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 5.3-BETA3 Available

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the you-may-avail-yourselves dept.

BSD 81

hugo_pt writes "FreeBSD 5.3-BETA3 has just hit the ftp/cvsup servers. This new beta aims at correcting some known bugs from BETA2, mainly on ACPI and the schedules. It also improves several system utilities, such as bsdtar. More details available here FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE is expected October 3rd."

cancel ×

81 comments

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

Trying out FreeBSD (3, Interesting)

AresTheImpaler (570208) | more than 9 years ago | (#10173641)

Ok, I want to try one of the BSD's. Which one should I get? this FreeBSD? Or Which one would you recommend? Also, whre can I find some good documentation with the linux compatibility mode of the BSD's? I tried google, but I get too much crap in the first 20-30 results..

Thanks

Re:Trying out FreeBSD (4, Informative)

Inominate (412637) | more than 9 years ago | (#10173661)

Grab freebsd 4.10. 5.x still has some odd quirks.

Re:Trying out FreeBSD (2, Informative)

Fweeky (41046) | more than 9 years ago | (#10173752)

Some good documentation [freebsd.org] .

Re: FreeBSD is useless in many laptops. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10226340)

FreeBSD is worse than Windows XP or Linux because it has not tools for batteries as cpufreqd, cpudyn, cpuspeed, ...

open4free ©

Re: FreeBSD is useless in many laptops. (1)

Fweeky (41046) | more than 9 years ago | (#10230813)

FreeBSD has battery monitor tools galore, and supports CPU frequency scaling through ACPI and the sysctl interface. There's also an experimental port of the linux powernow-k7 module [poupinou.org] .

Re:Trying out FreeBSD (2, Informative)

wirelessbuzzers (552513) | more than 9 years ago | (#10173851)

I've been running FreeBSD 5-CURRENT. It's been more or less stable, not as much as 4.10, but hopefully it will be getting more so with the establishment of a 5-STABLE branch.

The plusses: 5.x is faster, especially on an SMP or hyperthreading machine. It also supports goodies like ACLs and snapshots.

Try the Handbook for Linux compatibility mode.

--Mike

Re:Trying out FreeBSD (5, Informative)

grilo (694373) | more than 9 years ago | (#10174053)

Try FreeBSD 5.3 when it's out. If you can't wait almost a month, give a go to 5.2.1. It will be painless to upgrade to 5.3.

The STABLE branch is, as it's named, quite stable, but it doesn't have the new scheduler (ULE), and stuff like that. If you're looking for a desktop experience, try the most recent 5.x release, if you're looking for a server, I advise you to take a peek at 4.x.

But if you're looking to find the ultimate desktop, you can look somewhere else. I've been a long time FreeBSD user and I recently tried Fedore Core 2, and I'm in awe with the integration supplied.

FreeBSD is the ultimate server Operating System, but the ports team, in general, still can't match the level of integration provided by vendors like SuSE and RedHat (even Mandrake, for that matter), so keep your hopes low. On the other hand, the ports system really lifts any problem with dependencies, and everything. The package management facility is, in my humble opinion, much better than anything else I've seen.

Nevertheless, give it a shot, it won't hurt. Just don't think you'll have the ultimate desktop waiting for you.

By the way, FreeBSD is currently on ports freeze, which means no new ports will be added, in order to concentrate all of the resources in making sure every port builds as it should. Usually, several dozens of ports are added each day, but while the freeze lasts, only port fixes will be committed.

Have fun! :)

Re:Trying out FreeBSD (4, Informative)

phoenix_rizzen (256998) | more than 9 years ago | (#10179482)

It will not be painless to upgrade from 5.2.1 to 5.3.

The upgrade will require a recompile of *ALL* installed ports due to the changes in threading libraries and the new version of GCC (3.4) in the base system.

A lot of kernel options have also been turned into sysctls requiring a thorough read through /usr/src/UPDATING to figure out what to remove from the kernel config file.

The default version of X11 has been changed to Xorg and a new make.conf variable has been introduced to allow you to choose which one you want. Blindly upgrading X apps without setting this, or setting it to the wrong version, will cause problems.

Highly recommended that people start reading the new /usr/ports/UPDATING file after every ports tree update.

There have been a *lot* of changes between 5.2.1 and 5.3. The recommended, and best, method for upgrading from one to the other is to:
1. Backup all your data and config files.
2. Install 5.3 from the CD or FTP.
3. Install all the apps you want to use.
4. Restore your data and config files, as needed.

