FreeBSD 4.9 Released 421
Digital Dharma writes "Excellent! FreeBSD 4.9 has been released, and if it's anything like the RC series, this will be a release to remember. You can obtain it from the usual sources, or if you're feeling generous and supportive, you can buy the cd set. Support your local Daemon!" As Jani Laaksonen writes, the new release includes "numerous security advisory fixes, kernel changes and support for the Physical Address Extensions (PAE) capability on Intel Pentium Pro and higher processors (see page(4)). This release also adds support for a few more hardware NIC cards, ipfw network protocol enhancements, userland changes, and more. Check FreeBSD 4.9 Release Notes for more information."
Panther/Darwin contributions? (Score:3, Interesting)
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Panther/Darwin contributions? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple's contributions are most visible in gcc 3.x.y series powerpc support and optimization, not at kernel level in FreeBSD, since Darwin mainly uses FreeBSD's userland, not kernel.
So Apple is giving back to the community, just not directly to FreeBSD.
Re:You misunderstand the World. (Score:3, Insightful)
On the contrary, it's you and RMS that don't understand the definition of the word "free".
GPL software != free software.
GPL software == software with huge limitations on how it can be used.
Even the BSD license has limitations, but at least they're much "freer".
Dinivin
Re:You misunderstand the World. (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL imposes no limitations on how the software can be used. Quoth the GPL:
GPL and BSD software
Re:You misunderstand the World. (Score:2)
GPLed code is not free, because it is not reusable in commercial products. This is the highest and best use of code, and because the GPL forbids it, GPLed code is anything but free.
Re:You misunderstand the World. (Score:2)
Careful. Free-as-in-speech doesn't mean the same thing to a BSD advocate as it does to a GPL advocate. If a corporation modifies my code and uses it to build a closed source improvement, I may not necessarily care, so long as I can continue work on my project.
Perhaps by companies using my code, companies can become more successful and hire more employees? Develop more software that helps people? So what if it restricts freedom to the users who don'
Re:Panther/Darwin contributions? (Score:2)
Re:Panther/Darwin contributions? (Score:2)
Ever heard of GCC/PRO?
There is nothing to give back to FreeBSD in general.
MAC OS X DOESN'T USE THE FREEBSD KERNEL, JUST THE USERLAND! IT IS A MACHKERNEL!
Only minor tools maybe. They'll probably send-pr when they find bugs.
Re:Panther/Darwin contributions? (Score:2)
No, not completely different. Take a look at the Darwin kernel; rather a lot of the code under the "bsd" directory is not all that different from the versions in other BSDs. xnu isn't a small kernel plus a pile of servers (but then neither is NT, really - the Win32 subsystem does
Re:Panther/Darwin contributions? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't confuse slavery with I-want-to-work-for-free-and-might-get-some-back
Re:Mod Parent UP (Score:5, Insightful)
The person I originally responded to was claiming that the BSD licensed software frightened away commercial interested MORE than GPL'd software and my posting was to refute that false idea.
Just because YOU like the GPL and you like working on GPL'd products doesn't mean that that is the only valid way to do development.
Our business model works for us, and the FreeBSD community bennefits from our involvment. It really is a win-win situation for both FreeBSD and us.
If I were to release source code of any of my personal software projects, I'd do it under a BSD-style license. Software doesn't have to be business-related or business-useful, but for businesses using various types of 'free' software, BSD is certainly more attractive.
Oh, and you don't have to work on FreeBSD and do 'without-cost' development for corporations - my company PAYS me to develop BSD software. Just because you can't find paying work doesn't mean that the rest of us don't like having jobs.
Don't even get me started about all the BSD work that has found it's way into linux - the BSD license has made this possible, and easy.
