Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FreeBSD 7.2 Released

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the quite-up-to-date dept.

Announcements 204

An anonymous reader writes "The FreeBSD Release Engineering Team is pleased to announce the availability of FreeBSD 7.2-RELEASE. This is the third release from the 7-STABLE branch which improves on the functionality of FreeBSD 7.1 and introduces some new features. Some of the highlights: Support for fully transparent use of superpages for application memory; Support for multiple IPv4 and IPv6 addresses for jails; csup(1) now supports CVSMode to fetch a complete CVS repository; Gnome updated to 2.26, KDE updated to 4.2.2; Sparc64 now supports UltraSparc-III processors. For a complete list of new features and known problems, please see the online release notes and errata list." Adds another anonymous reader, "You can grab the latest version from FreeBSD from the mirrors or via BitTorrent. There is also a quick review of the new features and upgrade instructions."

cancel ×

204 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yaaaaay! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27813445)

ZFS + Ports, take that Ubuntu!

Re:Yaaaaay! (4, Interesting)

macshit (157376) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813565)

ZFS + Ports, take that Ubuntu!

I dunno about ZFS, but I've recently been playing with a freebsd install (7.1 I think), and ports, while a cool idea, seems pretty creaky in practice.

My main beefs were not with the infrastructure, which seemed OK, but that the package maintenance seemed pretty spotty: many many packages (even fairly "major" ones) were pretty out-of-date, even compared to e.g. debian stable, and in many cases they were installed as monolithic chunks where a bit of judicious splitting would have been very helpful -- for example, an otherwise fairly dependency-free library that happens to come with some demo apps that drag in all of OpenGL and X (it would have been better to put the apps with their heavy dependencies in a separate package, or make their inclusion easily configurable)!

Sadly, the ports collection felt kind of like a 2nd-class add-on (and I gather, that's essentially what it is). Even though there are many packages in debian where the maintainer should probably be doing a better job, on average debian's package collection feels a lot more solid to me that what freebsd has in ports...

Re:Yaaaaay! (2, Interesting)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813595)

You can usually configure most ports, try doing a "make config" on the port dir... You should be able to turn those X11/OpenGL demo apps off if the port is well written.
What i hate about binary packages, and debian suffers from this greatly, is when a feature is optional to compile in (as opposed to comprising solely of separate files as in your example).. a binary package will typically be compiled with all the options turned on, thus necessitating dependencies you may not want or use.

Re:Yaaaaay! (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813747)

More often binary packages come with the set of options that the maintainer thinks is useful. This very often means half a dozen which install dependencies that I don't want and one that I do want is missing.

Re:Yaaaaay! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27813815)

Well, if you are building from source debian will happily support you.

apt-get source package, customize it to fit your needs, let it build a package and install that.

Not more of a hassle than using ports.

Re:Yaaaaay! (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813871)

Really? As little effort as 'cd {portdir} && make config install clean'?

Re:Yaaaaay! (1)

MrMr (219533) | more than 5 years ago | (#27814247)

Yes, and probably with less effort if your {portdir} doesn't come with that one dependency you happen to need according to your comment a few levels up.

Re:Yaaaaay! (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27814517)

Huh? make config will display a menu letting you select the configure options and will automatically set the dependencies for the rest of the build. Anything in the ports tree can be installed, with any combination of configure options, with dependencies from the rest of the ports tree (or with binary packages, if you prefer).

Re:Yaaaaay! (2, Interesting)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 5 years ago | (#27815067)

What about removal of packages?

One of the things I like about Debian source packages, is that they can be compiled, installed, played with, upgraded, etc and finally removed - all that without a hustle.

Impression I had that ports is just a nice front-end for "./configure && make && make install". And as usually "make uninstall" is largely missing (as only few source packages provide the functionality).

That means over time system gets loaded with orphaned files.

Actually the thing which impressed me most first time I installed the Debian was that during upgrades/install of custom packages, it can also remove conflicting packages. E.g. during library migration, Debian would properly install/remove library needed by particular package version. Apps like aptitude, which can also automatically remove unused automatically installed packages, saves heck a lot of time in long run.

Ports in a way nice simple system and I like it more than e.g. Gentoo. Yet, for stable maintainable in long run system, I'd still go with Debian Stable, as it's thorough package management was more than once saving my servers from me.

Re:Yaaaaay! (4, Insightful)

impaledsunset (1337701) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813921)

And in rare cases when you need a rare obscure feature, it will not be compiled in, leaving you to play a bit with debuild and stuff. That sucks, too.