Re:Trying out FreeBSD (1)

grilo (694373) | more than 9 years ago | (#10197294)

You are absolutely right, and I'm sorry to give such blind advice.

The upgrade procedure per-se is painless. Fetch the branch from cvs, follow half-dozen steps and you're done, but in the specific case of upgrading to 5.3 it will take much more, since much has changed.

Thank you for point that out. :)

Re:Trying out FreeBSD (1)

muyThaiBxr (141607) | more than 9 years ago | (#10199901)

Actually, you don't have to recompile ALL your ports... just the C++ ones that stop running after you upgrade. The threading lib upgrades don't change the ABI so those don't have to be recompiled. In short, it's not "painless" but it's not as painful as you make it out to be... Oh, and I don't know about anything that got turned into a sysctl from a kernel option, but I know that you have to add a couple of kernel options (or modules) to your kernel to get the same functionality... I believe there is io.ko and mem.ko to get /dev/io and /dev/mem.

Re:Trying out FreeBSD (1)

phoenix_rizzen (256998) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207567)

You *do* need to recompile *all* your apps. Otherwise, down the line, you *will* run into problems.

For instance. You install a bunch of apps on 5.2.1 that link against the default threading libs. These are using libc_r.

Later, you upgrade to 5.3. These apps are still linked against libc_r which is still installed, so everything works. Then you install a few new apps, which depend on the apps already installed. These new apps are now linked against libkse, but they are trying to load libs that are linked against libc_r. BANG! The apps don't load, you get all kinds of weird error messages, and you stare at the screen going, "Uh, huh?" You now need to recompile all the existing apps so that they all link against the same threading libraries.

Yes, you can kind of hack your way around this by using /etc/libmap.conf to alias libc_r to libkse and so on. But that's just a stop-gap measure.

YOU NEED TO RECOMPILE ALL YOUR APPS AFTER AN UPGRADE TO 5.3. That's the only way that you can be *SURE* that everything will continue to work correctly.

As for the kernel options that are now sysctls: RANDOM_IP_ID is the latest one that I can think of off the top of my head. There's at least 2 others listed in /usr/src/UPDATING.

Re:Trying out FreeBSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10225338)

What the ass?

Isn't the point that libkse doth become libc_r in 5.3?

...and thus everything linked against libc_r will already be using libkse?

...which you can force in 5.2.x with libmap.conf, anyway?

...and the past months have already seen ports Makefiles un-rejiggered (e.g. jdk14) to link to libc_r instead of libkse?

Re:Trying out FreeBSD (1)

phoenix_rizzen (256998) | more than 9 years ago | (#10238013)

No.

FreeBSD 5.3 includes three different threading libraries:
- libc_r: the old-style threading that will eventually be removed
- libpthread: M:N threading using KSE
- libthr: 1:1 threading

The default is libpthread, and this is what is set in the ports tree and source tree. Any multi-threaded app you install will, by default, link against libpthread.

IOW, if you don't recompile all your apps after an upgrade from 5.2.1 to 5.3, you will run into problems. Or, you have to create a libmap.conf file, map libc_r to libpthread, and remember to eventually recompile all your apps.

Re:Trying out FreeBSD (1)

muyThaiBxr (141607) | more than 9 years ago | (#10259391)

I've been running -CURRENT since before the libpthread integration, and I still have apps that I've been too lazy to recomple... yet everything STILL continues to run fine, and I'm on 6-CURRENT now.

I DID recompile all C++ apps (because of the ABI change with the compiler upgrade) and all threaded apps (just because I didn't want a libmap.conf).

I'll agree that it's best to recompile all C++ and threaded apps, but it's not necessary to recompile everything.

You're right about the RANDOM_IP_ID one, but that's the only one I've come across that has given me problems.

Emily Dickenson Confirms: *BSD Dead (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10182737)



Because I could not stop for Death,
He kindly stopped for *BSD;
The carriage held but just our bad code
And Immortality.

We slowly drove, he knew no haste,
Passing Linux, we dared salute, a foe superior
My coding work was but a-waste,
Doomed OS a triviality.

This is really just a question for the parent .... (1)

mcbevin (450303) | more than 9 years ago | (#10196066)

You mention that FreeBSD is currently on a ports freeze ...

