FreeBSD 5.3 on the Horizon 296
underpar writes "ZDNet UK is reporting that FreeBSD is nearing a code freeze. August 15th is the deadline which will be followed by the usual beta testing and a final release hoped for by October 1st. ZDNet interviewed the software engineer leading the release work, Scott Long, for the article. He says: 'The 5.3 release will be the first one where we see the real benefits of that. The multithreaded network stack will outperform everything we've done before, for running applications such as Apache or MySQL.' Status reports can be found on the FreeBSD website." I've been using the last technology release of FreeBSD for some time now, and am really looking forward to the 5.3 release, as well as the 5-STABLE branch that's rumored to follow soon after.
Explain something! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Explain something! (Score:2, Informative)
Note these are MINOR version numbers thus mysql 21 is
Re:Explain something! (Score:3, Informative)
I use FreeBSD 4.x, FreeBSD 5.x, and MacOS X 10.3.x, and I can attest that FreeBSD 5.x material is in it already.
(Links shamelessly stolen from Kyro's post, and modified to point to Apple's US server)
Re:Explain something! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Explain something! (Score:2, Funny)
The current stable 4.x version of FreeBSD is 4.10. So, did you mean they based their code on FreeBSD 4.4? Because..i mean...to a certain extent Solaris is based on 4.4 BSD...but not at all on FreeBSD 4.4...and uh...whatnot.
Re:Explain something! (Score:2)
The only official and publicly released statement from Apple is here [apple.com], which says that Tiger's upgraded kernel is based on "FreeBSD 5.x"; but maybe someone who's poked around the developer preview of 10.4 (or wouldn't mind anonymously breaking NDA) can give a more complete answer.
~jeff
Re:Explain something! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Explain something! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Explain something! (Score:4, Informative)
Well, 10.3 had bits of FreeBSD 5 in it according to Apple's page for it. [apple.com.au]
And according to the tiger preview page [apple.com.au] it's based on FreeBSD 5.x - so that would probably be 5.2.1.
Re:Explain something! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Explain something! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Explain something! (Score:2)
Re:Explain something! (Score:2)
Re:Explain something! (Score:3, Insightful)
Apache on FreeBSD (Score:5, Informative)
Just make the port with "WITH_EXPERIMENTAL_PATCHES=1" and you can get a 10-25% boost in performance. (depends on your traffic patterns..)
Its a quick way to get more performance out of Apache on FreeBSD, without waiting for the 5-STABLE branch.
-Paul Querna
Re:Apache on FreeBSD (Score:2)
That's funny given that apache uses one task per connection, and kqueue/epoll/etc. only help when you have many fds to get events for and most of them are "idle". In fact I'm pretty sure Apache uses blocking read/write calls.
Re:Apache on FreeBSD (Score:2)
The grandparent was referring to apache 2.0, which can use a single process for more than one connection.
Re:Apache on FreeBSD (Score:3, Funny)
More BSD goodness (Score:4, Interesting)
I have been tempted to check out OpenBSD, because of the networking. This FreeBSD 5.3 status announcement mentions work being done integrating PF (updates?) and ALTQ (new to FreeBSD?)
I'm working towards a site-to-site VPN deployment (hubs and spokes, of course) and am debating FreeBSD vs. OpenBSD. IPSec, queueing and redundancy (dynamic routing, perhaps DBU, and something like CARP) are requirements. Managability is important. "Room for growth" (transparent proxies, accounting, file/print services) would be icing on the cake.
I figure it all could be made to work either way. Is FreeBSD's IPSec and firewall (IPFW/PF) as solid os OpenBSD? How about queueing? I'm a "seasoned newbee" on BSD... My experience is with the FreeBSD 5.x branch, but I'm not sure what all is changing with 5.3. I figure on diving into OpenBSD someday, it's just that time can be hard to come by.
Any advice out there? Am I giving anything up if I commit to Free vs. Open BSD?