However, binary packages are much convinient in many cases. I've been using FreeBSD with ports before, and now I'm using Gentoo with portage (which is inspired by FreeBSD's ports) and I'm happy to turn optional features as I like, but I miss a lot of things from binary distros like Debian -- speed of installation, some assurance that the package will work, less work on my part to get it working, etc. To get the source, change a few switches and create your own deb isn't such a deal if you have to do it for only several packages. I did this on Nexenta OpenSolaris installation recently, and I say it's easier than maintaining a Gentoo installation.

And the unneeded features aren't such a big deal, really. I've run Debian on slow low-end devices, and it runs fine, they take a bit more space and the memory usage somewhat grows, but on a modern system that shouldn't be a problem at all -- it is offset by the lack of ports tree, the need for installed compiler and headers, and the faster installation. Debian developers also splits some optional features as seperate packages, where it is possible. And you never know when you actually might need these optional features.

So ports have their pros and cons, I really liked them when I had to play with them, but as I'm lazy I would choose something apt-get-style now. Debian GNU/kFreeBSD is a nice choice if you want apt-get, FreeBSD kernel. I'm not sure if they have working ZFS and DTrace support at the moment, but it's still worth checking out.

One of the main reasons I would choose FreeBSD at the moment is ZFS. And there is very low probability that we'll see this in Linux.

Re:Yaaaaay! (1)

Clarious (1177725) | more than 5 years ago | (#27814093)

Maybe you should try Arch? It use binary package but also has port like build system if you need to build your customized package (abs)

Re:Yaaaaay! (4, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27814129)

All of the FreeBSD ports can be compiled to binary packages, and you can easily mix and match between ports and packages. If you provide the -P flag to portupgrade / portinstall, it will use the binary package if one is available for your architecture, and fall back to building from source if not.

Re:Yaaaaay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27814483)

Damn straight. I run debian on a headless ARM box. I have no interest in X, but I do want to use multicast dns/service discovery. Apple's daemon (which I used to use) doesn't support ipv6 on linux (I need ipv6 to access my intranet because cisco's vpn borks ip4). Avahi does, but the debian package is built with dbus/glib/X dependencies. Some packages do have a -nox variant, but it seems to be an afterthought.

Re:Yaaaaay! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27813597)

FreeBSD just isn't ready for the desktop yet. It may be ready for the web servers that you nerds use to distribute your TRON fanzines and personal Dungeons and Dragons web-sights across the world wide web, but the average computer user isn't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can get a workable graphic interface to check their mail with, especially not when they already have a Windows machine that does its job perfectly well and is backed by a major corporation, as opposed to FreeBSD which is only supported by a few unemployed nerds living in their mother's basement somewhere. The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf (haha) providing me my OS.

Re:Yaaaaay! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27813615)

What is the motivation of this person to post this kind of post these days. I don't get it, anyone care to explain?

Re:Yaaaaay! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27813645)

This may explain things. [penny-arcade.com]

Re:Yaaaaay! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27813713)

I don't get it either. As if I'd want FreeBSD to be a desktop OS.
Desktop OS's are supposed to be ready for the desktop. Not FreeBSD.

Re:Yaaaaay! (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27814399)

It is not impossible to make it a desktop friendly, even easier than Windows operating system but you will need to give up so much stuff that it would be nothing like BSD.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/unix.html [apple.com]

Don't get me wrong, OS X is not Cocoa on FreeBSD but it uses BSD parts enough that you can get glimpse of what kind of features to expect on next OS X. I always watch FreeBSD releases for that reason.

Re:Yaaaaay! (2, Informative)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 5 years ago | (#27814899)

I don't get it either. As if I'd want FreeBSD to be a desktop OS.
Desktop OS's are supposed to be ready for the desktop. Not FreeBSD.

That's...not altogether true. Though maybe kind of. It depends a good deal on how you view computers. If a person views computers as simply a tool, a means to do something mainly concerning the "real world" and events surrounding it, but of no interest as to the computer plus software in and of itself, then that person would probably be better-served with something with Windows installed or with an Apple system.

People who have more of an interest in, for various reasons, or fascination with, the computer and its' software and want/need to have a different system are more likely to take a different path as the features and openness that some other systems provide may not be available in the common PC/Mac machines.

Many of those peoples' needs are met by linux, then there are others that have OS needs or wants that lead them to other systems.

I suspect many are like myself that have multiple OS's installed and use whatever works best for a specific task.