I am running a Java-based website on a FreeBSD server. I recently converted the code to Java 1.5, and then realised that no Java 1.5 port is yet available for FreeBSD.

However, I was hoping that as soon as the stable version of Java 1.5 is released (expected at the end of this month - currently a release candidate is available for Windows, Linux etc), then a FreeBSD port would shortly follow. However from what you say, should I expect to be waiting a while?

Re:This is really just a question for the parent . (1)

grilo (694373) | more than 9 years ago | (#10197276)

Yes. Nevertheless, you should subscribe to FreeBSD-Java team's mailing list. They will be able to help much more in depth, regarding that subject. Though, officially the ports are in freeze, they may have some stuff ready to be committed which you could use. Give them a ring, and lend a hand! :)

Re:Trying out FreeBSD (4, Informative)

CoolGopher (142933) | more than 9 years ago | (#10174772)

For best stability, go for FreeBSD 4.10. For the latest features, wait for 5.3 to be released. At the moment I'd roughly compare the two to Linux kernel 2.4 vs 2.6 - pretty much the same deal.

For Linux compatibility, you should probably start reading chapter 10 in the FreeBSD Handbook [freebsd.org] .

Re:Trying out FreeBSD (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 9 years ago | (#10175099)

Also FBSD 5.3 is in debug mood which makes it slow while 4.10 is normal.

4.10 has the latest utilities and apps that fbsd 5.2 lacks.

Re:Trying out FreeBSD (1)

SillyNickName4me (760022) | more than 9 years ago | (#10190977)

> Also FBSD 5.3 is in debug mood which makes it slow while 4.10 is normal.

mood? :) anyway.. with the default install it is indeed. Instructions for changing this when compiling your own kernel (try it, its really simple) can be found in /usr/src/UPDATING

The debug settings in the stock 5.x kernel slow it down, but it supporting much faster ide controllers properly and making better use of resources on hyperthreadign and smp machiens can easily offset that, so you may still find the 5.3 beta to be faster then 4.10

> 4.10 has the latest utilities and apps that fbsd 5.2 lacks.

If you use the ports collection, that is definitely not true, both run approx the same set of applications in whatever version you install (the latest usually when you keep your ports collection uptodate). Also, 5.x comes with newer versions of gcc and related tools for example.

I'd say.. if you intend to try this on relatively new hardware, wait till 5.3 gets released. Otherwise, go with 4.10

In either case, ensure you install the ports collection and the cvsup package (you will eb asked about the first while selection the distributions to install, and you can get the later by answering 'yes' to the question if you want to visit the configuration panel at the end of the installation. Select packages there, and add the cvsup package)

When at the configuration panel, you should also configure X and a desktop if you intend to use this as a workstation.

Then, after install and reboot, do a cd /usr/ports/misc/instant-workstation; make install
(or cd /usr/ports/misc/instant-server; make install if you are installing a server)

Re:Trying out FreeBSD (4, Informative)

noselasd (594905) | more than 9 years ago | (#10174964)

I felt at home with NetBSD [netbsd.org]
Nice and clean, and good docs [netbsd.org] .
Some info on Linux emulation on NetBSD [newsforge.com]

Re:Trying out FreeBSD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10186716)


Wait, isn't this off-topic? What does NetBSD have to do with a FreeBSD beta?

-
-
-

*BSD Obituary

*BSD, 27, of Berkeley, CA died Monday, Sept. 6, 2004. Born July 3, 1976, it was the creation of a cluster of pot-smoking hippies who went to Illinois and came home with a reel of tape. Rather than smoke the tape, they uploaded it and hacked on it a little.

*BSD was known for its C shell and early TCP/IP implementation. After being banished from UC Berkeley, it was ported to the x86 platform, where it fell into the hands of heavier pot-smokers who liked to argue. Soon, the project had splintered into 12 different Balkanized projects. Until its death, there was almost constant fighting in and amongst these groups, sometimes degenerating into out-and-out fistfights.

*BSD is survived by its superior, Linux, as well as several commercial unix implementations. It may be missed by some who knew it, although most of them are said to be mere OS dilettante dabblers.

A funeral will be held at 2 p.m. Thursday, Sept. 9, at the Berkeley Chapel on the UC campus, with interment to follow via the burning of the original *BSD tapes and scattering of the ashes over the San Francisco Bay. The Rev. Lou "Buddy" Stubbs will officiate.

