask this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:OT, but I *have* to ask this (Score:2)
PS. This may sound rude, for which I apologize in advance: The less time that the RE team has to spend replying to various emails (particularly those that are not relevant to the immediate goal of shipping 4.8-RELEASE), the faster the release is probably going to be finished.
What does Hemos do? Posts his email address.
Nice going He
Re:OT, but I *have* to ask this (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I'd agree that putting his email address there isn't incredibly helpful to anyone, because there are usually better places to mail inquiries to, like a mailing list.
but he asks that no-one mails him ! (Score:2)
Re:OT, but I *have* to ask this (Score:2)
Re:OT, but I *have* to ask this (Score:2)
Re:OT, but I *have* to ask this (Score:1)
neat (Score:2, Informative)
Rather than just reformat the floppy as a 1.722MB, they'd rather just get everything fitting onto a 1.44MB. Kudos to you, FreeBSD team!
Re:neat (Score:2)
Re:neat (Score:2)
Re:neat (Score:2, Informative)
Re:neat (Score:2)
Re:neat (Score:3, Insightful)
However, that doesnt stop us from making fun of a major For Profit software company for doing similiar things. This in no way makes us feel like hypocrits, strangely enough.
Re:neat (Score:2)
Microsoft DOESN'T test things very well before releasing, that's why we make fun of them.
Re:neat (Score:2)
This would lead one to believe that you are just spreading anti-MS FUD, rather than giving a credible opinion...
Re:neat (Score:2, Interesting)
Does it cause blue screens of death or "crash" often?
Re:neat (Score:2)
Also, i find it rather silly that you are claiming the whole package is flawed because you dont like the way it imports something.
What you are talking
Re:neat (Score:2)
Office 2000 that's now on SP3, soon to be SP4?
That Office and Windows?
Re:neat (Score:2)
At least MS is nice enough to put all the patches into one SP, and not cover up the fact that the software isnt perfect by obfuscating their fixes.
And thats mighty tough talk considering the fact that Linux just had two root exploits exposed, as well as a shitload of Sendmail exploi
Re:neat (Score:2)
Have you used a Microsoft product? Well I'd guess not, otherwise you wouldnt be posting this nonsense slamming it.
Someone is saying that Microsoft has been criticised for holding back a release to fix bugs, rather than just shipping and fixing the glaring bugs in Service Pack 1.
Didnt they just hold up the release of *EVERYTHING* they make to fix bugs and sec
Re:neat (Score:2)
Re:neat (Score:1)
Linux: Telling M$ where to go since 1991.
FreeBSD: Hey, are you guys coming, or what?
Re:neat (Score:1)
If you ever get a chance to try linux one day, try typing 'man fdformat'.
Here's the text of it from bsdforums.org (Score:4, Informative)
[Read full announcement]
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:23:25 -0800
From: "Bruce A. Mah"
To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: 4.8-RELEASE status
Hi--
A number of you have been (rightfully) wondering what's up with
the i386 4.8-RELEASE. Here's the current state:
The files that are as of this moment tagged as RELENG_4_8_0_RELEASE
can't be used to build a release because the MFSROOT kernel (that goes
on the kern.flp) overflows a the size of a 1440K floppy disk.
This bug was masked by another problem that happened to be present on
the machines used by the RE team to build releases...namely, that they
didn't have the cvsroot-all collection in their local repositories.
To make a long story short, the $FreeBSD$ tags didn't get expanded in
the source files, thus (I am not making this up) causing the MFSROOT
kernel to be just a *little* bit smaller so that it could fit on a
floppy. I think this was the world's April Fool's joke to the RE
team.
We're currently trying to fix this by finding some other driver we can
move to a module on the mfsroot.flp image (or maybe just eliminate).
After we finish some tests, we'll need to commit whatever change is
required, re-tag the affected files, and then rebuild the base system.
I'm not in a position to comment on a timeline for these happenings.
Thanks for your continued patience!
Bruce.
PS. This may sound rude, for which I apologize in advance: The less
time that the RE team has to spend replying to various emails
(particularly those that are not relevant to the immediate goal of
shipping 4.8-RELEASE), the faster the release is probably going to be
finished.
A floppy? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's 2003 and a sparkling new Unix OS is being held up by... a floppy?
I remember floppies... I used them back in the 80's and very early 90's.
I'm glad that they are sticking by their principles on this. I just wonder if they are principles worth sticking to.
--Richard
Re:A floppy? (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway, most bootable CDs use floppy images (be it 1.44MB or 2.88MB) as the boot section of the CD... primarily for legacy/compatibility purposes. With that, you still have to deal with the size limitation of either 1.44MB or 2.88MB.
Re:A floppy? (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course, if you have no CD drive at all you're boned. Some of us (like me) put together boxes with no CD drive, my gateway machine was done by hand from the floppy drive.
Oh well. So the premier of Night of the Assisted Living BSD has been delayed.
Re:A floppy? (Score:2, Informative)
So, for people to be able to boot from CD's on non-Award and AMI BIOS motherboards, the floppy image must fit in 1.44Mb.
This is why I will never buy a fricking PC again, I'm sticki
Re:A floppy? (Score:1, Funny)
Go to Control panel, System...
Re:A floppy? (Score:1)
Re:A floppy? (Score:3, Informative)
I don't put CD-ROMs in the servers I build. It's stupid, why would they need CD-ROMs? I just install a floppy drive, because it needs one of those regardless (hardware bios updates, emergency recovery, etc.).
I boot off the install floppies and install via FTP (takes LESS time than via CD when doing so on a T3).
The floppies are extremely important. Many shops rely on them.
