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 5.2 Released

Hemos posted more than 10 years ago | from the and-lo-it-comes dept.

Operating Systems 507

James writes "Freebsd 5.2 is released. FTP mirrors. Release notes This is another step towards 5-STABLE. Many improvements in this release, including ATA and networking enhancements." Patrick Jensen also points out that this is the first stable release with AMD64 support. You can also see the official announcement if you so desire.

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

That's nice (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951588)

Really.

cool (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951592)

finaly there

FreeBSD on Opterons (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951595)

FreeBSD was the only *nix distribution that installed cleanly on my dual Opteron with AIC7902W dual SCSI.

Gentoo, Mandrake and RedHat crashed. Couldn't test SuSE because you can't download their 64-bit Linux.

Re:FreeBSD on Opterons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951618)

FreeBSD was, of course, the 64-bit AMD version as were Gentoo, Mandrake and RedHat.

Re:FreeBSD on Opterons (-1, Flamebait)

DA-MAN (17442) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951632)

You must be retarded, or a downright troll.

I had no issues installing RedHat 8.0 on the Dual Opteron in 32 bit. In addition, Rocksclusters.org's rebuilt 64 bit Red Hat Enterprise Linux works like a champ on that hardware with the dual scsi. I am running it on a cluster of 160 identical nodes.

Re:FreeBSD on Opterons (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951658)

RedHat 8.0 on the Dual Opteron in 32 bit.

Of course it works - I tried it too - but what is the point running a 32-bit OS?

I've heard good things about SuSE's 64-bit enterprise server-distro as well as the RedHat Enterprise Linux, but you can't download them for a testdrive. Sorry. I won't buy something that I can't try first.

AMD64 is a Tier 1 FreeBSD platform - not Beta like the Linux distros and it just worked.

Re:FreeBSD on Opterons (1)

DA-MAN (17442) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951668)

Did you stop reading after that? Perhaps you didn't get so far as to read the fact that my cluster runs in full 64 bit using Rocksclusters.Org, a rebuilt Enterprise Linux. All from source, all Free, all 64 Bit.

It's the perfect way to not only test drive RedHat Enterprise, but build a cluster in record time.

Re:FreeBSD on Opterons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951717)

Ok, fine and dandy and I'm glad it worked for you.

I don't understand your hostile attitude, though. In my original post I said that FreeBSD was the only *nix distro that worked for me and that's true. Neither RedHat AMD64 Fedora, Mandrake 9.2rc-1 AMD64 or the latest Gentoo LiveCD AMD64 did work.

Re:FreeBSD on Opterons (0, Flamebait)

DA-MAN (17442) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951744)

Yeah, and later you said you didn't try 64 bit RedHat because you wouldn't pay for something without trying it. Same with SuSE in a thread with Dilbert_.

I'm just calling bullshit!

Either you tried, or you didn't. Hell Fedora doesn't even have a 64 bit version, which you meantioned you tried.

BULLSHIT!!!

Re:FreeBSD on Opterons (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951780)

Hell Fedora doesn't even have a 64 bit version, which you meantioned you tried.

Now I'm calling bullshit [redhat.com] .

I missed SuSE because it's hidden in a fucking ftp-server and nowhere to be seen on their webpage.

I couldn't try RedHat because I would had to pay for it.

Calm down dude. Is it really that hard to accept that FreeBSD - and not Linux - was the easiest to get working?

Re:FreeBSD on Opterons (2, Insightful)

DA-MAN (17442) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951856)

I stand corrected re: Fedora/64 Bit.

I am not anti FreeBSD, in fact I use FreeBSD as my desktop. I have nothing but respect for FreeBSD. I just don't like people spreading bullshit about Linux neither.

Your post, if true, is not a very typical experience. I installed over a hundred of these machines, and never once had an issue, using the same scsi card.

Re:FreeBSD on Opterons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951855)

Huh? Rockclusters? No-one has ever heard of it.

Re:FreeBSD on Opterons (1)

Dilbert_ (17488) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951647)

Why can't you download that from SuSE? Do they give a reason?

Re:FreeBSD on Opterons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951672)

Why can't you download that from SuSE? Do they give a reason?

It's their Enterprise Edition and I couldn't find download option for it anywhere on SuSE's site.

I suppose you must be able to download the source from somewhere for free (GPL), but getting your hands on the binary packages will cost you money.

Re:FreeBSD on Opterons (5, Informative)

DA-MAN (17442) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951696)

try this link [suse.com]

Finding a 64 bit SuSE is easy. This is not the Enterprise Edition, but if you want Enteprise, you will have to pay first.

Re:FreeBSD on Opterons (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951736)

SuSE download [suse.com]

I wouldn't call it easy to find if it's not even listed on their website...

Re:FreeBSD on Opterons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951798)

Oh but it is [www.suse.de] on their press release regarding the latest version of SuSE.

I'm seriously surprised you got past the sysinstall phase on FreeBSD.

Re:FreeBSD on Opterons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951805)

So, when you want to download a distribution, do you go to the downloads section or do you read company press releases?

Re:FreeBSD on Opterons (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951847)

So, when you want to download a distribution, do you go to the downloads section or do you read company press releases?

For *BSD I just read the obituaries.