Re:More BSD goodness (Score:5, Interesting)
has many rather slow internal algorithms.
I'd suggest NetBSD. It too cares greatly about security, and imports
lots of fixes from OpenBSD. And it's slimmer than FreeBSD. Not to
mention solid. I've many times managed to make both OpenBSD and FreeBSD
go mickey, but have yet to crash NetBSD.
Re:More BSD goodness (Score:2)
Re:More BSD goodness (Score:2)
security fixes. (Or just look at commit messages).
As for the speed issues, I've ran some of our telecom applications on
the OSs, speed(piping lots, I mean LOTS, of data through several processes, spawning many short
lived processes, and file IO) sucked on OpenBSD.
The guy at http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability/(and read where it says
NetBSD-CURRENT also) did the same. NetBSD 1.6.x
somewhat suck in some cases. Latest 2.0 rocks.
Re:More BSD goodness (Score:2)
Re:More BSD goodness (Score:2)
Re:More BSD goodness (Score:2)
OpenBSD now has IPSec with NAT-T working in current. Queueing on OpenBSD is with ALTQ integrated with PF, and, of course, CARP is already thre.
FreeBSD has imported pf from OpenBSD, and I think that they work on ALTQ as well. Not sure about CARP yet.
Re:More BSD goodness (Score:2)
Re:More BSD goodness (Score:2)
All of the *BSD share (port) code with each other, and this is a good thing. The OpenBSD packet filter PF is ported to FreeBSD, for example. OpenBSD has recently ported the FreeBSD 801.11b framework into current, and the driver for the wireless chipset ADMTek ADM8211 from NetBSD. NetBSD has implemented /dev/ptm based upon OpenBSD work,
Unfortunately it has at least one major bug. (Score:3, Informative)
I hope it has been fixed, but I somehow doubt it since it's been around for at least 2 years (earliest bug report was on 4.6RC) so it exists in -stable as well.
Re:Unfortunately it has at least one major bug. (Score:2)
Re:Unfortunately it has at least one major bug. (Score:2)
We've been using Samba 2.2 and 3.0 at work on FreeBSD 4.x and 5.2.1 without issues. Reading and writing to FAT32 drives without corruption.
I also use this at home with -CURRENT.
Writing to a Samba share from Windows 98, 2000, and XP works fine for us. And writing to a mount point using mount_smbfs works as well.
Re:Unfortunately it has at least one major bug. (Score:2)
The bug only happens if the external machine (in my case XP) pushes files to the samba/f32 share, not if it pulls them.
The size of the files or the amount of files in the batch may affect your results. In my case, copying a number of MP3s from the Win machine to the BSD machine gives you a wonderfuly scrambled bit soup, even though the
Re:Unfortunately it has at least one major bug. (Score:2, Informative)
If that's right, then I can understand why other people aren't seeing this bug -- because most people would never think of doing this. I don't think anyone would claim that the msdos file system type (used for the FAT file systems) is appropriate for this, and if you're re
Re:Unfortunately it has at least one major bug. (Score:2)
Finally, my original point was, if this bug is a known bug, and it
Re:Unfortunately it has at least one major bug. (Score:2)
FAT32 was a kludge from the moment it was created. It was a temporary and awful fix to an awful file system. Instead of fixing the problem correctly and writing a real file system, Microsoft chose to take a half assed approach. Your solution is the same. You've taken a half assed approach to fixing the
Re:Unfortunately it has at least one major bug. (Score:2)
I've used samba on my primary BSD server as the fileserver for a network consisting of Slackware,Win98, Win2k and WinXP.
A bit of a bitch to get configured but once I did, it worked fine without a hitch.
Re:Unfortunately it has at least one major bug. (Score:2)
If you want Eye candy, go use OSX until your precious Longhorn comes out. Now be a good boy and go to your room while the adults talk.
Re:Unfortunately it has at least one major bug. (Score:2)
Re:Unfortunately it has at least one major bug. (Score:2)
I solved the problem by going with Linux for this project.