The family will receive friends from 7 to 8 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 8, at the funeral home.

Re:Trying out FreeBSD (2, Informative)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 9 years ago | (#10174978)

I would probably simply wait (as others have suggested for 5.3).

though I'm running a 5.2.1 server and it runs fine--5.3 has a number of goodies like X.org default, much better SMP support, etc.

Check out the FreeBSD handbook http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/h andbook/index.html [freebsd.org] for info on all things FreeBSD, as well as Linux binary support.

Re:Trying out FreeBSD (2, Informative)

raadradd (685683) | more than 9 years ago | (#10176265)

though I'm running a 5.2.1 server and it runs fine--5.3 has a number of goodies like X.org default

Simply set X_WINDOW_SYSTEM=xorg in you /etc/make.conf, deinstall XFree86 and install Xorg. For more details check the 20040723 entry in /usr/ports/UPDATING.

Re:Trying out FreeBSD (1)

marcovje (205102) | more than 9 years ago | (#10174981)


Wait a month and take 5.3 final if it is your first.

Or if you are really in a hurry, try 4.10.

Keep in mind that one of the main problems with 4.x is the missing of 32-bits pcmcia support. So if you are on a laptop, 5.x is quite often the only way to go

Re:Trying out FreeBSD (3, Interesting)

Xenophon Fenderson, (1469) | more than 9 years ago | (#10176064)

Try FreeBSD out first. It has the nicest installer. Then take a spin through NetBSD and OpenBSD. The installers aren't as pretty, but the rest of the operating system is configured and operated pretty much the same across all of the BSDs. In general, I am very impressed with the state of documentation. There are numerous resources on the web (e.g. the FreeBSD handbook and documentation project), and the manual pages are unusually complete compared to your typical Linux distribution.

You should probably dedicate a disk to this procedure, as configuring dual boot (duel boot?) can require some wizardry. They all run very nicely under VMware.

Where BSD falls down is on the availability of current binary updates. On FreeBSD 5.x, incremental security updates must be applied to the source code, then the O/S is re-compiled. The whole procedure is easy, in the sense that you type about five short commands to execute the whole update and build procedure, but it is very time consuming, especially on older hardware. Ports are even "worse": If you want to be current, you will most likely be building ports from scratch (also very time consuming when they upgraded to X.org, heh).

Binary updates (3, Informative)

n0dez (657944) | more than 9 years ago | (#10176831)

Try these:

FreeBSD Binary Updates
http://www.daemonology.net/freebsd-update/ [daemonology.net]

FreeBSD/KDE packages
http://rabarber.fruitsalad.org/ [fruitsalad.org]

FreeBSD/GNOME packages
http://www.marcuscom.com/tinderbox/ [marcuscom.com]

Want more?
BPM; a graphical ports collection manager for FreeBSD
http://www.meowfishies.com/bpm.rhtml [meowfishies.com]

http://www.n0dez.com/ [n0dez.com]

Re:Binary updates (2, Interesting)

Xenophon Fenderson, (1469) | more than 9 years ago | (#10182316)

Thanks for the links. Unfortunately, while Colin Percival recently began providing updates for FreeBSD 5.x, he only builds updates for X86 architectures. The KDE and GNOME binary packages are likewise X86-only. But none of this matters even on X86, because if you are regularly cvsupping ports, up-to-date binary packages are not usually available. For example, the latest www/apache2 binary for FreeBSD 5.2.1 is Apache 2.0.48, which is vulnerable to denial of service attacks, yet 2.0.50 is in the current version of ports. Not that "portupgrade -a" is difficult to use, just time consuming and occasionally broken.

By the way, have you ever run into problems where portinstall doesn't install or mis-calculates dependencies (even when compiling from source)? If I install lang/cmucl, misc/compat4x won't get installed, even though it is a dependency. Subsequent portupgrade commands complain about misc/compat4x missing, even though (strangely enough) cmucl has no problems. I don't know if it is a problem with portutils, pkgtools, ports, or the cmucl package itself. I'm open to any suggestions. I've also seen portupgrade complain about dependencies when required packages rev, e.g. portupgrade complaining about missing wget 1.9 for Nessus, when wget 1.8 was installed but not yet updated.

Re:Binary updates (1)

n0dez (657944) | more than 9 years ago | (#10188749)

I have ran into problems a few times when there were conflicting packages (eg: stuff that goes into the same place).

