NetBSD 2.1 Released 109
jschauma writes "NetBSD for everyone! Lots of news
regarding new NetBSD releases: On October 31st, 2005, NetBSD 2.0.3, a
source-only security update of the NetBSD 2.0 release, was announced.
Since many people are still somewhat confused by the new versioning scheme
used in NetBSD, this release was preceeded by an
explanation of the NetBSD branches. Only two days after the 2.0.3
announcement, on November 2nd, 2005, NetBSD
2.1 was released. NetBSD
2.1 is the first maintenance release of the netbsd-2 release branch, and
was announced with binary distributions for 54 architectures. Primary means
of distribution include bittorrent."
jschauma continues, "Not
entirely by coincidence, a number of security
advisories was released almost simultaneously, which for the most part
have been fixed in these two latest releases. However, since the release
engineering process could not be delayed even further, there are three
advisories that affect even NetBSD 2.1 -- a security update on this branch (ie
NetBSD 2.1.1) is expected to be released very soon as well. Finally, the
NetBSD release engineering team also released an update of revised
estimate for the release date of NetBSD 3.0, the next major release which
will bring a number of new features. Please consider making a tax-deductible (in the US)
donation to support NetBSD."
NetBSD 3.0 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:NetBSD 3.0 (Score:2, Funny)
Is that before the bananas on the counter spoil? Or maybe when my bread starts growing mold?
Get with the program, concrete date references are out of style now!
Re:NetBSD 3.0 (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Is there (Score:3, Informative)
some... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:some... (Score:2)
Re:some... (Score:2)
(Powermac 7200)
Re:some... (Score:4, Informative)
Don't believe the hype. That's one of few Powermacs not supported by NetBSD. Want to know why? It's not for lack of want or trying-- the 7200 was, and still is, a bastard child of the Power Macintosh line.
--Alex
(Owner of Power Mac 8500s and 8600s that run NetBSD like champs. For extra street-cred, I've installed it successfully on older Mac IIci's, and SE/30's.)
Re:some... (Score:2)
Re:some... (Score:1)
Re:some... (Score:2)
After I got through with it, I just wiped it and threw Mac OS 7.1 back on it. With the low amount of RAM it had (8MB), it was refreshing to get something that had a usable GUI and I had a comprehensive suite of old-timey apps
Re:Is there (Score:1)
You know this is a lame article when... (Score:1, Funny)
I got one. (Score:2)
Re:I got one. (Score:2)
Actually, it's a MIPS based RaQ2+ and a Qube2, but you get the idea..
Re:I got one. (Score:1)
Re:I got one. (Score:1)
It's true, karma be damned.
Re:You know this is a lame article when... (Score:2, Funny)
I find a hard time keeping track of all the *BSDs. There's
OpenBSD
NetBSD
FreeBSD
I also see DeadBSD a lot here on /. Can't find the website to download.
*BSD (Score:4, Informative)
There are THREE (not counting DragonFly BSD [dragonflybsd.org])
OpenBSD = Secure
FreeBSD = Feature-Rich
NetBSD = Portable (54 Architectures?!)
Contrast that to the seventeen-jillion Linux distros out there; I hardly think folks can complain about being confused by the overwhelming multitude (NOT!) of BSD derivatives.
Seriously, though. I like to tell people BSD stands for "Better Stripped Down" 'cuz if you need a small server, running on commodity (read: "used") hardware, BSD will serve you very well.
You don't want your firewall running OOo, or come standard with seven different mail readers. Lean and mean, that's BSD's selling point.
Re:*BSD (Score:1)
Re:*BSD (Score:1, Informative)
Weird, NetBSD holds the land speed records
http://www.netbsd.org/Changes/#internet2-landspeed 2 [netbsd.org]
> Then "more scalable"? Ditto
I agree that's linux' forte right now. SMP support in *BSDs is no way as mature as linux'
> "More portable"? Oh wait...
NetBSD is indeed more portable than linux. Sure, linux claims to support more architectures, but the vanilla kernels often fail to compile on non-i386 machines
Re:*BSD (Score:1, Interesting)
http://lsr.internet2.edu/ [internet2.edu]
I'm talking about *now*, not a year and a half ago.
NetBSD is indeed more portable than linux.
No it isn't, Linux runs on far more CPu architectures.
Sure, linux claims to support more architectures, but the vanilla kernels often fail to compile on non-i386 machines (PPC wasn't compilable by default until like 2 years ago), and hmm.. getting the machine to work only up to single user mode is not what I would quality as running linux.. NetBSD
Re:*BSD (Score:2)
you do realize that you just throw a hardware benchmark result at the efficiency statement ? i'm pretty sure that netbsd's networking overhead is smaller than the one of linux and therefore it will be faster on the same hardware
the comment 2 steps above said that netbsd is really portable to many plaforms, whereas linux can only boot in single mode on quite many of the "supported architectures". and as an answer to that you proudly show 4 most common platforms working (go try to
Re:You know this is a lame article when... (Score:2)
Re:You know this is a lame article when... (Score:1)
You can almost hear... (Score:2)
Re:You can almost hear... (Score:1)
Re:You can almost hear... (Score:2)
I used to run NetBSD on my dreamcast. Why? I don't know....