Let's face it, file coruption should not be in -stable under any file systems that are shipped with the distribution! Unfortunately with (free) open source many programmers go whe
vinum_geom? (Score:2)
Re:vinum_geom? (Score:4, Insightful)
Quoth the status report:
Re:vinum_geom? (Score:3, Informative)
snap! (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been using FreeBSD since long before it was apparently dying, since maybe the 2.x branch. I never tried Linux until this past year, because I live under a rock on the dark side of the moon.
I tried SuSE, and it was great and all -- the setup was really nice -- but it's not there yet. In fact, I backed over it with 5.2 immediately afterwards. Why? Well, for day-to-day use, I didn't see any difference between Linux and BSD -- except the cluttered
When it came down to it, FreeBSD and a daily-updated ports tree seemed to "click together" better than Linux. For most other day-to-day use, there wasn't a huge difference, though I will say BSD was a tad 'snappier'.
I urge those who haven't tried FreeBSD before to give it a chance. It's not that hard, and it is not, contrary to popular opinion, "better for servers". I play UT2004 and America's Army daily on my BSD box with no problems (thank you native nvidia drivers). What causes most people to gawk after seeing Linux is the text-mode installation -- which is just text menus, but still menus. (I've seen some installation programs that can make you wonder.. OpenBSD, I'm talking to you.)
Last month I introduced FreeBSD to someone who had never, ever used *nix in any form before. After about an hour explaining different concepts (slices, ports and packages, rc.conf), she was off and running and actually, almost sadly, hasn't asked for my help once since then. She had X and KDE up and running within the day.
So give it a try. We have no evil plan. (Except that, yanno, our mascot is related to Satan)
Re:snap! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:snap! (Score:5, Funny)
Tux is gone; he's cute, but has no defensive weaponry. Furthermore, he can't even fly, all he can do is repeat the Futurama quote to himself --
Penguin: Full of fish?
Bender: Not entirely.
Penguin: Then let's fish.
So it's down to Clippy and BSD Daemon, and maybe that Apple and his friend Darwin the platypus in the corner who're both giving moral support, but they're setting off fireworks because they like eyecandy and have a short attention span.
Pretty much, the Daemon unwinds Clippy and uses him to open a stuck CD-ROM drive.
Re:snap! (Score:2)
I beg to differ [tweaktown.com].
Re:snap! (Score:2)
Re:snap! (Score:2)
Funny that some fundie AC trollboi should talk about "mental deficiencies."
Please kill yourself.
Re:snap! (Score:4, Informative)
One problem with the FreeBSD installer is that it's both an installer and a configuration tool with menues that does not remember previous settings that you have done.
The OpenBSD installer is just that : an installer. Post configuration is mostly done after installation.
Re:snap! (Score:2)
That's not the first time that happened to me.
Re:snap! (Score:3, Informative)
Just use package :
pkg_add -r net-snmp
or
portupgrade -NPP
It is good to be lazy ...
How's the desktop responsiveness? (Score:2)
Re:How's the desktop responsiveness? (Score:3, Interesting)
One factor that led me to switch back to Gentoo was the choppyness while working on the desktop environments. At that time I was using 5.1. So say if I was playing the audio/browsing/compiling etc, the computer would freeze for a moment.
I haven't really had any choppyness except for three things:
Sound: sometimes sound will get choppy on heavy (disk) load. Later, I found out that all those different sound utils (xmms, mpg123, etc) were using esound, so I disabled it, and suddenly, no more choppyness.
Ok, so is fully end-user ready? (Score:2)
Re:Ok, so is fully end-user ready? (Score:4, Informative)
It won't be in beta until mid-August. The final release is expected in October.
You just read the headline didn't you?
Re:Ok, so is fully end-user ready? (Score:4, Informative)
ITYM ROFL! :-)
Yup, FreeBSD is fully userland ready, has been for, lets see, the last 6-8-ish years that I've been using it!