(I currently have Mandriva '08, PC-BSD 7.1/Galileo, XP-ProSP3 on this box, and also an SGI Octane workstation running IRIX UNIX 6.5.30. XP for a lot of gaming and some few other tasks/software that are still Windows-only or Windows-best.)

My PC-BSD system is amazingly friendly for a FreeBSD-based desktop, maybe rivaling or even surpassing Ubuntu in some ways IMHO. The PC-BSD packaging system using click-to-install ".PBI" packages (as well as having the ports system with some cool GUI port-managers available) is getting to be quite usable by the less computer-savvy user.

The automatic updates manager is no slouch either and seems to work great with both system & .PBI-package updates with little hassle. Features/development seems to be chugging right along also, as PC-BSD now is commercially-sponsored by iXsystems a "Provider of enterprise servers for open source and corporate sponsor of PC-BSD".

I have high hopes here as so far (I've been using PC-BSD since about version 0.76RC(?) or so), as PC-BSD has gotten to be very nice and easy to use to the point where I'm more comfortable there than Mandriva's desktop system as far as a non-MS desktop system with comparable features, simplicity, and ease-of-use. Of course this is purely anecdotal, but I do think PC-BSDs' version of a FreeBSD-based desktop is worth checking out if you're interested in a non-MS/Apple/Linux-based desktop system. No, I'm not associated with PC-BSD, iXsystems, or anyone affiliated with either in any way or have any interest other than as a user.

Strat

Re:Yaaaaay! (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27814419)

Generally speaking, trolls get motivated when you spare time to reply them instead of leaving to mods.

Re:Yaaaaay! (-1, Flamebait)

finarfinjge (612748) | more than 5 years ago | (#27814593)

You wrote:

"What is the motivation of this person to post this kind of post these days. I don't get it, anyone care to explain?"

Obviously you haven't asked for help on the mailing lists or usenet with this OS. Personally, I thought his post was fairly restrained. I dumped FreeBSD after 6 years a couple of months back. A straight forward security update and suddenly I don't have a working X, most of my programs core dump and I can't get at anything. And the help on the mailing lists and usenet? X isn't part of the OS. You shouldn't run programs (i.e. Xorg) that aren't supported.

Run, don't walk from FreeBSD. It is a rotting hulk of a once proud thing and should be allowed to die in dignity.

Cheers

JE

Re:Yaaaaay! (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 5 years ago | (#27815129)

My friend, active FreeBSD user, was in part attracted to it because it was one of the few problem-free systems where one can compile newer KDE and Gnome versions. Yeah, it takes time. But it also worked.

As end-user goes, there is a very little difference between Linux and *BDS when some DE runs on top of it.

Re:Yaaaaay! (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813829)

The things in ports where outdated or the binary packages? Examples? Did you updated your ports tree or used one from like 2009 q1? And as someone have already said you can set configurations for what parts you want, it's not as convenient as the use flags in Gentoo imho but at least it's there.

Re:Yaaaaay! (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813837)

I may also add that my experience (which is 2-3 years old now eventually ..) is that FreeBSD had more up to date packages than Ubuntu, and well, Debian stable? Come on ..

Ubuntu refused to upgrade from memory leaking firefox 1.0.7, with ports I'm not stuck with some old shit just because. And I'm pretty sure at that time FreeBSD had newer KDE port to.

Re:Yaaaaay! (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27813867)

"and ports, while a cool idea, seems pretty creaky in practice"
"any many packages (even fairly "major" ones) were pretty out-of-date"
"Sadly, the ports collection felt kind of like a 2nd-class add-on"

Dude, what are you talking about ? Non of this is true!
If you tried the ports that come with 7.1-RELEASE they are several months old, this is normal, they come with the release. If you want up-to-date software you just need to update the ports collection, this is done via the csup(1) utility. Please try to get a little bit deeper into FreeBSD before talking bullshit about it!

Re:Yaaaaay! (1)

Helix666 (1148203) | more than 5 years ago | (#27814191)

Please try to get a little bit deeper into FreeBSD before talking bullshit about it!

Ah, but that would require effort and waste time that {he,she,it} could be using to whinge on the internet.

Re:Yaaaaay! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27813937)

Sadly, the ports collection felt kind of like a 2nd-class add-on (and I gather, that's essentially what it is). Even though there are many packages in debian where the maintainer should probably be doing a better job, on average debian's package collection feels a lot more solid to me that what freebsd has in ports...

I don't mean to slam your dick in the door, but one cannot compare ports (apples) to packages (oranges).

