FreeBSD 3.2-Release is out 93
Kenny_Dope writes "FreeBSD 3.2-Release is now available at the usual FTPs (ftp.freebsd.org , and mirrors)
with lots of cool new features.
go get it now! ( taken from freebsdrocks.com "
You BSDies know what to do.
SMP support? (Score:1)
I have never tried SMP with FreeBSD, though. I have a client who wants to know what OS to put on their new SMP box, and I've heard great things about SMP in Linux 2.2 from everyone (including Intel).
How does FreeBSD compare in this srea?
Congrats to the FreeBSD team on their new release!
Oracle support? (Score:1)
Re:Well since ZDnet and Mindcraft have proven... (Score:1)
Well have a look to what a FreeBSD developer says about Linux VM [backplane.com]. Very clean, but not designed to survive under high load. Face it, the FreeBSD people focus on performance, and FreeBSD might well be faster than Linux for high load.
Now the same couldn't be necessary be said for NetBSD and OpenBSD.
NetBSD is for development... (Score:1)
NetBSD is very fine for production servers: http, ftp, smtp/[a]pop*, irc, nntp, dns, dhcp/bootp, nfs, samba, routing, traffic analysis, firewalling/NAT, quake*
(Oh, and I use NetBSD exclusivly on my Desktop(s) as well) In short: NetBSD a Un*x style allround operating system for more than everything a Un*x style Operating system can do.
And of course it's absolutly *not* insecure:
The advantage of OpenBSD is the integrated *cryptography* since it's Canada-based (stupid and senseless US export restricions, we all know that).
OpenBSD itself is *not* more secure ("crashable or crackable") than NetBSD: Known bugs are fixed nearly immediatly for *every* kind of *BSD and the linux kernel and it's stupid to say the the number of unknown bugs is less in OpenBSD than in NetBSD or FreeBSD. Don't pay much on OpenBSD's "code auditing". We all know it's stupid to say "we have looked at the code, fixed bugs and now it's secure" - if this has worked you shouldn't be able to see any OpenBSD related bugfix in the last years (you must be blind, if you don't).
No doubt: OpenBSD is a fine OS, but it's FUD to say: "OpenBSD is secure and NetBSD is for developement".
(Well, I know that a *small* part of the OpenBSD developers and users have become experts on FUDing NetBSD (and FreeBSD sometimes). That's why I'm posting anonymously: I just don't want to get mailbombed by Theo search the FreeBSD and NetBSD mailliglists if you don't know what I mean.)
Oh, and NetBSD has a FreeBSD-style "ports collection" for over a year now as well. It's just called "packages" since the term "ports" is used to refer the many platforms NetBSD runs on (eg. NetBSD/arm32 is a "port of NetBSD to the ARM processor").
Fight FUD!
Thank you for your attention.
Re:try NetBSD (Score:1)
IBM ThinkPad with a random PCMCIA NIC (10mbit).
The installation floppy instantly detected the
card, and installing over the network took no
more than 5 minutes - very painless installation.
The kernel supports all kinds of PCMCIA devices,
and there's usually little or no configuration needed.
Mmmm.. FreeBSD.. (Score:1)
Oh well.. I know I can cvsup it fairly easily, but it's still worth it just to get the official CD set. FreeBSD is so excellent that I wouldn't even hesitate to buy an official version when presented with the opportunity.
Re:BSDies? (Score:1)
FreeBSD on laptops takes some work still (Score:1)
You're right - PCMCIA support still isn't really there. Linux is marginally better for laptop support.
3.2 is cool, but take a look at Free UnixWare 7.1 (Score:1)
Free UnixWare 7.1 [sco.com], 50 bucks for the media/manual kits, license is free to students, academics, home users and demo purposes.
and check out the SCO Skunkware site for open source UnixWare 7.1 tools and popular ports of Linux and FreeBSD programs, like KDE.