Re:Mod Parent UP (Score:2)
So what if Redhat let's me turn around and redistribute their distro? It still doesn't put food on the table. All it means is that I'm not getting paid by SuSE or Mandrake either. Unpaid work is unpaid work is unpaid work. If you wish to do unpaid work for corporations, please be my guest. But do
Re:Panther/Darwin contributions? (Score:2)
Re:Panther/Darwin contributions? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Panther/Darwin contributions? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Panther/Darwin contributions? (Score:2)
Anyway, at the point where I had to leave (lack of time), nobody really cared about licenses, as long as it's "free" (or what Debian considers to be free).
Re:Panther/Darwin contributions? (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, think about it. It isn't your code and you haven't invested any sweat in it. But you want to change the license. Huh?
From the user perspective, the differences between the BSD and GPL licenses are *zero*. The differences only make themselves known if you as a developer wish to mix
Re:Interesting, but the real question is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why, yes. Yes it does.
See: /usr/ports/emulators/linux-base
or: FreeBSD Hypertext Man Pages: linux [freebsd.org]
Re:Panther/Darwin contributions? (Score:4, Informative)
Here's the APSL [apple.com]
If a developer takes and uses APSL code in some other project, section 2.2 a, b, and c need to be followed for that section of code, but as long as those are followed I don't see why the code couldn't be distributed with BSD. I really don't see this as much of a big deal, though, unless you want a certain patch for a certain program - if it's an entire app, well, my copy of Linux came with Mozilla and Apache, both which have separate, non BSD, open source licenses (I have FreeBSD, as well, but built it from scratch, so no CD).
If you want a specific patch, ask the original developer to also submit it to BSD - as far as I can tell, any code submitted is still owned by the developer (but you give Apple a free, non-exclusive, everlasting license to use it, or something like that). I guess if the original developer works for Apple you won't get any help, but most other Open Source developers are happy to submit to other Open Source projects.
I thought 5.x was the latest (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I thought 5.x was the latest (Score:5, Informative)
No, 4.9 is the latest release from the -stable branch. The 5.0 and 5.1 releases were made from the -current development branch (actually the main trunk in CVS). Eventually, probably around 5.2 or 5.3, 5.x will be branched off as 5-STABLE and development will begin on 6.x.
Re:I thought 5.x was the latest (Score:2)
Re:I thought 5.x was the latest (Score:4, Informative)
Uh, how exactly is the development team not open? The FreeBSD project accepts contributions from just about anyone -- I've submitted a few patches myself. The list of people with commit rights to the CVS tree is quite large and growing; contrast to the Linux kernel which is a one-man dictatorship (guess how many people have commit rights to the master repo for that).
Re:I thought 5.x was the latest (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I thought 5.x was the latest (Score:3, Informative)
4.X, with 4.9 being the latest is the -STABLE train - use this if you want to not mess with stuff.
5.X is the new stuff. Getting quite stable, but still closer to the bleeding edge than 4.9.
Earlier this week someone suggested I move a production box from 4.9-RC to 5.1 for a certain feature's support. 5.1 is *almost* cooked enough for me to put production stuff on it.
Re:I thought 5.x was the latest (Score:2)
5.2 promises to have support. At that point, I'll be happy to give it a shot, though I don't know how long that will be...
Re:I thought 5.x was the latest (Score:2)
Gentoo is acceptable, but I had trouble with it too. "emerge e100" installed a module for the wrong kernel version and broke it completely. I had to add support manually. Easy (about 20 seconds in "make menuconfig"), but annoying. Pretty good otherwise.
I think I'd like to u
Re:I thought 5.x was the latest (Score:2)
Actually Atheros chipset cards are supported now.
Driver called ath. You may install 5.1 and upgrade (cvs) or you may wait for 5.2. It's due in couple months.
Re:I thought 5.x was the latest (Score:2)
On the other hand, if performance is not your goal, 5.1 may be ready for some limited use. But I do not see the point, unless you really need some hardware support which is not in 4.9.
Just In Time For Halloween (Score:4, Funny)
I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm personally very happy with FreeBSD, thank you.
Hope SMP support (and pthreads support) will get better soon now. Can't wait for 5.x becoming -STABLE.