Re:FreeBSD on Opterons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951839)

I'm seriously surprised you got past the sysinstall phase on FreeBSD.

And being able to crawl through ftp server directories looking for hidden distros and reading company press releases makes you such an elite hacker...

Re:FreeBSD on Opterons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951684)

I'll give you the reason - they want to pretend to you that it's worth paying for, and that you can't get what they're selling from somewhere else (like freebsd.org :)

FreeBSD 5 works fine in production, here (4, Informative)

linuxbaby (124641) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951598)

Although they advise against using the FreeBSD 5 line in production servers, our company went ahead & did it anyway because we needed a gigabit ethernet driver that was only in FreeBSD 5 not 4.

Our site gets a million hits a day on a completely db-driven website. Both the Apache webserver and the two replicated MySQL servers on the backend are all running FreeBSD 5, and have been for months now.

No problems at all. Rock-solid. Good ol' FreeBSD.

Re:FreeBSD 5 works fine in production, here (1, Interesting)

becauseiamgod (559722) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951614)

Just another story that re-assures me completely switching to FreeBSD was the right choice.

Re:FreeBSD 5 works fine in production, here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951675)

Hah, you're as bad as those Linux twats who need a support group to justify their technological decisions.

Yes sir! May I have another one, SIR!!! (0)

Lobo93 (638514) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951816)

CYNIC, n.
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.

Hey, this is kinda funny... w00t!

I may be mistaken (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951657)

but isn't freebsd dying?

*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_
g_______________________________________________g_ _
o_/_____\_____________\____________/____\_______o_ _
a|_______|_____________\__________|______|______a_ _
t|_______`._____________|_________|_______:_____t_ _
s`________|_____________|________\|_______|_____s_ _
e_\_______|_/_______/__\\\___--___\\_______:____e_ _
x__\______\/____--~~__________~--__|_\_____|____x_ _
*___\______\_-~____________________~-_\____|____*_ _
g____\______\_________.--------.______\|___|____g_ _
o______\_____\______//_________(_(__>__\___|____o_ _
a_______\___.__C____)_________(_(____>__|__/____a_ _
t_______/\_|___C_____)/BSDers\_(_____>__|_/_____t_ _
s______/_/\|___C_____)__LOVE_|__(___>___/__\____s_ _
e_____|___(____C_____)\_ANAL_/__//__/_/_____\___e_ _
x_____|____\__|_____\\_________//_(__/_______|__x_ _
*____|_\____\____)___`----___--'_____________|__*_ _
g____|__\______________\_______/____________/_|_g_ _
o___|______________/____|_____|__\____________|_o_ _
a___|_____________|____/_______\__\___________|_a_ _
t___|__________/_/____|_________|__\___________|t_ _
s___|_________/_/______\__/\___/____|__________|s_ _
e__|_________/_/________|____|_______|_________|e_ _
x__|__________|_________|____|_______|_________|x_ _
*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_


Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

Re:FreeBSD 5 works fine in production, here (4, Informative)

zulux (112259) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951778)

our company went ahead & did it anyway because we needed a gigabit ethernet driver that was only in FreeBSD 5 not 4.

The Broadcom Gigabit ethernet drivers that were needed were merged back into 4.8 and 4.9 - but 5.1 is so stable that we're not going to change anything.

(Did you buy some IBM eServer's too?)

Re:FreeBSD 5 works fine in production, here (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951875)

If 5.x is suitable for production or not depends a lot on your environment really. For running some web based services, esp. when building that based on standard tools (mysql, apache etc) will work very well, and in some cases works better then on 4.x

I run all my machines on 5.x now, but am strongly considering to move one machien back to 4.x, why?

Because I need stuff like mjpegtools, mplayer and the like to compile and work without trouble. Currently they give waaay too much trouble on 5.x to be usable for me.

Stability? 4.x has crashed on me a few times in the last couple of months, 5.x hasn't so far (at least not without there being obvious reasons like cpu/memory failure due to overclocking)

In a server setup, neither has crashed on me ever, and I run quite a variety of servers on 5.x now, and used to run those on 4.x (and 3.x before that)

Matter of fact is that 4.x simply gives me fewer surprises, and as such is more usable in a production environment, 5.x provides interesting new technology and as such is more interestign as logn as I have the time to deal with the startup issues.

So? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951609)

Nobody gives a fucking shit to be honest.

Not on Thinkpad X40 (1, Informative)

fuzzybunny (112938) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951622)


I'm running 4.9-R on my Thinkpad X40. I tried 5.2-RC2 about 2 months ago, and it was an utter nightmare. Wouldn't boot correctly, or if it did, it froze within a few minutes. Loads of errors, too.

Looks like I'll give it another try--5.x supports OpenBSD's pf and the Thinkpad wifi card (supposedly.)

Re:Not on Thinkpad X40 (4, Informative)

cravey (414235) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951677)

Well, according to this [freebsd.org] , they didn't start BUILDING RC2 until 2003/12/21. Two months ago, you probably would have built some seriously unstable code. This isn't -STABLE, it's -CURRENT. And if you'd done a upgrade from 4.x to 5.x without an intervening format, you'd have been in for some fun as well. If you'll look at the release notes, you'll also see that statfs(2) got a tweak that probably caused all sorts of problems for you if you weren't paying attention to the freeber-current list. Perhaps next time, you'll have better luck with something that's not in the MIDDLE of a development cycle?

