Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Operating Systems Software BSD

FreeBSD Status Report March-April 2004 63

Anonymous Coward writes "The FreeBSD project has posted a new status report for March and April of 2004. Work continues on locking down the network stack, ACPI made more great strides, an ARM port appeared in the tree, and the FreeBSD 4.10 release cycle wrapped up."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FreeBSD Status Report March-April 2004

Comments Filter:
  • An ARM port eh? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MrIrwin ( 761231 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:44AM (#9172017) Journal
    x86 life looks ever more limited!
    • Re:An ARM port eh? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Considering the One-chip SMP Multiprocessor Core [], things could get very nice.
    • Re:An ARM port eh? (Score:3, Informative)

      by killjoe ( 766577 )
      Where is the PPC port? I am amazed that I can't install freebsd on my mac.

      • I thought MACS allready came with a BSD derived OS?
      • PowerPC port (Score:3, Informative)

        by IRLQBall ( 681453 )

        Where is the PPC port? I am amazed that I can't install freebsd on my mac.

        The current status of the FreeBSD on PowerPC is here []

        Short version: It's a Tier 2 [] architecture which means it's not quite there yet. According to the project page it's "on the verge of booting to single-user mode".

        • Re:PowerPC port (Score:1, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Actually, if you visit the mailing list archives, they're probably a lot further along than that. The developers working on porting it are a bit lazy in updating their status page.
      • Is there some reason you have to have FreeBSD on your PPC, and you can't possibly use NetBSD/OpenBSD?

        They aren't the same as FreeBSD, of course, but the differences are quite small.
        • Actually, the differences are quite small between NetBSD and OpenBSD because Open is a fork of Net. Free, however, actually has a very different feel to it. Of course they all have a lot of similarities at the source level, and you'll see NetBSD banners all over FreeBSD kernel source files.
          • I've used all three and I see very equal differences between them, even in the userland.

            OpenBSD has split from NetBSD, but it was quite a long time ago, and much has changed since then. I find that all three are about equally different from one-another, on the user level, administrative level, and at the source-code level.

            A matter of opinion of course...
  • by harikiri ( 211017 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @08:55AM (#9172365)
    From here []:

    Several folks continue to work on the locking the network stack as noted elsewhere in this report. Outside of the network stack, the following items were worked on during the March and April time frame. Giant was pushed down in the fork, exit, and wait system calls as far as possible.
    Alan Cox (alc@) continues to lock the VM subsystem and push down Giant where appropriate.

    Same Alan Cox of Linux kernel hacking fame? Woot! We've attracted him to the dark side... ;)

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @10:33PM (#9179713)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Re:PF and ALTQ (Score:5, Insightful)

      by agent dero ( 680753 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @01:02AM (#9180476) Homepage
      Flip a coin, it doesn't really matter which you choose:

      FreeBSD is something i'd put on a critical nfs/http/ftp server or something

      OpenBSD is something I'd put on a Pentium 200Mhz box to keep that nfs/http/ftp box safe.

      Nothing prevents you from doing either one with either operating system. It's just about preference ;)
    • Re:PF and ALTQ (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ArbitraryConstant ( 763964 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @01:05AM (#9180485) Homepage
      OpenBSD will always have the most up to date PF stuff.

      What you'll notice with OpenBSD is that you're discouraged from messing with the kernel at all, and ports work better. Theoretically, you may notice it's slower, and you'll probably notice that the software isn't as up to date. Debian-stable should also be in consideration, depending on your needs, but its firewalling capabilities are well behind FreeBSD and OpenBSD.

      You're giving something up if you commit to anything period. FreeBSD and OpenBSD have dramatically disjoint sets of stuff they're good at. I've never seen an OS good enough at everything (or even most things) to make it worth commiting to. Not if you can deal with multiple OSes on a day to day basis.
      • Debian-stable should also be in consideration, depending on your needs, but its firewalling capabilities are well behind FreeBSD and OpenBSD.
        Nice troll. How about an actual comparison?

        • Firewall Failover []

          "In test environments, we have run up to 4 pfsync+carp hosts (all different architectures: i386, sparc, sparc64, and amd64!), randomly rebooting them. TCP sessions were not interrupted through over two days of such torture testing."

          Linux has UCARP, but has no way for the stateful firewall to do transparent failover.

          Don't really feel like researching enough detail for a comprehensive summary of the other stuff.
      • Personally, I see the different BSDs as all good OSes, but for different purposes...

        FreeBSD - Good general purpose server OS, and my 'nix of choice on x86

        OpenBSD - Good firewall/network-device OS, runs wonderfully on good hardware (like old SPARCs) Though it can often be behind the ball in places you'd least expect it until you run into them head-on, out of nowhere. (Like when I tried the sparc64 port on my Netra, and it ran slowly, and didn't like more than 2 hme network interfaces)

        NetBSD - Tinkerer's
    • Re:PF and ALTQ (Score:2, Insightful)

      by pkplex ( 535744 )
      #include "imo.h"

      I think the advantages of FreeBSD are drivers ( for newer toys ), speed, and that jail thing ( which I have not actually used ) which AFAIK lets you run a virtual machine chroot thing. Also, freebsd ( and netbsd ) have automagical update the ports/packages tools and things. On openbsd you need to pkg_delete them yourself.

      Other than that, I think OpenBSD is the ticket. Lots of people seem to think OpenBsd is only a firewall OS... which is unfortunate. OpenBSD works fine as a standard server
  • by killjoe ( 766577 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @03:32AM (#9180961)
    When are freebsd, openbsd, and netbsd adopt the one true ports system? Is there any logical reason to have three different source based ports systems?
    • by harikiri ( 211017 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @09:47AM (#9182817)
      I think the various ports systems emerged as a result of freebsd only supporting x86 (back in the day), and netbsd having a multi-architecture system (thus more effort was required to 'port' something to each arch, and there were fewer ports). Then OpenBSD came along, and imported in the FreeBSD ports system initially, and went on from there.

      The reason why FreeBSD's port system has grown so quickly is probably because there's only been one architecture they had to 'port' applications across to. It would be slowed down if they had to unify the ports system to support not only multi-platform architectures, but also the differences between the kernels for each BSD project.

      However, this reminded me of this []. NetBSD's package collection actually has released their pkgsrc collection to both FreeBSD and OpenBSD.

      • Pkgsrc is available for many OSes. It's most matured on BSD/Linux. It would be cool if several of the BSD's and Linux would use it. Check it out []

        Darwin (OS X)
      • "However, this reminded me of this []. NetBSD's package collection actually has released their pkgsrc collection to both FreeBSD and OpenBSD."

        The problem is that pkgsrcs ports collection is not as complete as the freebsd ports collection. It has some extra features but the number of ports is lacking.

        If freebsd was to adopt pkgsrc then the development effort would be unified and a more uniform set of ports would be available to everybody.
    • I can think of one good reason.

      On OpenBSD, apache and perl are part of the base system. bzip2 is not.

      On FreeBSD, bzip2 is part of the base system. Apache and perl are not.

      There are probably more examples.
  • dead trees! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MavEtJu ( 241979 ) <[slashdot] [at] []> on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:36PM (#9192380) Homepage
    Book: The Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD Operating System

    I know a birthday present for this year!

It's fabulous! We haven't seen anything like it in the last half an hour! -- Macy's