Re:I wonder... (Score:2)
At least they didn't jump the gun this time (Score:4, Funny)
good for BSD (Score:4, Insightful)
fork (Score:2)
-t
Re:fork (Score:2)
FrreBSD collector's box (Score:2, Funny)
Scary troll ratio (Score:5, Interesting)
phew (Score:2)
At first I read that as "humerous". But of course this isnt Windows we are atalking about. eyethangyoo.
Isn't it interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Isn't it interesting (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Isn't it interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
1. A package system that supports both binary and source installation of software packages.
2. An OS upgrade procedure (other than wipe out your system and install the new version).
3. Very m
110 comments and no .torrent file?!?!?!?!?! (Score:2)
Re:110 comments and no .torrent file?!?!?!?!?! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think most FreeBSD folks (whether official project members or just us users) don't bother with torrents since the most popular way to upgrade a system is via cvsup (at least that's the perception). It took a long time before ISOs were even offered since it was believed most people wouldn't be using them. It would probably take an analysis of the FTP logs after a release, showing a lot of traffic on the ISOs, before torrents would show up often.
BSD is SCO Insurance (Score:5, Insightful)
I've switched (Score:3, Insightful)
While i like linux, and it has always done well for me, i think it's time for me to jump the fence to FreeBSD completely.
The BSDs always seem to be more mature and logical, and `cleaner'.
Maybe this isn't the best reason to drive such a decision, but i think a lot of the noise and trolling from the linux camp of late has really put me off. I know *all* linux users aren't like this, but it's really turning into something don't want to be associated with. I have a similar situation with the Apple community, and Windows, well... i just hate the OS enough.
The level of integrity that i've seen in my (albeit limited) interaction on usenet, slashdot and irc with BSD folks is impressive. There aren't any issues of acting juvenile or overly zealous.
Maybe in a while the linux camp will "grow up" some and i'll come back.
Sorry.
Re:I've switched (Score:2)
Ironically these two lines make this post a troll itself. There is a huge difference between end users feuding and developers feuding. The latter is rare between both OSes, and it is what counts in life.
Do you think Alan Cox, et al are
Re:I've switched (Score:2)
"2.4.97 is here! Yeah! We finally get [bugfix|VM|whatever]! Now the world will take us serisouly. Anyone who sticks with 2.4.96 is a loser!"
Repeat for every minor release...
LinuxFormat - late again! (Score:2)
Now I feel compelled to download 4.9 instead of 4.8 and try and install it.
Re:LinuxFormat - late again! (Score:2)
I don't know about you guys.. (Score:2)
Re:I don't know about you guys.. (Score:2)
Mmm, do you have short horns, demon?
My Mirror (Score:2)
ftp://olaf.spack.nu/pub/mirror/freebsd-iso/ [spack.nu]
Enjoy
Ender
All these flames just go to show that.... (Score:2)
Re:What I know about FreeBSD (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong. There are plenty of games, and what is not supported by a native version may be playable under linux emulation and/or wine with a negligible performance impact.
> 2. It cannot be used by my grandma.
Then your grandma is dumb.
> 3. It lacks a GUI of any note.
Wrong. you can use XFree86 and any window manager or desktop environment you choose.
> 4. There is no support available for it.
Wrong. There are plenty of IRC channels, email lists and even commercial support providers.
> 5. It is an assortment of fragmented OSes.
Wrong. Even if it were not wrong this does not compare to the staggering number of Linux distributions.
> 6. It cannot be run on the x86 platform.
Wrong. FreeBSD was initially crafted directly from the 386BSD patchset in the early 90's. It has supported i386 from the very beginning.
> 7. You have to compile everything and know C.
Wrong. You can install packages just like linux. You can certainly compile everything if you want to, but this does not require even minimal knowledge of C.
> 8. Support for the latest hardware is always poor.