Deinitely worth a look if you want a rock solid, ultrascalable UNIX (this one is SVR5 with a 64-bit filesystem, RAID, SMP and clustering support, pentium and even Merced optimized, works on lots and lots of hardware, X server works on tons and tons of cards). Administration and configuration is easier than any unix out there with SCO's graphical SCOadmin.
Too many changes to simplify. (Score:1)
Re:when is laptop/PAO support to be added? (Score:1)
Re:when is laptop/PAO support to be added? (Score:1)
Re:when is laptop/PAO support to be added? (Score:1)
Re:Ironic troll, but... (Score:1)
Ironic troll, but... (Score:2)
The only question in your choice these days is exactly what you want out of your OS. Claiming one is better or the best isn't productive and usually isn't valid to other people.
FreeBSD rocks. Linux rocks. NT, well, it runs.
Re:BSDies? (Score:1)
Re:Record, or just too early? (Score:1)
So don't believe that all linux users thing *BSD sucks.
Re:SMP support? (Score:1)
I can't say for sure how it benches against Linux, however FreeBSD's stability and speed always keeps me impressed.
Although it has more RAID support, Linux just doesn't cut it for *me* in terms of easy upgrades, scalibility and stability.
Re:SMP support? dual Celeron, buildworld time? (Score:1)
Other noted configuration: 256ram, 9gig 2940UWscsi
Just curious...
Re:BSDies? (Score:1)
Re:BSDies? (Score:1)
Re:Record, or just too early? (Score:1)
Re:FreeBSD yes yes. (Score:1)
I just CVSupped to 3.2-STABLE (Score:1)
Now if I only could convince my boss to give FreeBSD a shot. He stares at his penguin all day long, and doesn't want to hear a thing about *BSD. Too bad. He should at least try FreeBSD before forming an opinion. Maybe in the future...
Intosi
Intosi
Re:Too many changes to simplify. (Score:1)
Intosi
Intosi
Re:3.2 is cool, but take a look at Free UnixWare 7 (Score:1)
Intosi
Re:when is laptop/PAO support to be added? (Score:1)
I do understand that vi ships with virtually every system. I do know the basics but still find it purile and unneccesarily difficult. I mean, Emacs is no piece of cake, but at least there's no arbitrary difference between entering text and entering commands. (Basically Emacs is in command mode all the time, and keystrokes are mini-commands.)
This is not intended to start a stupid vi-vs-emacs flame war. I just wanted to point out that lumping pico in with emacs is pretty laughable.
when is laptop/PAO support to be added? (Score:3)
Only I still had problems. I got the system installed, but getting it to see my card after the first bootup was a nightmare. And I was not really equipped to patch and compile a kernel. Not to mention the fact that FreeBSD does not ship with Emacs and I haven't the foggiest idea how to use vi.
My question is, when is this vital laptop support going to be rolled into FreeBSD itself?
In the meantime, I'm quite happy with Linux. I just installed RedHat 6.0 on the same laptop, and everything was flawless... both the network interface and sound and everything was instantly recognized.
This isn't a complaint, really. It's a question.
Re:Record, or just too early? (Score:1)
How about this: cvsup it and enjoy it and live life outside your choice of OS.
so what ARE the new features? (Score:2)
Re:ISO image? (Score:1)
It's not beta. (Score:1)
-lx
Re:Question for BSD people (Score:1)
;)
-lx
Re:when is laptop/PAO support to be added? (Score:1)
I did my laptop install over PLIP, that seemed to work ok for me...
-lx
Re:3.2 is cool, but take a look at Free UnixWare 7 (Score:1)
-lx
why moderated down? (Score:1)
-lx
Re:when is laptop/PAO support to be added? (Score:1)
NetBSD doesn't run on *everything*. (Score:2)
What I really want is a Debian GNU/BSD, with Debian's pleasant APT, decent GNU tools, as opposed to the dated 4.4BSD/Lite tools, and same filesystem layout as Debian GNU/Linux. That would be heavenly.