Now before you fire back with, "But Debian says packages are both source and binaries !", allow me to reply, "Damn you, Debian." Seriously, though -- apt-get from Debian uses either source packages (equivalent to freebsd ports) or binary packages (equivalent to freebsd packages), depending on the commands you feed to it.

Here's how FreeBSD separates source installs from binary installs:

Ports: Slower source installs compiled on your machine with make.conf optimizations for your system's architecture. Gentoo (portage/emerge) and Debian (apt-get) have Jordan Hubbard (now working for Apple on Darwin) to thank for these. Quick explanation below in the code quote:

Ports are just a dump directory in usr/ports/<appcategory>/<appname> with a Makefile which automatically fetches(ftp) the application source code and saves it to /usr/distfiles/<appname>/, either from a local disk, CD-ROM or via ftp, unpacks it on your system, applies the patches, and compiles using a folder named usr/ports/<appcategory>/<appname>/work.

Installation process for installing imaginary app "slashdot" (assuming you have the ports tree installed on your system):

  • shell% cd /usr/ports/web/slashdot
  • shell% make clean && make install clean

Packages: Fast binary install that is compiled on someone else's system with their choice of "make config" options, for their architecture; usually a very generic build. These use pkg_tools to install, delete, get info for these binary packages.
Installation process for installing imaginary app "slashdot":

  • shell% pkg_add -r [pkg name]

When i say slow and fast for install speeds, these comments are relative to two things: source install and binary install. Source compilation time for monolithic packages like firefox3, openoffice.org, xorg, gnome2, etc. take upwards or 6 hours to several days depending on the system doing the compiling. The loss in program responsiveness by using a generic binary package install may be worth it(unnoticeable) to save 3 says compile time. With computers getting faster, optimizations are less noticeable, etc., however, programs also demand more resources as time goes on, andso this may be a wash; and one STILL may want to compile certain programs for their own machine.

My main beefs were not with the infrastructure, which seemed OK, but that the package maintenance seemed pretty spotty: many many packages (even fairly "major" ones) were pretty out-of-date, even compared to e.g. debian stable

The reason for binary package apathy on FreeBSD, as I see it, is as follows. Most people that use FreeBSD don't care about binary packages beyond the base package for a RELEASE branch install from ftp or cd/dvd. For all other programs, most users will compile from source using ports and fetch new versions using portsnap, and lastly upgrade to said new versions using portupgrade. For aforementioned monolithic programs like openoffice.org, one may want to just bite the bullet and avoid a 3 day compile (which currently takes up ~12 gigs of space) including several license agreements, etc. to compile the beast, and just install a precompiled binary package from the "ooo" site.

With that said, most ports maintainers are fairly quick to release the latest version of a port, and some even maintain not only the release port of a program, but the beta. e.g. there is a firefox3(currently firefox 3.0.10) port and a firefox3-devel(currently firefox3.5 beta5) port.

Finally, I'm glad to see that you tried FreeBSD; and if you ever need help with anything, post to the freebsd-questions mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions [freebsd.org] or the forums: http://forums.freebsd.org/ [freebsd.org] ; many of us there will be glad to fire back replies to help get you up to speed.

Re:Yaaaaay! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27814313)

"many many packages (even fairly "major" ones) were pretty out-of-date, even compared to e.g. debian stable"

Really?

apache
Debian stable 2.2.9
FreeBSD 2.2.11

openldap
Debian stable 2.4.11
FreeBSD 2.4.16

samba
Debian stable 3.2.5
FreeBSD 3.3.3

I think I would be hard pressed to find ports in FreeBSD that were more out of date than Debian stable. If they are, it is far easier to for an end user of FreeBSD to submit a patch and get the port updated than with Debian.

Includes ZFS and DTrace production ready ! (4, Informative)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813463)

Cheers !

Re:Includes ZFS and DTrace production ready ! (3, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813843)

Is ZFS production-ready now? With 7.1 it was 'more or less stable' if you increased the amount of kernel memory. This increase has now been made by default on x86-64, but not on i386. The release notes don't say anything about whether the remaining bugs have been fixed, nor about whether it works with 32-bit platforms without tuning.

Re:Includes ZFS and DTrace production ready ! (5, Informative)

Koutarou (38114) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813967)

The ZFS in 7.2 is v6, and pretty much can't be brought up to date without breaking 7.x ABI.

ZFS v13 is in 8-CURRENT and pretty much is as production-ready as what's in opensolaris.

Don't expect miracles on a 32-bit platform. The opensolaris people don't recommend it on their 32-bit codebase either.