Wrong. It isn't always poor. Sometimes support lags behind a little, many times IHV's have poor or no FreeBSD drivers, but new hardware is certainly not ignored.
> 9. It is incompatiable with GNU/Linux.
Wrong. FreeBSD has an extensive Linux binary compatability system that allows most Linux binaries to run just fine. Word is, sometimes even faster.
> 10.It is dying.
And Wrong. FreeBSD has a large community of active developers and maintainers, along with a significant installed user base.
9 out of 10 ain't bad. Clearly a troll but I was feeling self important so I thought I'd whip it out.
Re:What I know about FreeBSD (Score:3, Informative)
Some time ago I had 1GHz Athlon 256MB with ATA100 drive as my workstation. I put linux on it. Everything was ok, up to the time I had to untar some big files 200GB+. Starting single tar -zxf filename nearly made my computer not responding (even mouse cursor moved in jumps). First I thought the reason was that I have
Re:What I know about FreeBSD (Score:3, Funny)
> Then your grandma is dumb.
Ouch scathing assault on Grandma's everywhere.
I'll break it to Grandma that she's an idiot tomorrow... or whenever the snail mail letter gets there - she can't do Windows or Mac, either
Re:What I know about FreeBSD (Score:3, Informative)
>That's true. FreeBSD is not for people who want to >play games. These people need to use a PlayStation, >GameCube, or Xbox.
Most loki games work fine, and installation using original linux CD is supported by ports tree.
Re:What I know about FreeBSD (Score:2)
FWIW: Consoles suck for some type of games.
I bet that if you asked Mac OS X user "What OS are you running there?", all of them would say "It's Mac OS X" and not "It's FreeBSD". Roots of OS X might be FreeBSD, but that d
Re:What I know about FreeBSD (Score:2)
Re:What I know about FreeBSD (Score:2)
Mac OS X has about as much in common with Mach as with FreeBSD, if not less. The kernel (check out Darwin) looks very LITTLE like Mach. No single servers, and it's not a true microkernel. What they did was take a BSD single server, hardwire the connections and optimise it. Then add years of hacking...:)
Oh and to add flamebait. If Mac OS X is not FreeBSD based, then why call Linux GNU/Linux? What matters most? The kernel or the userland...:)
BWP
Re:What I know about FreeBSD (Score:2)
Hey dude, try playing Halo or Tux Racer or whatever on a VT220 when stuck in a server room at 3 a.m. waiting for a system upgrade to finish, with nothing more than a bunch of blinking rackmounts to keep you company.
That's what Angband [angband.org] is for! What do you mean, it's not for people who don't want to play games. If it's a choice between Moria/Rogue and counting floor tiles during a lo
Re:Security Fixes (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Security Fixes (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Security Fixes (Score:3, Informative)
The above statement is talking relative to release of 4.8, as cut to CD. This doesn't mean it hasn't been fixed, it just means they can't go back in time to fix it on 4.8 as it was on release day (think what was cut to CD).
That said, FreeBSD users don't have to stay on the "as cut to CD version". Once you get a release, a good FreeBSD user can update his system, tracking one of a few cvs branches, such as STABLE (which wil
Re:Security Fixes (Score:3, Informative)
No. The patches are incorporated at the same time when advisories are released. I'm assuming they list them in the release notes just to imply that since you're using 4.9 you don't have to worry about all the security issues which were discovered in 4.8
Right. The release notes list changes between released versions, and some of those changes come about as the result of security vulnerabilities that have been discovered and fixed. If you look at the release notes for one of the development branches (e.
Re:Security Fixes (Score:3, Insightful)
What gives the perceived difference is that the ports have separate security advisories (I know they do for Open and presumably for Free)
Re:Sorry, you are WRONG! (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, we're talking about software, not human rights and freedoms. Till you manage to get that through your head, there really isn't any point in continuing this discussion.
Dinivin
Re:Sorry, you are WRONG! (Score:2, Insightful)
No.
Even if somebody takes BSD and makes it into a closed-source product, the original BSD code is still available for free.