It seems you want to be on the bleeding edge. For that, I recommend you upgrading the whole OS to either the -STABLE or -CURRENT branches (not meant to be used in a production system). Once you have upgraded your system, you will notice that there are up-to-date packages all the time.

When a new FreeBSD RELEASE is about to be released (eg: FreeBSD 5.3 as of this writing), release engineers freeze the ports to ensure that all of them compile properly (there are more than 10,000) and they make packages for that specific release. If you upgrade to a new FreeBSD release just after is out, just do a portupgrade -aPP to have all your stuff up-to-date via packages.

If you run into trouble while trying to install any app, read any README (if available), cvsup later and see if that problem is gone. Sometimes, doing a recursive (-R) upgrade fixes that kind of problems.

Compiling means that there are more possibilities of having something else not compiling because you compiled another port with or without an option, so compile with care!

*BSD Dead From Heart Attack -sources (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10182705)

Multiple sources in Beijing well informed about North Korea said Monday that *BSD, a unix-like operating sytem, died of a heart attack in the early morning of August 13.

The sources said they confirmed through a number of paths that *BSD had passed away. Out of fears of a possible power struggle over succession and in accordance with the North Korean practice of keeping *BSD's private life top secret, *BSD's funeral was carried out without official announcement of its death.

The direct cause of *BSD's death was a heart attack, but it was known that it had been receiving treatment for breast cancer for several years, and last year, its condition grew terminal following a relapse of power struggles and in-fighting.

In addition, its health worsened after it suffered severe head injuries in a car accident last September, and a French medical team secretly visited it last year. This year, it received tumor and brain treatment in a hospital in Paris.

Re:Trying out FreeBSD (1)

phoenix_rizzen (256998) | more than 9 years ago | (#10191704)

Binary security updates have been available for a good 6 months now, maybe even longer. Check out the security/freebsd-update port for more info. It's not yet part of the official FreeBSD project, but it is on track to, hopefully, become so in the future.

As for binary application availability, when you donate enough hardware to rebuild 11,700+ applications on a regular basis, then they'll be available. As is it, they have enough hardware in the ports build cluster to build the packages for each release, and that's about it. Takes a long time to build, and rebuild, and store 11,700+ applications.

Besides, who do you want to set which options / features are available in each program: you, or some nameless, faceless package builder on the other side of the world?? That is one thing I absolutely cannot stand about RPMs, .debs, .tgzs, and other binary formats: I have no say in which features are included in the application. And don't even think about saying "just build a different binary package for each possible option combination". :)

Re:Trying out FreeBSD (1)

Shanep (68243) | more than 9 years ago | (#10223965)

Ok, I want to try one of the BSD's. Which one should I get? this FreeBSD? Or Which one would you recommend? Also, whre can I find some good documentation with the linux compatibility mode of the BSD's?

I very much like OpenBSD. After trying out *lots* of Linux distros, including Redhat, SuSE, Debian and also FreeBSD and NetBSD, I feel comfortably "at home" with OpenBSD (which I started using at 2.5).

OpenBSD is very clean. Code, system layout and documentation. They also go to great lengths to improve security with both passive and active means (code audits and extreme consistency checks respectively).

If you want to try it, I would suggest you dedicate a hard drive to it (to test) and bear with the installer. The installer is fantastic in it's simplicity, once you figure it out. This might sound silly, but it won't once you do figure it out.

Once you have installed OpenBSD, note what it asks of new users after the install and heed it. Read the man pages it asks for, then look at the FAQ and Google if you have questions. If you like what you see, Secure Architectures with OpenBSD is an excellent book, that will help you appreciate even more, how wonderful this system is.

Please Google before asking questions in the mailing lists. Almost exact same questions sometimes get asked days apart and the subscribers can get a little annoyed at that (especially when the question may have already been answered well with a Google search).

Downloading it does not take long either (comparitively speaking). Just go to an ftp site that hosts the latest version, click on your architecture (i386 for example), download all the files within that directory (typically less that 150MB), then burn to a CD using cdrom35.fs (for example) as a bootable floppy image. The structure on the CD should be ver/arch (eg. 3.5/i386) if you want to be able to simply hit enter when it asks for the files to install.