Re:You can almost hear... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You can almost hear... (Score:4, Informative)
who loves BSD! I still do!
me too! but seriously, i run 2.0.2/current at home on a couple of boxes (along with slackware and *gasp* w2k) and its great. small, stable, elegant, has a wide selection of packages (with stellar management, i might add) and a whole array of nice toys to play with. its strongest point, imho, is the separation of the base system from the extra software, which also goes for the other younger bsds out there.in other news pkgsrc on SFU updated [netbsd.org], the new pf from obsd/3.8 is getting ported [net-server3.de], there is also a kernel emulator for fbsd/5+ [netbsd.org] and a smbus implementation [netbsd.org]. matlab works [netbsd.org] too and some people might be interested in a list [dnsalias.org] of translations for the `of course it runs netbsd' motto.
what else can be said, its great that *the* bsd is still alive
Re:You can almost hear... (Score:1)
Several people have reported instability in 2.0.x on mac68k [netbsd.org], growing worse with uptime. But not everyone - some say it's stable as a rock. I was really looking forward to 2.0, with the native threading, but this has made me hold on to 1.6.2 for my more recent installs. I'm hoping 2.1 has fixed whatever the problem was.
Two things I love about NetBSD: pkgsrc, and the ease of upgrades. Pkgsrc is the best package manager I've ever worked with. And the "unpack the tarballs and reboot" upgrades don't get
Re:You can almost hear... (Score:1)
Re:You can almost hear... (Score:2)
You can hear the crickets, because many of the reasonable people who see the wonderful value in the BSD's, have left
The in fighting and dick measuring contests which often go on in here are unproductive and unpleasant.
I love the three main free BSD's.
Netgear support? (Score:2)
I may have to wait for netbsd 3.0. Its fustrating and my nic worked with linux 2.0.
Poor Bastards (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Poor Bastards (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Poor Bastards (Score:2)
Re:Poor Bastards (Score:1)
Re:But does it... (Score:1)
...but does it run on Playstation2 Linux Kit? Yes! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:...but does it run on Playstation2 Linux Kit? Y (Score:2)
http://gavare.se/gxemul/ [gavare.se]
- Hubert
compared to linux? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:compared to linux? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:compared to linux? (Score:2)
Re:compared to linux? (Score:5, Informative)
NetBSD's goal is to run on everything but they tend to not include drivers sometimes. Its the fastest OS i've ever used on sparc hardware. I've used linux, netbsd, and often run freebsd. I can tell you that BSDs are administered a bit differently and the ports (pkgsrc i think in netbsd) collection is a god send. Its like gentoo's portage and gentoo is heavily influenced by BSD based oses. If you like gentoo, you'd love to step up to the real thing. Now if you're a redhat GUI i want it to do everything kind of guy stick to fedora, ubuntu, mandrake or the like. They are for the masses. DesktopBSD or several other bsd for the masses projects may someday yield a similar bsd offering.
In open source land, there's now a selection. Linux (distro list here), FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, OpenDarwin/Darwin, DragonFlyBSD, DesktopBSD (although just freebsd with a gui not a real fork), Solaris/OpenSolaris. Pick based on your needs: hardware support, ease of use, features and how you think. Some people just get system v unix and others prefer bsd. I think most linux distros lean toward system v minus gentoo and solaris is in that camp obviously. Everything else listed is a bsd style os with darwin being the freak mach (richard stallman wishes) version. In case you haven't noticed its a holy war. To summorize, its like asking why linux is better than windows to me. (linux is obviously better) But, there are select few things that windows excels at like running your local game store's games.
Oh not to confuse you, richard stallman is the guy that made this all possible. His vision is to give everyone NEXTSTEP by duplicating software from 1988 that steve jobs had and rebranding it GNU/Mach GNU/Hurd and using the GNUSTEP and windowmaker software to accomplish his task. Someday we'll have free NEXTSTEP. For now he settles for the Linux kernel which he can't control. If he didn't, he'd have no kernel for his lovely GNU userland.
So you see the linux system is flawed in one sense.. the kernel is not tied to the userland (software that you run). The advantage is portability and the down side is speed and integration. Its the tossup between linux and every other OS i've listed. Strictly speaking linux is just a kernel and the GNU supplies the rest. There's an effort among the BSD zealots to replace every GNU program with a BSD licensed replacement. Its a big pissing match. You can love linux and not like the GNU and i think most people fall into this category that give kudos to linux. If this weren't true, everyone would be working on GNU/Hurd right now.
If you have more questions, look at www.gnu.org, www.netbsd.org and www.freebsd.org for more information.