On the subject of RTFA, as the article says, 5.2.1-RELEASE is a little jumpy in some parts, and if you need solid stability, stick with 4.10-RELEASE for the time being.
I've used FreeBSD in production environments for years and years and years. Right now, I'm running 4.9-RELEASE and 4.10-RELEASE on production servers both at work and at home.
I'm tinkering with 5.2.1-RELEASE on a new Dell X300 laptop and a P4 desktop at the moment. They're both working pretty well, and surprisingly, I've got almost everything on the (very screwed up hardware-wise) X300 working! I have managed to break 5.2.1 several times, but it was mostly by doing really wacky things with the Project Evil code, upping and downing and kldloading and kldunloading different drivers on different interfaces with not enough kernel memory allocated for the bloated third party windows code!!!
Having said that, Project Evil is nothing short of a *GODSEND*, and Bill Paul is god! It's pretty amazing to be pinching windows NDIS drivers and compiling them into FreeBSD kernel modules - opens doors for all kinds of obscure hardware that couldn't be used before!
It's still too early for me to make any definitive comment on whether 5.x.x is good on desktops as yet, but if it's anything like the FreeBSDs that came before it, it will be nothing short of excellent when it hits -STABLE.
Re:Love your sig (Score:3, Informative)
In fact, originally 5.3 was set for Late May-ish, early June, but 4.10 got in the way, 5.2.1 was still pretty recent, and 5.x still needed work.
Recent FreeBSD switcher (Score:3, Insightful)
So, my thoughts having been on FreeBSD for a couple months? Honestly, I dunno. I haven't noticed any speed difference at all, despite many a BSDer's claim to the contrary (this is a 750Mhz Duron with 1.25GB ram). I had to switch out my soundcard (Envy24-based Chaintech for an SB64 I had laying around) because it wasn't supported. The support for my Zire seems to be much nicer (I've always had problems in Linux with USB-based Palms, and tools like KPilot). I really like the init system, and
In summary, when I change hardware in the near future, I'll probably end up putting debian back on. The expanded hardware support, removal of all those little 'bumps' in making software work correctly, and ease and quickness of upgrading and installing software make debian win out. However, if it wasn't for Debian, FreeBSD would be my choice. I use (and administer) Redhat WS3 at work, and I'll take BSD over it any day of the week
Of course, my ideal setup would be a G5 with OSX as my desktop, and OpenBSD on my server. That would be kinda doable if I still had seperate computers for workstation and server (Linux as desktop, OpenBSD on server), but the ever decreasing pool of working hardware forced me down to one. And I'm not masochistic enough to run OpenBSD on the desktop...
Re:Recent FreeBSD switcher (Score:5, Informative)
You know, 'portupgrade -aPP' is much faster, because it uses binary packages, as apt-get does.
Re:Recent FreeBSD switcher (Score:2)
Windows Network Driver Compatibility! (Score:5, Informative)
FreeBSD 5.2[3] will also introduce a software layer that lets Windows network drivers work with FreeBSD. This layer, dubbed Project Evil, means that wired and wireless network cards should be able to work with FreeBSD even if the manufacturers have not written any drivers for the operating system.
This is totally awesome! FreeBSD network drivers are very reliable, but hard to come by for very new devices (eg. wifi). I would totally use this feature even with some reliability sacrifice.
Re:Windows Network Driver Compatibility! (Score:4, Interesting)
You got that in one! As I said in an earlier post, I tinkered with it a bit last weekend. I got it up and running with an Intel Centrino b/g wireless (8022?) and a Broadcom gigabit ethernet card, simultaneously (tho that bit required a little bit of hacking) with no particular dramas at all. It just worked!
A little short on doco, but I'd be happy to help out with some pointers if you get stuck with it.