Re:Includes ZFS and DTrace production ready ! (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27814043)

The problem with ZFS on OpenSolaris i386 is that ZFS is very heavy on 64-bit arithmetic. The only way of doing this on x86 is to store the 64-bit value across two registers, meaning that each calculation uses 4 registers in total, dramatically increasing register churn. This makes performance suck.

The problem on FreeBSD is that the adaptive replacement cache runs out of memory and the kernel panics. This is a much, much more serious problem. I'll take slow-but-working over crashes-and-loses-data any day.

Still, I'm looking forward to 8 RELEASE if it includes ZFS v13 and the improvements to the sound subsystem (per-vchan volume, faster mixing, and so on).

Jails (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27813467)

"Support for multiple IPv4 and IPv6 addresses for jails"

So this is the prisoner operating system?

Re:Jails (4, Informative)

_merlin (160982) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813503)

FreeBSD Jails [wikipedia.org] are a kind of light-weight server partitioning scheme, in the same vein as Solaris Zones [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Jails (1)

Roman Mamedov (793802) | more than 5 years ago | (#27814087)

> FreeBSD Jails are a kind of light-weight server partitioning scheme, in the same vein as Solaris Zones.

Or as Linux-VServer, or as OpenVZ.

Re:Jails (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27814325)

And in the same vein, they are inadequate because all instances share a kernel. A successful attack on the kernel means a successful attack on the complete system. Hence why we have actual virtualization technologies, and stuff like colinux.

Re:Jails (4, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#27814985)

And in the same vein, they are inadequate because all instances share a kernel.

And are significantly faster (on our workload) and more efficient for the same reason. Since all jails pull from the same heap, you don't have to worry about under- or over-allocating RAM to an instance. You also don't have to contend with multiple kernels all trying to do bookkeeping many hundreds of times per second.

Jails obviously aren't the right tool for every job, but when they suit your needs, they're outstanding.

Re:Jails (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27815033)

FreeBSD Jails [wikipedia.org] are a kind of light-weight server partitioning scheme, in the same vein as Solaris Zones [wikipedia.org] .

Zones developers have explicitly stated jails as a source of inspiration.

Personally I think Solaris is the best server OS out there, and the only thing that would really make it "perfect" would be a FreeBSD Ports system (though pkgsrc is pretty close).

Re:Jails (4, Funny)

Atti K. (1169503) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813587)

Nope, there's no reiserfs support.

Re:Jails (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27813643)

*rimshot*

Let me guess, you'll be here all week? Try the shrimp? Seriously though, that was great.

I really wish BSD would take off. (3, Insightful)

Xanavi (1197431) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813479)

I really feel for the BSD guys. Just hope they can keep users. Having choice in OS selection is great.

Re:I really wish BSD would take off. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27813495)

There's been a load of BSD's getting released. OpenBSD and NetBSD have had new releases two. Do they have similar developers?

Re:I really wish BSD would take off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27813505)

Nah, I think it's mostly coincidence. There is a certain overlap (especially in the driver area, I believe), but they're fairly separate groups.

Re:I really wish BSD would take off. (0, Flamebait)

_merlin (160982) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813499)

At least the BSD-user chicks are hotter than their Linux-loving counterparts.

Re:I really wish BSD would take off. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27813515)

That's only because they're geekier.

Re:I really wish BSD would take off. (1)

s_p_oneil (795792) | more than 5 years ago | (#27814569)

I think it's because hot chicks like the horny little devil mascot better than the penguin. If nothing else, hot chicks definitely look better when they dress up as a horny little devil than when they dress up as a penguin. ;-)

Re:I really wish BSD would take off. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27813695)

[citation (and pics) needed]

Re:I really wish BSD would take off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27813745)

Re:I really wish BSD would take off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27813897)

http://images.celebrateexpress.com/mgen/merchandiser/38199.jpg

That's hot

Re:I really wish BSD would take off. (4, Funny)

cjfs (1253208) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813559)

I really feel for the BSD guys. Just hope they can keep users. Having choice in OS selection is great.

There will always be a market for BSD. Afterall, what will us elitists use once Linux becomes too mainstream?

Re:I really wish BSD would take off. (2, Insightful)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813611)

Ohh that's clever but BSD is much better in the server than linux is, i'd never use it as a desktop OS though (all the binary goodness in linux like the nvidia drivers)

Re:I really wish BSD would take off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27813689)

I'm just waiting for the year of HURD on the desktop, perhaps to coincide with the release of Duke Nukem Forever and ReactOS 1.0.