Thus, two things will cause customers to ignore the closed-source product based on BSD: more cost and less addition of value. Until the derivative clears this invisible hurdle, people will rather just get the completely free FreeBSD.
Mac OS X works, bec
Re:Troll? Care to explain your modding parent down (Score:2)
Gee, for a while there, you started to sound like one of those GNU people saying GTK+ was better than Qt because it wasn't under the GPL...
Re:YES! (Score:3, Insightful)
That was the obvious response to that I was expecting. But I think you're wrong. Microsoft's buggy software doesn't seem to cause joe user to use free software. At least not with the free software we have today. Joe user is used to all the Windows problems, one more buggy implementation isn't going to open his eyes to the world of free software. Not only joe user, but the corporate world seems to not mind using bu
Re:Support your local Daemon (Score:2)
Depends on your definition (Score:2)
Actually, the word Daemon, like many things in Christianity, has roots in paganism, though it also has connections to Ancient Greek as well. Only in Christianity does the word specifically refer to an evil entity.
What's the difference between Unix borrowing the word to mean Disk And Execution MONitor, and Christianity borrowing the word to mean a sort of evil, supernatural entity?
Don't be a moron. (Score:2)
Mmmm... sacrilicious.
Re:Support your local Daemon (Score:2)
Who modded a troll up as 'interesting'?
Who modded this up? (Score:2)
Re:Support your local Daemon (Score:2)
Re:SO this means.... (Score:2)
Re:SO this means.... (Score:2)
Re:SO this means.... (Score:2)
Re:SO this means.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Obviously, you've been hiding behind OS/2 boxes all these years. It's a shame that you don't get out more.
Re:MP support?!?! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:MP support?!?! (Score:2)
Re:Does anyone out there... (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a reason that a lot of the big servers run BSD's...
Re:Does anyone out there... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Does anyone out there... (Score:3, Informative)
i have tried switching from win2k to linux and found it confusing,xxx tools for the same job and for me a confusing file layout.
installing Freebsd was/is a breeze even for a mouse clickin fool like me,i downloaded a couple of floppies,set up my nic and pointed it at a ftp site.
the file layout was explained well and seemed logical to me..
The manual is good.the package system with its dependancy checking is lovely.
it has linux binary compatibility
there is ALOT less random nois
Re:Does anyone out there... (Score:4, Informative)
With that out of the way, Several production shops use FreeBSD on their servers. Yahoo, Sony japan, Hotmail (yes, they still do, even if they won't admit it). And another thing, I was looking at linux's so-called SMP support the other day, (mainly because netstat was hanging for like 1.6 seconds on my 2.4 kernel 4 way smp machines) and the locking is horrible. Just running a netstat causes the rest of the TCP system to hang while the netstat completes. And it's noticable, The webserver latency goes from 5 ms to 1.9 seconds.
Things like this are why FreeBSD is still used anywhere that needs to support high traffic and high uptime.
Re:Does anyone out there... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep. I use freeBSD, and I like it. As much as anything I am used to the BSD way of doing things. I have no problems with linux (other than distributions tend to do things just a little different), and am considering a new linux machine for things that linux does better than BSD. BSD is still the best for servers, but for desktops some of the support isn't as good. All IMHO of course, you are free to disagree.
Re:Does anyone out there... (Score:5, Informative)
Absolutely.
I have had FreeBSD on all my laptops for ages now--both as a workstation, and as a console/sniffer/debugging machine. The only weakness in this regard was the lack of MS Office support (no, I don't find Star/OpenOffice or KOffice or friends acceptable alternatives as of yet.) It's stable, fast, easy to upgrade and maintain, secure, and flexible.
My personal firwealls have also been FreeBSD since I started finding OpenBSD too archaic for quick changes (my last one started deciding that what I told it to do wasn't secure enough. Looking for solutions in newsgroups/mailing lists inevitably came up with "read through the source and quit bugging us you fucking idiot".) I don't want to use an OS maintained primarily by a psychopath.