Re:Not on Thinkpad X40 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951680)

an x40? Do you really mean that? If you do, I guess its ok, since it is shipping in Japan now, but I guess since you've had it a few months, one can guess pretty well where you work...

Re:Not on Thinkpad X40 (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951701)

Seeing as how I can't find an x40, either it is a mistake, or you are using a model that is not even released.... Seems hardly fair if the latter is the case to expect FreeBSD to support the hardware reliably...

Re:Not on Thinkpad X40 (1)

locknloll (638243) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951720)

So this makes my initial question about FreeBSD on notebooks pretty much obsol33t... looks as if ACPI really makes sense. :)

too bad (-1, Flamebait)

Tirel (692085) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951624)

too bad it still has perl 5.6 while almost every other operating system (including the other two BSDs) have switched to 5.8

Re:too bad (3, Informative)

The Irish Jew (690798) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951635)

Nothing is stopping you from installing 5.8 and making all other applcaitions use it with a simple "use.perl port". That wasn't too hard now was it?

Re:too bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951636)

It doesnt install default with perl, its an option you can choose at installation time. So dont choose it (its not default) and install 5.8 from the ports collection or download precompiled package. No harder than this.

Re:too bad (1)

and by (598383) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951642)

I'm pretty sure that you can get the latest and greatest Perl distribution in the ports. As of 5.0, Perl was removed from the base installation, so it's not like you could mess anything up by installing it via ports.

Re:too bad (5, Informative)

archen (447353) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951649)

Ever hear of the ports collection? The reason perl was moved out of the base install (aside from the fact that it's pretty big nowdays) and into ports is because some people didn't like having an older version of perl around. Now you can keep perl up to date as you want it

cd /usr/ports/lang/perl5.8

make install clean

tada, you now have perl 5.8

Re:too bad (1)

kaiwainz (739019) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951663)

If one reads the previous reports, there is a good reason why they have moved Perl into the ports tree rather than keeping as part of the default installation.

The Failure of *BSD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951626)

Of course we can all agree that BSD is a failure, but why did BSD fail ? Once you get past the fact that BSD is fragmented between a myriad of incompatible kernels, there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems. BSD experienced moderate success about 15 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. We all know BSD keeps losing market share but why ? Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players ? Or is it larger than their troubled personalities ? The record is clear on one thing : no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for BSD.

Question (5, Interesting)

Imperator (17614) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951629)

I'm happy with my Linux system right now. It supports all my hardware and gives me a nice desktop. Why, beyond standard geek curiosity, should I switch to *BSD? I've used OpenBSD a bit and the ports system seemed kinda cool, though not as simple or powerful as my distribution's package manager. Where's the big advantage for me? Performance? Philosophy? In my very limited and anecdotal experience, Linux has seemed much faster than OpenBSD. I'd ideally like to try one of the free BSDs, but I'm having trouble convincing myself that there's really a point. (This is not intended as a troll. Really, I just want to know.)

Re:Question (-1, Flamebait)

I Be Hatin' (718758) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951667)

Why, beyond standard geek curiosity, should I switch to *BSD?

So you can be 1337, of course! That seems to be the motivation for most of the *BSD users here on /.

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951671)

...so there will be somebody to talk to the bsd is dying trolls?

Re:Question (5, Interesting)

Bluesman (104513) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951688)

One of the biggest selling points for me is the ease of administration with ports. The ports system is kept up to date VERY well, so it's rare to come across a port that's broken or that won't build. Also, it's really nice to be able to set compilation options so you never are searching for the "right" binary. Ports does it all for you.

Also, the documentation is fantastic. The FreeBSD handbook has everything you could possibly want to know about system administration, and all the man pages are well maintained and actually there.

As far as performance goes, I'm sure there's not much of a difference. The reason you'd want to switch is that you'd want a mature, complete system, rather than a hodgepodge of libraries and binaries. It makes it a lot easier and more enjoyable to get stuff done.

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951689)

Eh, couple reasons. BSD has a much larger and more active developer base, it's more stable than Linux for servers, some of the hardware drivers are nicer, more secure, scales better, etc etc. OK I'm done.

Re: Mandrake (2, Insightful)

Quantum-Sci (732727) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951695)

Agree.

Time is an important factor. I think the BSDs are great for internet servers, though I don't see how they're any more secure than a properly set up Mandrake system. Yes, I use Mandrake, not because I'm a n00b, but because Suse cost me at least a month of downtime over the past year. I need my systems, to get actual work done.

Though I'm glad the BSDs are there, for my purposes Linux just works.

Re:Question (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951697)

Well ... don't. If you are happy with what you have, stay where you are.

I'm happily running FreeBSD on all my boxen. You are happily running Linux. Heck, there are even people happily running Windows.

Re:Question (0)

rillopy (650792) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951703)

Because you get tired of something older than two months. Once you are comfortable, it's time to change!

Re:Question (5, Interesting)

karot (26201) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951706)

I used all 3 of these OS'es a while back in a datacentre. In those days (about 3 years ago) there was a concensus among many people that I worked with that:

OpenBSD (2.7) = More secure due to better code reviews - Good for firewalls and gateways
FreeBSD (4.8) = Better more efficient network stack - Good for webservers etc.
Linux (RH 6.2) = Good alrounder - Good choice for desktop and for a much wider choice of prebuilt applications. Also OS du jour at the time.