I have six computers in my home and 4 run bsd derived operating systems. I couldn't be happier with them.
Re:compared to linux? (Score:3, Informative)
However, a big advantage of BSD is the base distribution where you get libraries and base tools together with the kernel. There's no risk of a system call existing in the libraries but not in the kernel, and there's no risk of the basic tools being out of sync. Some linux dists are sort of like this too, but it's usually more cumbe
Why is this garbage modded up? (Score:2)
"To summorize, its like asking why linux is better than windows to me. (linux is obviously better) "
Really? I guess you must own one of those crap walmart boxes then.
Your post has a few truths and a lots of BS. It's really unhelpful for someone truly interested in the differences between netbsd and linux.
Gross Misrepresentation of GNU (Score:3, Interesting)
So you see the linux system is flawed in one sense.. the kernel is not tied to the userland (software that you run).
You don't know what you are talking about. Both BSD and Linux interface with 'userland' the same ways, through device drivers and the C library.
There's an effort among the BSD zealots to replace every GNU program with a BSD licensed replacement.
Such people are in the minority. The GNU Core Utilities are generally regarded as superior to their BSD counterparts. Indeed it was the built
parent is nonsense. Mod back down pls (Score:2)
You don't know what you're talking about. I've installed and run Linux on probably 70 different machines from el-crappo PCs, high end PCs, laptops, low and middle end servers... Runs beautifully on all of them. You should try it some time.
richard stallman is the guy that made this all possible. His vision is to give everyone N
abcd (Score:1)
Anyone else here find they often switch back and forth between BSD's ?
Re:abcd (Score:3, Informative)
NetBSD over FreeBSD? (Score:2)
Re:NetBSD over FreeBSD? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a FreeBSD user primarily and I think NetBSD has some good points like major portability. I think they do more testing and its generally a more stable OS. FreeBSD 6.0 release should fix most of the recent problems. Think of NetBSD like a continuation of FreeBSD 4.x more. There are a lot of differences, but mostly small things. FreeBSD 5 and 6 are attempts to improve dual core, SMP, and hyperthreading based computers in the long haul.
NetBSD and FreeBSD people don't tend to get along simply becuase there's real competition lately between the two projects. Both are great operating systems and I think both are good at different tasks. If you plan on running a bsd on non ia32 hardware, definetely check out NetBSD. It might be worth trying it just to see if there are any unique features. If you are a programmer and like freebsd more, you can help out and add some of the great netbsd features to freebsd or vise versa.
Re:NetBSD over FreeBSD? (Score:2)
Re:NetBSD over FreeBSD? (Score:1)
BSD Net/2 -> NetBSD 0.8
BSD Net/2 -> 386BSD -> FreeBSD 1.0
4.3 BSD Reno -> 4.4 BSD Lite
NetBSD 0.8 + 4.4 BSD Lite -> NetBSD 1.0
FreeBSD 1.0 + 4.4 BSD Lite -> FreeBSD 2.0
(skipped some versions and connections)
Related? Yes, but NetBSD has essentially nothing to do with FreeBSD 4.
Matt Dillon started DragonflyBSD as the continuation of FreeBSD 4. FreeBSD 5 is is some ways more advanced than 4, but it is most clear that 4 is more stable, so there one *might*
Re:NetBSD over FreeBSD? (Score:1)
If it's features such as rc.d as rc(8) [freebsd.org] or rescue(8) [freebsd.org], then those features were obtained from NetBSD, even if the history section in those two manual pages neglects to mention this heritage.
Re:NetBSD over FreeBSD? (Score:1)
anyway, YMMV, I just plain like it. It's not as stable as FreeBSD 4 though, nor as robust as NetBSD/i386. I've just upgraded world and kernel on my workstatio
Re:NetBSD over FreeBSD? (Score:2)
NetBSD has no such problems, and so works better for me. My
XFree86 or XOrg? (Score:1)
Re:Package Lists (Score:1)
Seriously, the package system for NetBSD is one of the best I've used, which is a fair compliment
Re:Netcraft Confirms... (Score:2)
I think you've stumbled into the wrong place. linux.slashdot.org [slashdot.org] is just down the hall, to your left.
*ducks and runs* I kid! I kid!
Flamebait? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Flamebait? (Score:1, Informative)
although you'll have to use a pre-ELF boot (1.51 works just fine)
Re:Flamebait? (Score:2)
Re:Flamebait? (Score:2)
Re:Flamebait? (Score:2)
Re:Flamebait? (Score:1)
Re:Flamebait? (Score:2)
Netboot? (Score:3, Informative)
http://vaxarchive.pimpworks.org/swdist/bsd/bdc/VA
just like the working stiffs then (Score:3, Funny)
However, if you are trying to draw a distinction between the BSD license and a free license such as the GPL, you might have a point.
But then there's always that slim, slim chance you have neither a point, nor a clue how open source works.