BSD status ;-) (Score:4, Funny)
Major improvements to jails too (Score:5, Informative)
switcher (Score:4, Interesting)
I got fed up with power-management issues on my employer-supplied laptop computer (a nice machine, but not Linux-friendly) and purchased a Macintosh PowerBook. Very nice, not as clean as Gentoo, but it got me interested in *BSD.
My server was running Gentoo SeLinux until last week. I've installed FreeBSD 5.2.1 and I am *very* happy with it as a stable, secure server platform.
Linux, Apache, etc. have lent legitimacy to Open Source, and BSD license is attractive to many who cannot otherwise use Open Source. So *BSD is helping spread Open Source, and to otherwise improve the quality of the aggregate code base.
Since Gentoo was developed by someone who liked BSD but wanted the device-driver support of Linux, I feel that most of my skills transfer very quickly. I feel that my learning curve on FreeBSD helps me better understand Mac OS X, which has an installed base of about 12 million computers (if Apple is to be believed).
BSD is dead? Hmm. I rather doubt it.
Re:WHAT???? (Score:1)
Re:Java support? (Score:2)
Re:Java support? (Score:2)
> Hat?
Or at least Gentoo with it's Portage?
Re:Java support? (Score:2)
Re:Java support? (Score:2)
> but I suggested Slackware since it's supposed to
> be the most UNIX like Linux.
Yep. I cut my teeth on Slack.
Re:Java support? (Score:5, Informative)
p.s. If you want a prebuilt binary of jdk-1.4.2, then complain to Sun. They're the ones that prohibit the distribution of Java packages for BSD.
Re:Java support? (Score:2)
Re:Java support? (Score:2)
First of all, the issue you talk about is with the prebuilt jdk 1.3 as sanctioned by SUN.
The issue is that it supports green threads only, not native threads.
My experience with a jdk 1.4.2 built from the source is that it does support this, and that anything I tried (and th
Re:Java support? (Score:2)
Check out:
http://www.freebsd.org/java/install.html [freebsd.org]
Short Version:
It has been available for quite some time. I don't know what you are thinking, but its very easy to get a native Java on FreeBSD...Re:Java support? (Score:2)
Native binaries, blessed by Sun, available on FreeBSD. Yes I know I should complain to Sun. Yes I know it isn't FreeBSD's fault. But would it kill the FreeBSD developers to try to work up a relationship with Sun?
Re:Java support? (Score:2)
Re:Java support? (Score:2)
What is more, this is not only a problem for FreeBSD, but for each and every OS that SUN doesn't feel like 'blessing'. Many Linux distributions suffer from related licensing problems and cannot distribvute JAVA binaries either.
> But would it kill the FreeBSD developers to try to work up a relationship with Sun?
It is why there is a jdk 1.3 binary for FreeBSD. The relation
Re:Java support? (Score:3, Funny)
Insightful my eye. (Score:2, Informative)
And you really can't blame FreeBSD for Sun having horrible license restrictions on java. If java were free it would already be ready for you. But because its not, there is a serious lack of people who are willing to sign away their life and ability to ever sue sun so that they can
Re:Java support? (Score:3, Informative)
Both your assumptions are wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
There are a variety of Java engines for FreeBSD. All are compilable/downloadable from ports. FreeBSD has native engines and I'm using this Sun engine for FreeBSD for my projects:
java version "1.4.2-p6" Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.4.2-p6-koinu_17_apr_2004_23_41) Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.4.2-p6-koinu_17_apr_2004_23_41, mixed mode)
Secondly, the linux emulation is fast. It's as fast as linux. I play various commercial 3D Linux-Games on FreeBSD and they run all fine
Re:Java support? (Score:4, Informative)
"The JDK(TM) it produces is de facto compliant, but use in a production environment is still at your own risk."
But thanks for your words of encouragement. That "We don't want you" crack must make you feel really good.
Re:Java support? (Score:2, Informative)
For the record, we use native 1.4 on 15 fbsd 4.10 boxen (using tomcat/freemarker) for production enterprise systems with 4K+ users slammin' the boxes each day. No problems so far.