Re:I really wish BSD would take off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27813703)

I hear 2010 is the year of Hurd on the desktop. How do I know this?
I Hurd it through the grapevine.

Re:I really wish BSD would take off. (5, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813859)

You know that those binary nVidia drivers also run on Solaris and FreeBSD, right? And that PC-BSD includes them on the install CD?

Re:I really wish BSD would take off. (0, Troll)

Norpg (689932) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813879)

Ohh that's clever but BSD is much better in the server than linux is, i'd never use it as a desktop OS though (all the binary goodness in linux like the nvidia drivers)

Please don't make blanket statements like you just did without facts pointing to and confirming that BSD is better than Linux on the server, when you do you just come across as a fanboi.

And I can do better

Ohh that's clever but Linux is much better in the server than BSD is, i'd never use it as a desktop OS though. Thats what Windows is for.

Re:I really wish BSD would take off. (0, Troll)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813911)

Except, like, you know:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/freebsd_180.51.html [nvidia.com]
But maybe a binary Nvidia driver from 21st april 2009 is too old an un-maintained for you?

And where would FreeBSD fail as a desktop OS?

http://www.freebsd.org/ports/ [freebsd.org]
20.000+ ports not enough for you?

And they make a point of not binary closed drivers to, OpenBSD crew have made a lot of wifi progress by reverse engineering instead of having closed stuff, and Linux have been able to take lots of advantage of their work. They are proud of their drivers and open-source solutions vs accepting only having a closed solution.

So, very insightful of you... I seriously doubt you've got any idea whatsoever why BSD would be better as a server either, not to mention the BSDs out there are pretty different and it wouldn't make sense to group them together like that, they don't have the same advantages. I guess it's just something you've happened to have heard somewhere, but yes, FreeBSD used to be considered superior as "a server" a long time ago, FreeBSD 5 probably lost some of that but I would assume they have catched up by now. But it all depends on what you need and how you set the system up in general anyway.

Re:I really wish BSD would take off. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27815119)

Still no amd64 Nvidia though. This has been outstanding for 3 years: http://wiki.freebsd.org/NvidiaFeatureRequests [freebsd.org]

Re:I really wish BSD would take off. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27814587)

Ohh that's clever but BSD is much better in the server than linux is

It's funny that I still hear things like this.

People, Linux surpassed FreeBSD years ago. FreeBSD 5.0 lost the race to Linux 2.6. The amount of industry support of Linux (measured in number of programmers and lines of code) is huge, compared with it FreeBSD is tiny, so there's no much FreeBSD can do to catch up. If you check the list of changes of the latest FreeBSD versions, many of the changes are things already found in Linux and other operative systems (oooh, UFS journaling!). The one killer feature of FreeBSD these days is ZFS and Dtrace, which are only encouraging freebsd users to switch to the real opensolaris...

Re:I really wish BSD would take off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27815235)

Ohh that's clever but BSD is much better in the server than linux is, i'd never use it as a desktop OS though (all the binary goodness in linux like the nvidia drivers)

Care to reference benchmarks, security issues, etc.?

Re:I really wish BSD would take off. (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813631)

OpenSolaris?

Re:I really wish BSD would take off. (1)

cjfs (1253208) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813659)

OpenSolaris?

That comes after the BSDs take 10% of the desktop market share.

2148 if you were wondering.

Re:I really wish BSD would take off. (1, Troll)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27814387)

You can't get more elitist by using a cast-off product that's less open. That's like fighting for peace or fucking for virginity, it just doesn't work (although I'm willing to take part in the latter activity.) OpenSolaris is not a serious attempt by Sun to produce another Open Unix, it's an attack on Linux. Otherwise they could have released ZFS under a compatible license. Guess what? Unix is about Openness. Sun done forgot.

Re:I really wish BSD would take off. (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#27814429)

Sun released it under a license that got along just fine with BSD which is arguably more a more liberal license than GPL so I hardly follow your point.

Haiku / BeOS (2, Insightful)

Atmchicago (555403) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813649)

Haiku / BeOS. It's one of the few operating systems out there that is markedly different. And you can even test it in Virtualbox as a virtualized machine.

Re:Haiku / BeOS (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813925)

Too bad all the small alternatives (mostly the one lacking POSIX compliance / not trying to be unixes) fail in the applications appartment. An awesome OS is useless without applications, and even a crappy one can be considered ok by some thanks to them (Windows pre XP SP1.)

Re:I really wish BSD would take off. (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813883)

Didn't this happen like almost a decade ago?