You can also just download a floppy image, boot it and install directly from-the-net. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone but those already comfortable with OpenBSD, simply because if you find you have made a mistake after installing, you'll need to download the same data again. Having it on CD or a local web/ftp server allows you to tinker with installation to your hearts content, without wasting bandwidth.

I host the latest i386, macppc and sparc64 files on an internal web/ftp server so that I can do quick network installs and also keep the latest source there too.

People say OpenBSD is "not good for desktop usage". This is just not true, unless you specifically need 3D accelerated video. I have run KDE, Gnome and WindowMaker for *years* with OpenBSD. Another thing is that OpenBSD is quite consistent across architectures. Whether you run an OpenBSD desktop on x86, Apple or Sun equipment, it seems the same. I can't speak of the other architectures, because I have not tried them.

BTW, when they say OpenBSD -stable is stable, they are not kidding. The project leader is VERY strict when it comes to where and when new features come in.

I hope you try it and enjoy it.

The trolls are sleeping... (-1, Offtopic)

BladeMelbourne (518866) | more than 9 years ago | (#10173788)

The trolls must be asleep - there are no "BSD is dead" posts yet.

Even though I dont use BSD, reading such comments over and over is annoying.

DEAD OPERATING SYSTEM SKETCH (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10174137)

Cast:
Mr. Praline: John Cleese
Shop Owner: Michael Palin

A customer enters an operating system shop.

Mr. Praline: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint. (The owner does not respond.)
Mr. Praline: 'Ello, Miss?
Owner: What do you mean "miss"?
Mr. Praline: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
Owner: We're closin' for lunch.
Mr. Praline: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this operating system what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.
Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, *BSD...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?
Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. It's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
Owner: No, no, it's uh,...it's resting.
Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead operating system when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Owner: No no it's not dead, it's, it's restin'! Remarkable OS, *BSD, idn'it, ay? Beautiful kernel!
Mr. Praline: The kernel don't enter into it. It's stone dead.
Owner: Nononono, no, no! It's resting!
Mr. Praline: All right then, if it's restin', I'll wake it up! (bashes at the keyboard) 'Ello, Mister *BSD! I've got a lovely fresh kernel update for you if you show...

(owner hits the keys)

Owner: There, it spewed some debug output to the command line!
Mr. Praline: No, it didn't, that was you hitting the keys!
Owner: I never!!
Mr. Praline: Yes, you did!
Owner: I never, never did anything...
Mr. Praline: (yelling and typing into the console repeatedly) 'ELLO COMMAND PROMPT!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock cron job!

(Rips out hard drive from computer case and thumps it on the counter. Shoves it back inside the case and reboots the system - blank screen.)

Mr. Praline: Now that's what I call a dead operating system.
Owner: No, no.....No, it's stunned!
Mr. Praline: STUNNED?!?
Owner: Yeah! You stunned it, just as it was finishing an I/O task! *BSD stuns easily, major.
Mr. Praline: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That operating system is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of responsiveness was due to it bein' in the process of recompiling itself after a particularly comprehensive code update.
Owner: Well, it's...it's, ah...probably pining for some dilettante dabbling.
Mr. Praline: PININ' for some DILETTANTE DABBLING?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that? Look, why did it fall flat on its back the moment I started Emacs?
Owner: *BSD prefers swapping everything out to the hard drive! Remarkable variant, id'nit, squire? Lovely kernel!
Mr. Praline: Look, I took the liberty of examining the system when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been printing any text at all to the screen was because of all the WORRYING COMPILER WARNINGS encountered while it was being rebuilt.

(pause)

Owner: Well, o'course it was spitting out those warnings! If I hadn't updated the kernel with an unstable development build, you might have had your FTP server compromised [slashdot.org], and VOOM! Bye bye to your business.
Mr. Praline: "Server"?!? Mate, this OS wouldn't "serve" if you put four million volts through it! It's bleedin' demised!
Owner: No no! It's pining!
Mr. Praline: It's not pinin'! It's passed on! This OS is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! [lemis.com] It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! The numbers continue to decline for *BSD but FreeBSD may be hurting the most. All major marketing surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is extremely 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.*BSD's foot is in the grave.Development of *BSD nowadays is mired by bylaws, committees, reports and milestones. Technically, the *BSD project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips the ability of the developers to deliver. There's no simple solution to this. Why would anyone choose to use a *BSD over other faster, more stable systems? We can all agree that *BSD is a failure. Yet why did *BSD fail? Once you get past the fact that *BSD is fragmented between myriad 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. Fact: *BSD is an ex-operating system!!