I would be very interested to see a good modern comparison of these OS'es, perhaps even with commercial *nix thrown into the analysis - HP/UX, AIX, Solaris and SCO for example.

I bet they still all have their strengths and weaknesses now, just like they did then.

Re:Question (5, Interesting)

kaiwainz (739019) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951728)

Well, since you asked nicely, I will reply nicely.

Well, I like it from the point of the view that is is developed in the tradional way. There is good QA process, good community atmosphere which concerntrates on support users rather than giving a lecter on why their particular operating system "rocks their box".

I also like the ports system and the fact that you can sync things so easily and compile everything in a nice clean mannor. Depencies are resolved via ports, updating the core is really easy and the speed, it is great. There aren't 100s of services running when using Linux and 90% of the time I am as confused as a baby in a topless bar over which to disable, enable or what ever.

Also, the cool thing is, it isn't a cool thing. You don't have Red Hat screaming, 4 month using *NIX wantabees asking stupid questions. Sure, I used Linux for 5 years but now unfortunately, with the rise and perceived ease of use, we now have a whole new group of zealots and half witts.

Oh well, back to my quiet yet stable life of MacOS 10.3.2 and FreeBSD.

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951734)

If you're happy with what you have, then why change?

I'm not sure how you can get any more simple than the ports system. Just go to the directory with the software and type 'make install'. If you want simple and easy and Linux (the distro you use) suits your needs, then I'd probably stay with that. I switched from Linux on the server side when I got screwed over with Redhat 7.3 and support. FreeBSD was sort of like a shock to me at first due to the fact that I was used to a lot of hand holding that I got with RedHat, but eventually I found that being an admin for multiple BSD servers is really easy, and much more simple to maintain. FreeBSD also shines on older hardware compared to Linux (exempting Slackware or build your own.)

Personally I haven't had much luck with BSD on the desktop and am quite happy with Suse 9.

Re:Question (5, Interesting)

linuxbaby (124641) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951741)

You're right that OpenBSD can be a little pokey and not the greatest Desktop. I went with OpenBSD first and was not thrilled - then I tried FreeBSD.

On FreeBSD the ports are kept up-to-date faster. There are SO many more ports [slashdot.org] ready-to-go. Really a surprising amount. Like anything you ever needed, just go to /usr/ports and there it is, ready to install.

No RPM hell. Just cd /usr/ports/multimedia/xmms ; make install clean. It downloads and compiles any dependencies from source. And a simple command can automatically upgrade ALL of your installs ports every night!

I find FreeBSD faster and simpler than any Linux distro I tried.

I still think OpenBSD is wonderful for making a bulletproof network-connected server or firewall, but if you haven't tried FreeBSD yet, I think it'll make a much better desktop.

Re:Question (-1, Offtopic)

Walterk (124748) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951745)

  • Maturity
  • Stability
  • Consistency


As the admin of my own home network, I've switched to almost completely NetBSD. Both on client and server side. It gives me extraordinary stability on all the machines. It also gives me a consistent manner of behaviour across all systems. Most important of all, it doesn't get in my way. It sort of does just want I want it to. Pkgsrc (the NetBSD ports) is available via NFS to all machines, which allows them to install any program with great ease.

If you're worried about speed; that's just OpenBSD attempting to be secure. Free and NetBSD both give you a much faster system. NetBSD's just as secure as OpenBSD (but without the hype).

NetBSD has made my life as admin of the network so easy, I actually have time for other things, such as finishing those reports, etc.

Re:Question (1)

jhines (82154) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951862)

If your happy with what you got, why switch?

IMHO one should find a distribution they like, and stick with it. The FLOSS situation is such that any new feature is implemented by the others pretty quickly. And one should support the folks that make the distribution.

FreeBSD has been geared more to the server market, not that it really makes a difference.

Re:Question (5, Informative)

bluGill (862) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951867)

It "feels" right. I grew up on BSD systems (okay, sunOS 4 wasn't exactly BSD, but it was closer to that than system V), so BSD feels right. I like the way it works.

The differences are subtile though. I can use either linux or BSD systems without problem, and if I don't do anything to find out which I'm using it can take a long time before I find a difference.

Traditionaly linux has supported more hardware, but sometimes that hardware wasn't so good. FreeBSD traditionally has better (faster) networking, and better support for server class hardware. (Years ago this ment if you went with SCSI you used FreeBSD, IDE you used Linux, but that was years ago) In these modern times both have good support for most hardware you are likely to find in the real world, or neither has support.

OpenBSD and NetBSD are not the same as FreeBSD. FreeBSD is faster and better suited to the desktop, though if the desktop is your goal, a lot of what you want on the desktop gets into linux first. OpenBSD is more secure, at least in their (extreemly limited) default install, I wouldn't run a firewall with anything else. Otherwise I'm not sure I'd bother with openBSD. NetBSD runs everything you are likely to care about, and it is supported. Linux may have had prots to more systems, but half those ports are broken is seems. So if you want to run that Vax in the corner, or some other strange macine netBSD is your only reasonable option. Once you run it one place it may be easier to run it everywhere. (Yes there are good reasons to run old hardware even though a typical desktop today is faster. Those who have good reason know who they are)

In summery: FreeBSD and Linux are mostly an issue of Ford vs Chevy. Some people prefer one over the other, but in reality the differences are not significant. NetBSD and OpenBSD are for specialized uses, but still worth useing for a lot of people.