Re:I really wish BSD would take off. (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27814361)

If I had a x86 PC, I would try Slackware first, then Debian and if all goes wrong, FreeBSD. New fashion eye candy stuff is either too Windows like or OS X like for me. Especially Ubuntu which its fanatics really started to become irritating.

I am using some kind of FreeBSD anyway, OS X, some of /etc is identical even. Of course, there are BSD-Lite parts and several changes but without FreeBSD, it would be a real bad experience.

I reply to your parent too. In another way of thinking, FreeBSD has 10% market share ;)

Re:I really wish BSD would take off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27813683)

I converted from Linux to BSD.

Re:I really wish BSD would take off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27814441)

And I converted from BSD to Linux.

If we keep fighting like this, we'll never reach the 2% Holy Grail of Market Share.

Re:I really wish BSD would take off. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27813693)

I really feel for the BSD guys. Just hope they can keep users. Having choice in OS selection is great.

Unfortunately, it is official. Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

Re:I really wish BSD would take off. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27813755)

Fuck FreeBSD, 5 and 7.0 are pig disgusting. The only good things left in FreeBSD are either ripped straight from OpenBSD or are reinventions of Linux.

Re:I really wish BSD would take off. (3, Funny)

Zoxed (676559) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813891)

> I really feel for the BSD guys. Just hope they can keep users.

There are quite a few changes in there, so I can imagine that they will both be happy.

BSD Has Taken Off (1)

EXTomar (78739) | more than 5 years ago | (#27815023)

But I think your expectations are a bit off. BSD has its place and eagerly accepted in various spaces but that doesn't mean "rule the world" by any stretch of the imagination. No one should feel sorry for the BSD guys because they are creating great software that is satisfying users all over the world.

It not about the technical excellence (1)

Ontheotherhand (796949) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813557)

I think BSD needs a new, cuddly but cool mascot. how do you compete with tux? Is the cresta (remember that?) polar bear available?

Re:It not about the technical excellence (4, Funny)

cjfs (1253208) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813669)

I think BSD needs a new, cuddly but cool mascot. how do you compete with tux? Is the cresta (remember that?) polar bear available?

He's MIA after his glacier suddenly melted. Witnesses saw a little guy with some sort of trident fleeing the scene.

KDE updated to 4.2.2 (-1, Troll)

1s44c (552956) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813561)

> KDE updated to 4.2.2... ... which is the best reason yet to not upgrade.

Great work from the FreeBSD project but KDE 4 is a joke.

Re:KDE updated to 4.2.2 (4, Interesting)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813605)

Obviously you have not actually used 4.2.2. Simply put it fixes the vast majority of the complaints with the 4.2.x branch.

Re:KDE updated to 4.2.2 (1)

moderators_are_w*nke (571920) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813637)

It absolutely is on FreeBSD amd64, but this is mainly due to the fact that it is still lacking accelerated Nvidia support on that hardware. Terrible hardware support (I've mentioned wifi before) the makes FreeBSD an appalling desktop anyway. I'd leave it in the datacentre where it's actually an excellent choice.

Re:KDE updated to 4.2.2 (1)

ruinevil (852677) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813785)

WiFi support will be slightly better in 8.0. They have support for the Intel 4965 at least. I don't enjoy compiling though, so I'll probably continue to use Archlinux.

*BSD is dying... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27813761)

...so they say.

Re:*BSD is dying... (0, Offtopic)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813949)

That "joke" is fucking dead since years.

Re:*BSD is dying... (0, Offtopic)

twostix (1277166) | more than 5 years ago | (#27814109)

Aliquis confirms it: The BSD dying joke is dying...

Re:*BSD is dying... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27814297)

=P

just my two cents (5, Interesting)

nimbius (983462) | more than 5 years ago | (#27813939)

and not trolling, ive had great luck with BSD subversion servers and mailservers... but ive been transitioning away from BSD in our corporate environment because of a nasty 16 group limit in the kernel, the quirkyness of ports, and mostly its inability to be deployed and managed site-wide easily (ex: redhat has cobbler, koan, satellite, and kickstart but where is BSD in all of this?)

still waiting for autofs support as well, as converting from my autofs to amd on local machines is a pain.



if i have 3500 servers i need to deploy, pxe is still not supported without a kernel hack. makes for long nites.

Re:just my two cents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27813999)

what kernel hack? I am running GENERIC on our PXE boot 7.x machines.