(pause)

Owner: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek behind the counter) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back of the shop, and uh, we're right out of UNIX variants.
Mr. Praline: I see. I see, I get the picture.
Owner: I got Microsoft Windows XP Professional.

(pause)

Mr. Praline: Pray, is it difficult to setup, use and maintain?
Owner: Nnnnot really.
Mr. Praline: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?
Owner: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)
Mr. Praline: Well.

(pause)

Owner: (quietly) D'you.... d'you want to come back to my place?
Mr. Praline: (looks around) Yeah, all right, sure.

lame trolling (-1, Offtopic)

hugo_pt (759790) | more than 9 years ago | (#10174154)

ah, so it begins..

Re:The trolls are sleeping... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10175743)

thats cuz trolls are k1ddI3-faggotz and they're busy getting their aZz35! penetrated.

We're Back, Baby! -- With a Sickening Blow (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10182820)

Yet another sickening blow has struck what's left of the *BSD community, as a soon-to-be-released report by the independent Commision for Technology Management (CTM) after a year-long study has concluded: *BSD is already dead. Here are some of the commission's findings:

Fact: the *BSDs have balkanized yet again. There are now no less than twelve separate, competing *BSD projects, each of which has introduced fundamental incompatibilities with the other *BSDs, and frequently with Unix standards. Average number of developers in each project: fewer than five. Average number of users per project: there are no definitive numbers, but reports show that all projects are on the decline.

Fact: There are almost no FreeBSD developers left, and its use, according to Netcraft, is down to a sadly crippled .005% of internet servers. A recent attempt at a face-to-face summit in Boulder, Colorado culminated in an out-and-out fistfight between core developers, reportedly over code commenting formats (tabs vs. spaces). Hotel security guards broke up the melee and banned the participants from the hotel. Two of the developers were hospitalized, and one continues to have his jaw wired shut.


Fact: X.org will not include support *BSD. The newly formed group believes that the *BSDs have strayed too far from Unix standards and have become too difficult to support along with Linux and Solaris x86. "It's too much trouble," said one anonymous developer. "If they want to make their own standards, let them doing the porting for us."

Fact: DragonflyBSD, yet another offshoot of the beleaguered FreeBSD "project", is already collapsing under the weight of internal power struggles and in-fighting. "They haven't done a single decent release," notes Mark Baron, an industry watcher and columnist. "Their mailing lists read like an online version of a Jerry Springer episode, complete with food fights, swearing, name-calling, and chair-throwing." Netcraft reports that DragonflyBSD is run on exactly 0% of internet servers.

Fact: NetBSD, which claims to focus on portability (whatever that is supposed to mean), is slow, and cannot take advantage of multiple CPUs. "That about drove the last nail in the coffin for BSD use here," said Michael Curry, CTO of Amazon.com. "We took our NetBSD boxes out to the backyard and shot them in the head. We're much happier running Linux."

Fact: *BSD has no support from the media. Number of Linux magazines available at bookstores: 5 (Linux Journal, Linux World, Linux Developer, Linux Format, Linux User). Number of available *BSD magazines: 0. Current count of Linux-oriented technical books: 1071. Current count of *BSD books: 6.

Fact: Many user-level applications will no longer work under *BSD, and no one is working to change this. The GIMP, a Photoshop-like application, has not worked at all under *BSD since version 1.1 (sorry, too much trouble for such a small base, developers have said). OpenOffice, a Microsoft Office clone, has never worked under *BSD and never will. ("Why would we bother?" said developer Steven Andrews, an OpenOffice team lead.)

Fact: servers running OpenBSD, which claims to focus on security, are frequently compromised. According to Jim Markham, editor of the online security forum SecurityWatch, the few OpenBSD servers that exist on the internet have become a joke among the hacker community. "They make a game out of it," he says. "(OpenBSD leader) Theo [de Raadt] will scramble to make a new patch to fix one problem, and they've already compromised a bunch of boxes with a different exploit."

With these incontroverible facts staring (what's left of) the *BSD community in the face, they can only draw one conclusion: *BSD is already dead.

bsdtar (4, Informative)

FullMetalAlchemist (811118) | more than 9 years ago | (#10174278)

The bsdtar is so much better than gtar I think it will replace gtar even in most Linux distributions.
It automatically handles compresson (like gzip and bzip2).