Re:Question (0)

aliquis (678370) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951878)

OpenBSD is probably as slow as you can go. Their goal is not ultimate desktop performance, it's security. Look for performance somewhere else until it's "secure enough".

FreeBSD has for a long time been THE STUFF for speed, but that's not quite true longer since the release of Linux 2.6.

Ports offer a great advantage if you want to build stuff with your own options, but it requires time, bandwidth and some knowledge of what you are doing. The speed difference will probably not be worth it but atleast you don't have to use all those toolkits you don't like anyway.

Philosophy? Definitly, now we are talking. If you are a developer the BSD License let you enjoy the greatness of having all the source code at your hands without having to release your own works source just because you found a nice idea or borrowed some code.

But imho the great thing with all the BSDs are documentation. Sure you have manpages in Linux, sure there are howtos, and even install guides. But with the hundreds of Linux distributions and different places and names of files and modified content of them it doesn't come close to the documentation you have in any of OpenBSD, NetBSD or FreeBSD.

FreeBSD handbook [freebsd.org]
NetBSD documentation [netbsd.org]
OpenBSD F.A.Q. [openbsd.org]
OpenBSD stable documentation [openbsd.org]
O'reillys BSD articles [onlamp.com]

Wow (2, Informative)

Bluesman (104513) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951648)

This news hasn't even hit the freebsd site or bsdforums yet. I checked this morning.

I'm overdue for an upgrade, I've got 5.0 running on my main desktop machine. I just love how easy it is to administer and how well documented everything is compared to Linux.

I haven't tried the Linux 2.6 kernel yet, mostly because there's no reason for me to not use FreeBSD. X, Fvwm, and Gnome apps run flawlessly, and the ports system is fantastic.

FreeBSD 5 is not yet officially out (5, Informative)

agshekeloh (67349) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951735)

Folks,

The mirrors are still updating. While 5.X is imminent, /. has once again jumped the gun.

In the past, we of the FreeBSD Project have started distributing an image to our mirrors and then recalled it when a last-minute bug is discovered. IIRC, at least once /. has pre-announced the release and people got bad code.

Please do not grab this image thinking that it's FreeBSD 5.2! It won't be out until Scott Long says that it ready and available, and he has the right to nix this image up until the time he makes that announcement.

mwlucas at the obvious domain name

IN SOVIET RUSSIA *BSD IS ALIVE AND WELL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951652)

Everywhere else: It's dead, Jim.

Farewell *BSD, we hardly knew ye.

Not quite. (5, Informative)

dinivin (444905) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951653)

As of 8:53 AM EST, the annoucement page [freebsd.org] does not have it listed and the [freebsd.org]
freebsd-announce mailing list has not mentioned it.

This means that it is not yet released.

Dinivin

Re:Not quite. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951685)

Maybe *BSD runs like slashdot and subscribers get early access. NOT.

Re:Not quite. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951707)

FOSDEM - What would you say to convince a Linux user to switch to *BSD ?

Henning Brauer - Well, I, like the majority of our developers, am not interested in religious wars. Every time _I_ have to deal with linux I am pissed by the in my eyes poor quality of the manpages, the incosistency in the system, and the often insane defaults. When I read Linux code I am scared by its often bad style, use of magic numbers, questionable hacks and obfuscation, compared to the clean code we try to use in *BSD. And often enough I am scared by a very sloppy dealing with copyright.

I've been told KDE and GNOME run on *BSD, and I even saw that for KDE, and I bet there's not much visible difference for desktop users between linux and *BSD with one of those on top.

For servers, the reduced complexity, saner defaults and better documentation in *BSD pays out quickly IMHO.

A special case are firewalls - over the last, well, it's nearly 3 years, pf developed rapidly to a fairly impressive packet filter, with a lot of surrounding applications to turn it into bigger solutions. I don't see any comparable packet filter in the free world, and I dunno about commercial ones, bout I doubt there is any.

Well, iptables may be able to do most of what pf can do, but it does many things wrong IMHO. And the concept of formulating firewall rules in command line options to some tool is so obviously flawed that everybody is using some frontend, with makes this further confusing and complaictedm and the resulting ruelsets worse, and... well, just compare to the beauty of a well written pf.conf.

Re:Not quite. (1)

linusn (30376) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951769)

Re:Not quite. (5, Informative)

dinivin (444905) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951794)


Yeah right. And the FreeBSD release team reserves the right to change anything under that directory at any point prior to the official announcement. They done it in the past. And thanks to Slashdot jumping the gun back then, too, some people ended up downloading bad code.

IT IS NOT OFFICIAL TILL THE RELEASE TEAM SAYS IT IS.

Excuse my yelling, but the release team has been over this with Slashdot time and time again.

Dinivin

What We Can Learn From *BSD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951665)

What We Can Learn From BSD
By Chinese Karma Whore [slashdot.org] , Version 1.0

Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. As we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.

Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.

These early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of internal conflicts that would mar BSD's progress. In 1992, AT&T filed suit against Berkeley Software, claiming that proprietary code agreements had been haphazardly violated. In the same year, BSD filed countersuit, reciprocating bad intentions and fueling internal rivalry. While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents [theos.com] on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.

As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became worse and worse. As we all know, incompatibilities between each BSD distribution make code sharing an arduous task. Research conducted at MIT [mit.edu] found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study. [rice.edu]

Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar [tuxedo.org] , rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones in software development. BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.

The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become bureaucratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.

MOD PARENT UP (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951698)

BSD fanboys will be outraged to have to deal with reality, but these facts prove with the shadow of a doubt that BSD is an overrated system that's not worth serious investment from big companies like Linux has been for years.

Suggestion (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951681)

All *BSD and Linux people should join forces to create an even better Linux. The world doesn't need two sets of free *nix clones. The world needs ONE great *nix clone.

Capice?

Re:Suggestion (4, Informative)

thogard (43403) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951743)

The world doesn't need two sets of free *nix clones. The world needs ONE great *nix clone.

No, the world needs many *nix clones. It helps move things and sometimes things move in the wrong direction (i.e. IBM/DEC's answer to SysV). OpenBSD pushes the security in ways that the bloatware distros can't but the bloatware helps get more people comfortable with the *nix systems.

I would like to see a distory using the Linux kernel and most of the BSD tools just to see how it would evlolve.

Re:Suggestion (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951758)

*BSD a Unix clone?
And why shouldn't there be open source operating systems to chose from?
I mean, isn't that one of the points of open source?

Developer laments: What Killed FreeBSD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951683)

The End of FreeBSD

[ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]

When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.

Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.

FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.

It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.

So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.

Discussion

I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.

From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.

There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.

Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.

Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?

Shouts

To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.

To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. It's when you get distracted by the politickers that they sideline you. The tireless work that you perform keeping the system clean and building is what provides the platform for the obsessives and the prima donnas to have their moments in the sun. In the end, we need you all; in order to go forwards we must first avoid going backwards.

To the paranoid conspiracy theorists - yes, I work for Apple too. No, my resignation wasn't on Steve's direct orders, or in any way related to work I'm doing, may do, may not do, or indeed what was in the tea I had at lunchtime today. It's about real problems that the project faces, real problems that the project has brought upon itself. You can't escape them by inventing excuses about outside influence, the problem stems from within.

To the politically obsessed - give it a break, if you can. No, the project isn't a lemonade stand anymore, but it's not a world-spanning corporate juggernaut either and some of the more grandiose visions going around are in need of a solid dose of reality. Keep it simple, stupid.

To the grandstanders, the prima donnas, and anyone that thinks that they can hold the project to ransom for their own agenda - give it a break, if you can. When the current core were elected, we took a conscious stand against vigorous sanctions, and some of you have exploited that. A new core is going to have to decide whether to repeat this mistake or get tough. I hope they learn from our errors.

Future

I started work on FreeBSD because it was fun. If I'm going to continue, it has to be fun again. There are things I still feel obligated to do, and with any luck I'll find the time to meet those obligations.

However I don't feel an obligation to get involved in the political mess the project is in right now. I tried, I burnt out. I don't feel that my efforts were worthwhile. So I won't be standing for election, I won't be shouting from the sidelines, and I probably won't vote in the next round of ballots.

You could say I'm packing up my toys. I'm not going home just yet, but I'm not going to play unless you can work out how to make the project somewhere fun to be again.

= Mike

--

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -- Theodore Roosevelt

recommend using FreeBSD as a desktop (5, Informative)

linuxbaby (124641) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951687)

A little FreeBSD evangelism FWIW:

My company uses FreeBSD 5 on half of our desktop machines in the office. All the PCs for customer service and general-purpose use are all running:

The fonts are anti-aliased and beautiful. I find it easier on the eyes than Windows or OS X.

It only takes us about an hour to set up a whole new ready-to-go office desktop PC for the office, using FreeBSD ports. And we LOVE that all boxes' apps are kept automatically updated every night using the portupgrade scripts.

If you're thinking of dabbling with FreeBSD as a desktop I can highly recommend it.

In fact I'm typing this on my Gateway laptop with FreeBSD 4.9 right now. Here are some FreeBSD laptop compatibility lists [google.com] if you want to see if yours will work.

Re:recommend using FreeBSD as a desktop (2, Interesting)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951760)

I've been considering trying BSD but I have to wonder how well does it support *older* SMP machines? I have a dual Pentium Pro box just sitting here with ISA slots. BTW the ports system looks cool, from the examples in the comments.

Re:recommend using FreeBSD as a desktop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951832)

The fonts are anti-aliased and beautiful. I find it easier on the eyes than Windows or OS X.

Yeah right.. like you ever have seen som osx fonts..

Curious (3, Interesting)

CaptainAlbert (162776) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951691)

I just had a sudden realisation that although I consider myself a free software enthusiast, I am ashamed to say that I know *nothing* about FreeBSD at all! Well, I remember reading about where the codebase came from, once upon a time, but that's about it. Perhaps someone could give me an executive summary to stem this clueless feeling...