Re:just my two cents (0, Troll)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 5 years ago | (#27814123)

You're aware that linux 2.6.3 has a group limit of 32 right? That's really not much better than 16, which can be changed by recompiling the kernel.

Re:just my two cents (1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 5 years ago | (#27814223)

most folks are on >2.6.18 around here.

the problem with recompiling the limit in BSD is tha many apps only allocate enough memory for the 16, so if you managed to recompile with say 32 or 64 groups, you end up having to rebuild the ports tree and most of your supporting apps to make sure they dont implode when they hit a user with >16 groups :)

Re:just my two cents (3, Informative)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 5 years ago | (#27814495)

Are you aware that Linux 2.6.3 is 5 years old? Linux increased the default group limit in the following release, 2.6.4, to 65536 [kernel.org]

Re:just my two cents (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27814287)

still waiting for autofs support as well, as converting from my autofs to amd on local machines is a pain.

Pretty hilarious — I switched to amd back in the SunOS 4.1.3 days because sun's automounter was complete poop. Here you are trying to avoid using amd. Why not just bite that bullet? How hard could it be to write a script to convert one config to the other?

Gentoo (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27813963)

Quite frankly, unless you're convinced you need the security, Gentoo is much like a friendlier and slightly spiffier version of FreeBSD

Re:Gentoo (1)

moderators_are_w*nke (571920) | more than 5 years ago | (#27814121)

Well no, Gentoo is Linux which is not the same thing at all.

Re:Gentoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27814201)

Cough, [gentoo.org] cough. [gentoo.org]

Re:Gentoo (1)

Helix666 (1148203) | more than 5 years ago | (#27814293)

This may be completely contrary to what you meant, but there is a Gentoo/FreeBSD port.

http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-freebsd.xml [gentoo.org]

I've been meaning to try it. Maybe after I get around to playing with FreeBSD. I need more hours in the day, dammit. this is why the universe needs to be open source!

Freebsd indeed (1)

chrisranjana.com (630682) | more than 5 years ago | (#27814135)

Right from version 4 onwards Freebsd rocks. There is no stopping them.

!free !BSD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27814239)

Tag this story !free and !bsd.
!FreeBSD makes use of proprietary drivers and illegal software using linsux emulation to compete with other OSes. Also zfs is !bsd.

Re:!free !BSD (2, Funny)

ReeceTarbert (893612) | more than 5 years ago | (#27814793)

RMS, is that really you?!?

Sorry, couldn't resist... ;-)

Reece

Who sponsors FreeBSD? (3, Interesting)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 5 years ago | (#27814559)

First of all, I'm not trolling.

Most successful open source projects have some kind of corporate backing, whether it be developers, funding or both. Linux has IBM, HP, RedHat, etc. Sun sponsors and manages a number of open source projects.

The community behind FreeBSD have put together what seems to be (I've never used it for more than a few minutes at a time) a solid server operating system whose command-line code forms part of the basis of what is IMO the best consumer operating system (OS X). From what I understand, this is due to a small but devoted group of developers.

Still, not to bemoan the FreeBSD community's efforts, but I'm wondering if there's some kind of corporate backing, seeing as I'm certain several companies use it in critical production situations.

There was nothing about this in the Wikipedia entry.

FBSD on the desktop . . . (2, Interesting)

wrencherd (865833) | more than 5 years ago | (#27814643)

. . . is a bit like driving an automobile with a manual stick transmission, while also being a bit like driving one with an automatic, and yet not exactly like the modern compromise, "manu-matic".

(Manu-matic is supposed to give the driver a sense of the control of the stick, while simultaneously incorporating the no-brainer-ness of an automatic.)

The ports system is an undeniably good idea, but only really shines if it is supported by a full-time, high-speed connection.

Running FreeBSD from a set of CD's, on the other hand, can be really frustrating in my experience; while running Ubuntu, (Open-)Suse, and even Slackware from a CD-, or DVD installation--the way most desktop users are accustomed to--is much more doable at this point.

Still, if you yearn for the feel of cranky stick-shifts and the quirks of normal aspiration--some things that would seem likely to appeal to those drawn to open-source--then put on your goggles, fire up your broadband and pop that boot-only 7.2 RELEASE CD into the tray.

Flash is for sissies anyway, no?

An open source system BESIDES linux is releasing?! (1)

halber_mensch (851834) | more than 5 years ago | (#27815151)

Cue variations of "linux is better", "who uses FreeBSD anyway?", "GPL FTW!", and "the installer makes me frowny face" from linux fanboys that are in no way adversely affected by the advances of other projects in 3... 2... 1...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>