Through in GNU/OS/2 while you're at it. Thanks. ;p.
Re:Yep. (Score:1)
Re:BSDies? (Score:1)
Re:when is laptop/PAO support to be added? (Score:1)
I work in a 'real Unix shop' and I collegue uses pico for everything. He's no dummy, in fact he does a large percentage of our CGI coding.
At first I laughed at him, but he gets the job done. Incidentally, he does know vi and can get around in it but find pico more productive. I can't see it myself :-)
Re:BSDies? (Score:1)
Re:when is laptop/PAO support to be added? (Score:1)
I try not to laugh at people who use this or that. But I pity people who let software make them feel like octopuses and who choose programs depending on how many laughs they are expected to arouse.
Re:so what ARE the new features? (Score:1)
Re:Question for BSD people (Score:1)
Re:SMP support? (Score:1)
When nothing else is going on seti runs both cpus at 95% or more. But with a nice value of 1 it smoothly gives up the cpu cycles going down to 40% or whatever.
I have run NT and Solaris on dual cpus and Solaris is the only one that runs as nicely. I am very impressed with FreeBSDs multi-tasking smoothness.
Question for BSD people (Score:2)
Improved USB?? (Score:1)
Support for USB devices further improved.
I justed switched to 4.0-CURRENT after 3.2-STABLE had been out for some days. I recall that they removed the sample usb options from the LINT and GENERIC config files, and the cvs-log stated something like "Not ready for mass consumption."
Was this released to early??
Correct me if these are bogus claims.
Re:Improved USB?? (Score:1)
The sample USB configuration was removed Mon Apr 19:
Remove the lines for the USB support. It is not ready for public consumption.
Re:Yep. (Score:1)
I tend to cvsup my -CURRENT box at home about once a week and rebuild everything, though often times i'll hold off for a few days if the traffic on the freebsd-current list indicates that doing so will probably break me badly
Re:BSDies? (Score:1)
Re:Record, or just too early? (Score:1)
Well since ZDnet and Mindcraft have proven... (Score:1)
Re:Question for BSD people (Score:1)
As for the choice, I went with FreeBSD for my primary machine because of the larger ports (software) tree and what seems like simpler Linux emulation.
Matthew
Another Great Release (Score:2)
I can't see using any other OS in the near future - FreeBSD rocks.
Signed, A BSD Bigot.
Re:I just CVSupped to 3.2-STABLE (Score:1)
--Sam Stephenson
Re:so what ARE the new features? (Score:2)
--Sam Stephenson
Re:Question for BSD people (Score:5)
It seems that most x86 users find FreeBSD the best choice for them. But depending upon your needs, NetBSD or OpenBSD could be your solution.
--Sam Stephenson
FreeBSD, nfs3 and sysctls (Score:1)
As for performance, you may have to tune nfs sysctl settings. On a recent thread on one of the FreeBSD lists, for instance, it became clear that OS/2 clients interacted badly with FreeBSD's NFS write-gathering.
Also, Linux (by default, at least), violates NFS2 specs by immediatly acking write requests, instead of waiting until they are committed to disk. FreeBSD has this tunable, with the default being not violating the specification. But if you are going to use nfs3, that's a non-issue.
Yep. (Score:1)
One step closer... (Score:1)
Re:Yep. (Score:1)
i386 (Score:1)
Re:BSDies? (Score:1)
is: B S Dies
Not only does it not sound good, it looks like your saying "BS" DIE!
I like the BSDieties idea.
I've just been saying BSDite... but Diety sounds really good to me.
~unyun~
Re:SMP support? (Score:1)
Side note: while it was worth it when I built the box, dual Celerons make less sense now, as the price differential for two CPUs (Celeron vs PII) is on the order of a couple hundred dollars. It's probably now worth the extra cost to get a 100MHz FSB (when you don't overclock) and a 512KB cache (even if it isn't zero-wait). These are important for SMP.