Who uses it? How exactly is it licensed? How is it maintained and managed? Are there different distros as for Linux? Do any companies provide FreeBSD-based solutions, or is it just for hobbyists? What can it run on? Should *I* consider running it, and why?

I appreciate that I *could* go looking for all this information and piece the story together myself, but hell, it's easier this way. :) Zealots, do your worst!

Re:Curious (2)

Dave2 Wickham (600202) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951764)

I'm not a *BSD expert (I use Linux), but anyway...

1) People who want to use it I guess; I've seen quite a few Web servers running it.
2) BSD licence. Basically do what you want with it, sell it in binary form, whatever, as long as you don't try and misrepresent the original author(s).
3) Not sure...
4) There are different BSDs, yes, e.g. FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD etc.
5) Not sure, again. Although Hotmail used to run on *BSD, FWIW
6) With NetBSD, most platforms.
7) No idea what your circumstances are...

Re:Curious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951795)

I hear there is this website freebsd.org [freebsd.org] that has a lot of information on FreeBSD.

it's just a rumor though...

Re:Curious (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951853)

I think I can help put this in perspective:
  • Linux is growing.
  • FreeBSD is dying.
Hope this helps.

Re:Curious (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951859)

BSD licensed code is marginally less restrictive than public domain. You need to keep the licenses in place in the source code. Other than that, you're pretty much free to do whatever you want with it and don't have to release code. That's why Windows and MacOS have used BSD code.

(And Microsoft's ranting about the free software is particularly funny since they have no qualms against using it in their products.)

Lots of people use it, but perhaps not as many as Linux users. Like any other Unix-based system, you have a bunch of scripts, frontends, and administration helpers. Much of the user level stuff is identical to Linux. If you use a GUI then you'd be hard pressed to tell what was running underneath without dropping into a shell.

As for differences, a couple years ago the BSD TCP/IP stack was considered "best of breed". It worked very well under load, better than Linux depending on the benchmark, and thus was used in a lot of very high load environments. Because DNA tends to flow freely between Linux and BSD camps, the differences are negligible now and Linux does perform better in some situations that FreeBSD.

There are fewer gee-whiz eye-candy apps for FreeBSD. But take this with a grain of salt. Many apps can be rebuilt on BSD with a simple "./configure; make; make install". They tend to be developed on Linux first is what I'm saying.

Now for the part that people may disagree with:
The BSD forums can (sometimes) be full of snotty, holier-than-thou, ivory-tower-sitting folks who won't deign to answer your questions. If you even mention Linux some have gotten rude. E.g., "In Linux I can do X, what's the equivalent in FreeBSD?" gets greeted with something like, "Hey stupid Linux user, this is a BSD forum. We don't do it that way." (well, at least that was my experience. Yours will be different. So don't waste any modpoints on this anonymous post.)

*BSD is dying (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951702)

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 [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] 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

How is this possible? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951708)

Maybe *BSD is dead but just not decomposing all that fast, thanks to the cold weather.

BSD packaging systems (2, Interesting)

Debian Troll's Best (678194) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951710)

In a recent consulting gig, I've been tasked with looking after a few offices full of Mac OS X systems at a design company. As many of you would know, Mac OS X is based upon a FreeBSD Unix foundation, so it's capable of being useful to 'hard core' users such as ourselves, as well as presenting a typically user friendly MacOS face to designers and the like.

One thing I really like about Mac OS X is the increasing number of Unix-derived packages that are available through projects such as fink. Fink uses the venerable apt-get system, derived from Debian, to manage the installation, maintenance and upgrading of traditional Unix packages into the MacOS environment. A neat tool, no doubt.

I'm no BSD expert, but I believed that the *BSD systems came with their own packaging system, namely the 'ports' system. But therein lies the question: if Mac OS X is derived from a FreeBSD kernel, why is the premier system for managing open source software packages derived from Debian's apt-get? Would any regular BSD users care to comment? apt-get sure is convenient, but can these 'ports' make things even easier? Should BSD user mount a campaign on Apple's discussion boards to get these 'ports' included with the Developer's Package of the next release of Mac OS X? Apple is quite the innovator in ports after all, being a pioneer of both USB and FireWire. BSD ports could be another feather in their technical cap.

I look forward to the responses of the BSD community. Mac OS X, powered by FreeBSD, is a really rockin' platform!!

Re:BSD packaging systems (1)

Zefram (49209) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951823)

Ports isn't really part of the operating system, it's just the package installation utility.

What Mac OS X did get from FreeBSD were basic utilities (ps, ls, etc but don't quote me), the TCP/IP stack, domain sockets, and the low level UNIX workings. They pulled this from the 5.1 tree.

I run a few servers on FreeBSD, and I have mixed feelings about ports. It's great to be able to run a script nightly to pull the latest source files for -STABLE and the ports tree and rebuild the applications that have been updated. The one thing that irks me about ports is that it's all or nothing. If you install MySQL from source, but want to install MySQL CC from ports; ports will try to install MySQL for you. Also, I don't find the configure options terribly well laid out. I'm never sure what to use (or if they'll stick on an upgrade). To illustrate, you'd go into /usr/ports/lang/php to build php and type something like this for building in OpenSSL support:

make -DWITH_OPENSSL

On my desktop FreeBSD system, I install almost everything from ports.. I don't want to be bothered configuring KDE. But, my servers I do libraries in ports applications/daemons in source.