But I suggest you keep waiting. We'll be sure to send you a certificate or 'notice of native compliance' or something. Juuuust keep waiting...
Re:Java support? (Score:2)
YES!
I want to be able to deploy a server on more than just faith. Five nines uptime is not something you can shoot for with a JDK that is deployable "at your own risk".
"For the record, [...] 4K+ users [...] each day [...]"
Let me know when your usage grows by three orders of magnitude. When you have problems at that point, then I will listen to you. Until then I'm forced to decide between a multitude of shitty Linux distributions, the godawful expensive Sol
If you're supporting that many users... (Score:3, Informative)
Stop being so cheap and shell out some dosh with Sun if you really need fanatical support and guaranteed operation. Although, if you're supporting that many people and it's as mission critical as you are saying then cost should be no problem, so I'm inclined to think you're just trolling on the whole Java issue.
I've stress tested my companies J2EE product on a FreeBSD box,
Re:Java support? (Score:2)
Re:Java support? (Score:2)
FreeBSD's JDK works, works well, and has for some time. Whether it meets your standards or not is up for debate, but you can certainly test it with the applications you need to run and see for yourself.
Not that I'm defending the tone of the grandparent post (though I did laugh a little). I'm a BSD user, and I don't care if you use it or not, but I'm not going to be a di
Re:Java support? (Score:2)
I find it rather funny that most of the responses claim that I haven't looked at the ports tree. On the contrary, I have kept very close tabs on the advancement of Java under FreeBSD. Back when our app ran under 1.1.8, we happily deployed FreeBSD. I will be first in line to deploy it again when the 1.4 JDK is bumped up
Re:Java support? (Score:2)
Maybe you've been refreshing that page every few months, but I doubt you've been keeping close tabs on anything.
You're free to use whatever you want for whatever reason you want. No need to pull my leg.
Re:Java support? (Score:2)
Re:Java support? (Score:3, Informative)
And in all my experiences (I know, anecdotal evidence, but still, obne that is confirmed by many others who tried) 'usable for most tasks' in the FreeBSD world is a lot more usable then 'production ready' in the Windows world, and even in the Linux world.
> I find it rather funny that most of the responses claim that
Re:Java support? (Score:2)
Care to give one real example?
I didn't stumble across one java program that would barf on a recent CURRENT.
NetBSD logo (Score:4, Funny)
NetBSD.jpg [netbsd.org]
Re:FreeBSD Daemon (Score:5, Insightful)
Context is everything. The BSD "daemon" is in no way supposed to lead people in worship or in any other way lead people to violate commandment #1. In fact, as an open source project, I feel that projects such as FreeBSD and Linux best represent the kind of software development the Acts early church of the Apostles would do: communal. Honsetly, it is not menat the celebrate satan or represent some sort of mystic iconography.
Microsoft, on the other hand (which you currently use in favor of BSD), is a perfect example of immoral greed (if you mods disagree; fine. I'm just calling it how it looks from here), which I find much more morally reprehensible than a cartoon devil; because unlike the cartoon, it is real.
So, as a recent convert to Christianity, I find a great moral symbol in the fact that I run 100% open source at home, as opposed to corporate mammon.
Re:FreeBSD Daemon (Score:3, Insightful)
You have your faith and its symbols, et
Re:FreeBSD Daemon (Score:2, Informative)
In short, to BSD users your argument is laughably silly and makes you look like an ignoramus.
I may be wrong, but I honestly think that most reasonable people will not interpret a cartoonish picture of a devil-like creature wearing sneakers as any indication of satan worship
I myself have walked into my church (I'm Catholic) wearing a FreeBSD daemon shirt.
Re:FreeBSD Daemon (Score:2)
Re:FreeBSD Daemon (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hell's Frozen Over! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:FreeBSD vs Linux - my findings (Score:3, Funny)
Re:what do you mean (Score:2)
Does this happen often?