My home fileserver, and AMD K6-2-400 has also been FreeBSD since about 3 years now--running 24x7 without a glitch.
I've installed it at several client sites as firewalls, web servers, monitoring boxes, groupware and mail servers, and use it with no hitches _whatsoever_ for our company (DNS, mail, PHProjekt, www.)
Prime factors in terms of quality of an OS are
Ease of installation and upgrade
Support (I've always found the BSD mailing lists to be pretty friendly, and people to be fairly clueful
Good package management
Security
Well-thought out and common sense layout of the OS itself (file systems, config files, etc.
Yes, I have a good amount of unix experience, but I often just need something to work without too much knob-dicking around, period. This is the reason I have an XP box lying around at home (games, documents I get from clients, Windows software I sometimes use professionally, etc.). No, I don't think *BSD is ready for the desktop.
However, having worked with Unix variants, including various Linux incarnations, for more than 10 years now (holy shit! I'm old!) I can really recommend this as a reliable, and representative example of a good OS.
This is assuming, of course, that you're not just trolling.
Re:Does anyone out there... (Score:2, Interesting)
But everyone's free to
Re:Does anyone out there... (Score:2)
Oh yeah, I should probably mention that, while I was contracting at one particular client site (large international investment bank) a certain unnamed market data services provider, whose owner is now mayor of a certain unnamed large city, said MDS provider (who, as I found out after about a month of calls with core developers, had no f***ing clue what their application actually did, technically) decided to break our Socks5 proxies (running NEC socks5, which was technically not permissible for commercial us
Re:Does anyone out there... (Score:5, Insightful)
I tried linux, didn't like one distribution, changed, had to relearn EVERYTHING.
Tried Gentoo recently, looks good, but they think portage is go gracing earth when it still has some issues that need to be resolved.
Besides, nothing beats the stability of FreeBSD, even on 5.1 and 5.2 I've never had a crash on my desktop machine.
Re:Does anyone out there... (Score:4, Informative)
So basically, we have a heavy Windows installation protected by FreeBSD running IPF, snort, etc.
And I am in the process of installing BSD on a diskless PC. I got 4.8 down to 8 megs, which includes kernel, shell, userland commands, network tools, etc. You come to appreciate features as the freebsd jail when you do things like this.
Re:Does anyone out there... (Score:2)
Suuure.... Here:
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ISO-IMAGES-i3
Re:Is it Free ?? (Score:2)
Re:Is it STABLE or not? (Score:3, Informative)
The simple answer is 'yes'.
The more complicated answer is that 5.x is significantly different from 4.x in quite a few ways in that it's a technology 'step-up' and would quite possibly break if overlaid on a pre-existing 4.x sys
Re:Is it STABLE or not? (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason for the sentences in question (I had a small part in writing them) was simply this: PAE is a fairly young (in the 4.X series) feature that touches a lot of bits in the kernel (yes, even if it's not enabled). When it was first committed, it caused a number of problems (well-documented on the mailing lists), but they seem to have been fixed. If we thought there were any major problems remaining in this area, we wouldn't have released. However it's an undeniable fact that PAE in 4.X hasn't had a lot of testing time compared to most of the rest of the kernel, and this bears a bit of consideration.
I believe that for the vast majority of users (myself included) 4.9 works just fine. (I run a mix of 4.9-STABLE and 5.1-CURRENT on various laptops, desktops, and non-critical servers.) If you're really one of the most conservative users, you probably wouldn't jump on the new release bandwagon anyways, and would spend some time evaluating 4.9 (regardless of PAE, or what anyone on the release engineering team says) before deploying it in some mission-critical environment.
Linux Kern 2.4 vs 2.6 vs FreeBSD (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Linux Kern 2.4 vs 2.6 vs FreeBSD (Score:2)
Re:Linux Kern 2.4 vs 2.6 vs FreeBSD (Score:2)