Re:BSD packaging systems (1)

beattie (594287) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951845)

Well, the Kernel is not FreeBSD's kernel... OSX uses Mach. Just the base system comes from FBSD. The utilities and stuff like that. Also, there are a lot of pieces even in that base that are modified for OSX. As for the package manager. The fact that Fink is like Apt from Debian linux doesnt matter. you could write a thing that uses ports on OSX (and actually, I think there might be a project like that). They just did it that way because that's what they wanted to do.

No point in discussing this with Apple (1)

jocknerd (29758) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951854)

Finks has no association with Apple. There is a ports in the works. Its called DarwinPorts [opendarwin.org] .
Doesn't have nearly as many packages as Fink does however.

Re:BSD packaging systems (2, Informative)

dubstop (136484) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951868)

As a developer, I use FreeBSD at work, and OSX at home. On OSX I now use darwinports, rather than Fink, after having a kernel panic caused by Fink. I don't particularly blame Fink, as it's still in beta, but as that was my first (and last so far) kernel panic in OSX, I thought that I'd give something else a try until it was more stable.

Personally, I think that darwinports is slightly easier to use than Fink, but there's not a lot of difference. The downside is that there are a lot more packages available in Fink, although the number for darwinports is increasing steadily.

My only real gripe with darwinports is that, by default, it installs packages into /opt, which is a bit too Solaris-like for me. That's easy enough to change, though.

In comparison to the ports system on FreeBSD, darwinports is easier to use. With darwinports, installing a package is as easy as 'ports install package', whereas in FreeBSD ports, you need to cd to the appropriate directory and then do a 'make install'. As a developer, I've got no problems using makefiles, but I can see how they might put off some non-developers.

Fact: FreeBSD is dying (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951722)

In the final analysis only one fact remains:
*BSD is dead

New Hardware Support? (-1, Flamebait)

Czmyt (689032) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951725)

Maybe this version will be the charm, the one that recognizes my network card and display card and monitor at the same time, so that I can use it to connect to my LAN and the Internet, and also see what I'm doing at the same time! Am I the only one who has tried FreeBSD and had terrible luck with it recognizing and configuring key pieces of hardware? I am surprised that anyone runs FreeBSD (or cares) considering how well the major Linux distributions handle the recognition of such a wide variety of hardware devices. Of course, I'm going to try FreeBSD, because I would really like to see it work on one of my machines. Will I be able to get GNOME compiled from the Ports collection this time? It's always interesting to see, but usually disappointing too!

Just for making it quick... (-1, Offtopic)

LynXmaN (4317) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951739)

I for one, welcome our new beowulf cluster of dying *BSD overlords

In soviet rusia *BSD releases you!

Re:Just for making it quick... (0, Offtopic)

Dreadlord (671979) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951824)

And they say old timers left /. because of trolls ;)

the thrill is gone (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951748)

FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavor you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.

It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimize doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.

So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.

Re:the thrill is gone (1)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951851)

So: Why didn't you put your name on it?

bwahahaha!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951791)

he quote on the bottom of this page is "Death is a spirit leaving a body, sort of like a shell leaving the nut behind. -- Erma Bombeck"

Hard Times for *BSD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951801)

Sure, we all know that *BSD is a failure, but why? Why did *BSD fail? Once you get past the fact that *BSD is fragmented between a myriad of incompatible kernels, there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems. *BSD experienced moderate success about 15 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. We all know *BSD keeps losing market share but why? Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players? Or is it larger than their troubled personas?

The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.

PowerPC (2, Interesting)

smeeze (67566) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951811)

anyone know how well PowerPC is supported?

FreeBSD is dying (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951819)

Fact: *BSD is dying

It is common knowledge that *BSD is dying. Everyone knows that ever hapless *BSD is mired in an irrecoverable and mortifying tangle of fatal trouble. It is perhaps anybody's guess as to which *BSD is the worst off of an admittedly suffering *BSD community. The numbers continue to decline for *BSD but FreeBSD may be hurting the most. Look at the numbers. The erosion of user base for FreeBSD continues in a head spinning downward spiral.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of BSD 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 marketing 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 hobbyist dilettante dabblers. In truth, for all practical purposes *BSD is already dead. It is a dead man walking.

Fact: *BSD is dying

FreeBSD may be nice, but this is nicer: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951822)

Click me. [milked.free.fr]

Yet another FreeBSD problem (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951865)

Jermaine is voicing concerns about his brother's integrity and believes that he is innocent.

"My brother is innocent. We are behind him 1,000 per cent," Jermaine said, addressing charges that Jackson sexually abused 12-year-old Gavin Arvizo.

Apparently, he has spoken to his brother every day since Michael, who has been bailed for one million dollars, was arrested for oral sex, mutual masturbation and inappropriate sexual touching.

Still not stable (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 10 years ago | (#7951873)

Look here [freebsd.org] to see what other work needs to be done.

They claim 5.3 will be the stable version but I will not upgrade. I am sticking with 4.9 for now.

For anyone who hasn't seen it yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7951881)

The ultimate proof that bsd is superior to linux.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~marcone/bsdversuslinux.htm l
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?