Andy
Do you guys download Freebsd or buy cd's ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Do you guys download Freebsd or buy cd's ? (Score:3, Informative)
It also depends if you have a cd burner... since I have one I download the smallest cd iso for freebsd and do a very basic install and then add to that...
Re:Do you guys download Freebsd or buy cd's ? (Score:1)
Re:Do you guys download Freebsd or buy cd's ? (Score:2, Informative)
Other options are listed in the Handbook [freebsd.org].
I definatly recommend downloading rather then buying from people like cheapbytes.
-- Brooks
Resolved already... (Score:4, Informative)
What's Holding Up Release (Score:2, Funny)
Funny reason (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Funny reason (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a lot of headless 'nix based gateway boxes around with a floppy, and no CD-ROM.
I love the "i dont need it so therefore noone possibly could" attitude slashbots have.
Re:Funny reason (Score:1)
Re:Funny reason (Score:2)
Re:Funny reason (Score:1)
Re:Funny reason (Score:2)
Not so.
There are, after all, machines without or with a broken CD drive. I actually do have a couple of 1U servers without one, and use the following method:
The floppies will let you boot into the install "manager" that will give you the option to install FreeBSD (not sure about the other various *BSD versions) from a _different_ machine's CD drive.
Re:Floppy installation (Score:2)
If you're installing the same OS on several machines, it might be better to burn a whole CD of the OS. But it's kind of pointless to do for one machine, if you can do it directly over the net.
The floppy may
Re:Floppy installation (Score:1)
I often download the 2.88mb image and burn it to a CD. You don't have to burn the "whole" OS to make a bootable CD. I use both methods depending on the machine and what is handy.
Re:Funny reason (Score:1)
Re:Funny reason (Score:1)
Re:Funny reason (Score:2)
As mentioned by others, many server machines don't have a CD-ROM, but do have a floppy drive. Perhaps more importantly, many people don't have a CD-R writer, but do have a floppy drive.
Sounds as if they need better compression (Score:1)
Re:Sounds as if they need better compression (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Sounds as if they need better compression (Score:2)
It's kind of useless to have more tightly compressed data if your decompression software is much bigger, at least for a situation like this one where both have to fit on the floppy.
Re:Sounds as if they need better compression (Score:2)
wait a second... (Score:1)
ah my dreams are foiled.. pf in a bsd distro that people "support"
Re:wait a second... (Score:3, Informative)
Soon maybe [daemonnews.org]
Whoa, Dude! (Score:2)
We fully support FreeBSD RE's approach to fixing necessary problems before officially releasing the product.
I mean, like, aren't you going on a limb there expressing your opinion?
You're just not afraid of controversy!
but it's already available....? (Score:1)
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases/i386
Re:but it's already available....? (Score:2)
Re:but it's already available....? (Score:2)
confused (Score:1)
Re:confused (Score:4, Informative)
In other words, 5.0 is not production-ready, although it is a complete release. It's still being actively debugged and stabilized in preperation for 5.1, which will probably be the first in the series that I'd put on a production server. The 4.x line is incredibly stable and still being actively maintained in the mean time.
Re:confused (Score:2)
Re:confused (Score:2)
Re:confused (Score:2)
Rethinking sysinstall (Score:3)
If you're going to require all your installation tools to fit on a floppy, then an installer should have just the tools necessary to get the install files onto a system such that the system can be booted and then used. While it might be nice to have a bunch of post-install configuration options available, the technical constraints of boot media make this kind of prohibitive.
Perhaps one idea might be a meta-installer that installs the installation files onto the computer, and then reboots into a bigger environment where you can do more extensive system configuration and package management as well as providing a richer, more user-friendly tool. I hate to say this, but as annoyingly slow as Win2k's installer is, they use a very similar kind of bootstrap installation.
The other idea is to merge the two-stage install with a single stage install on a CD and just give up on the floppy.
I'm sure none of these ideas are terribly original, but they seem that way relative to sysinstall. I've only used FreeBSD over the past 3 years, so I have no idea what the Linux distros do. Do they do anything interesting with multistage installations?
Re:Rethinking sysinstall (Score:2)
Linux distros have become bloatware so frickin' bloated, that some require up to 4 (or more!) CDs to install - makes XP and ilk look small and efficient...
Err... ? (Score:2)
Officially released. (Score:2)
From: Murray Stokely
To: announce@FreeBSD.org
Subject: [FreeBSD-Announce] FreeBSD 4.8 Now Available
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I am happy to announce the availability of FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE, the
latest release of the FreeBSD -STABLE development branch. Since
FreeBSD 4.7-RELEASE in October 2002, we have made conservative updates
to a number of software programs in the base system, dealt with known
security issues, and added initial support for Firewire,
HyperTh
And a few hours later... (Score:2)
Much ado about nothing.
Re:So I guess... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:So I guess... (Score:1)
Re:Well? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Well? (Score:1, Offtopic)
so sayeth Del on Deltron 3030, which I sentence you to go out and buy right now. Seriously, do it, it's a great CD.
Re:this is good news (Score:2)
Yes, if by closer you mean relased two and a half months ago [freebsd.org].
Re:this is good news (Score:1)
Re:this is good news (Score:1)
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corporation
Re:isn't bsd dead (Score:2)
(Really? No, not really
Re:isn't bsd dead (Score:1, Troll)
Re:What is the difference? (Score:2)
OpenBSD: extremely secure, seems to be ideal for firewalls, etc.
FreeBSD: extremely stable, great for servers and like.
NetBSD: extremely portable, runs on tons of different processors(50+ ?)
FreeBSD seems to be the most widely used of the BSD's.