My only beef with 5.X series is the fact that even though perl is out, it still is way too large; so I need to build my own releases for CD that doesn't have sendmail etc.
No biggie but still a tad bit annoying.

Re:bsdtar (5, Interesting)

Korpo (558173) | more than 9 years ago | (#10175012)

Well, I don't think quite so. Not because I think bsdtar has no technological merit. I've got good reason to believe so, because gtar is known to be not very good.

The crdrecord guy rewrote gtar, because it is in a state where it is almost no longer maintainable. He committed his version. Maintainers were happy. But Stallman said: We've already got a working gtar and basta!

At least that's what I've heard.

Given that most distributors stick with the whole GNU package, bsdtar, whatever its merits are, is more likely to be an addon package, and not the default tar on any Linux distribution.

It surely would make a nice /etc/alternatives option in Debian for tar, where it would integrate nicely! But Debian is always more flexible and open in a lot of respects (Debian GNU/BSD anyone? ;) ) than other distribs.

Re:bsdtar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10176125)

The crdrecord guy rewrote gtar, because it is in a state where it is almost no longer maintainable. He committed his version. Maintainers were happy. But Stallman said: We've already got a working gtar and basta!

It sounds like Stallman had a point. You don't go around rewriting things for the sake of it. Does gtar need constant development? No, it's in a stable state. As I recall, automated testing of the GNU toolset compared extremely well with other versions - you don't throw away that stability just because the code is ugly.

Now, if he had refactored the code, step by step, instead of rewriting it, then I'd be critical of Stallman. But from the sounds of it, Stallman is simply being sensible.

Is this the same cdrecord guy whose ideas for ATAPI were also rejected by Linus Torvalds? The same guy that uses his surname to name shared libraries? The same guy whose other tar implementation creates archives that sends itself into endless loops upon extraction [fokus.gmd.de] ? It seems to me that he has a bit of a problem with having his ideas rejected. If Stallman and Torvalds are in agreement about him, perhaps there's a good reason for that.

Re:bsdtar (3, Informative)

jsonn (792303) | more than 9 years ago | (#10176475)

It sounds like Stallman had a point. You don't go around rewriting things for the sake of it. Does gtar need constant development? No, it's in a stable state. As I recall, automated testing of the GNU toolset compared extremely well with other versions - you don't throw away that stability just because the code is ugly.

The whole point of Stallman was that Schily as German didn't want to hand over the copyright because he's legally not allowed so. Also GNU Tar is not stable. It is incompatible with almost any other tar on the world. Yeah, that's not a problem for the GNU guys, "Our tar is better, use it". Heck, the code is not only ugly, it is full of bugs.

Re:bsdtar (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10176693)

The whole point of Stallman was that Schily as German didn't want to hand over the copyright because he's legally not allowed so.

Well that's a completely different issue to "we already have a working tar". GNU requires copyright assignment for all its projects; I can't believe no German has ever contributed to a GNU project before - how have they dealt with this in the past?

Also GNU Tar is not stable. It is incompatible with almost any other tar on the world.

That's not the meaning of the word "stable". GNU tar is definitely stable. As for compatibility, have you not heard of the --posix flag?

Heck, the code is not only ugly, it is full of bugs.

That's directly contradicting studies done in the past, and you haven't backed it up with anything other than your opinion. Hell, you haven't even given a concrete example.

Re:bsdtar (3, Insightful)

jsonn (792303) | more than 9 years ago | (#10180459)

Yes, I have heard of --posix. I also know that it does not work. It doesn't create POSIX-compliant archives and even the manpage admits it. This is something I call a bug. There are various situations which GNU tar fails to handle correctly either by failing or creating correct streams. The FSF way of testing GNU tar is testing that GNU tar does what GNU tar is supposed to do. Not tar, GNU tar. I don't call a tool stable, if it does fail to work correctly.

For the copyright issue, like most European nations, the German copyright is based on human rights, you can't sell it. You can share the copyright, you can give an exclusive license, but it is not possible to completely hand over all your rights. Beside, this is something I as a developer would never do.

Cheney ties *BSD to chance of terror attack (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10186315)


The Unix Wars spiked to a new level of rhetorical heat Tuesday when Vice President Cheney warned that *BSD could bring terrorist attacks on the USA.

Speaking to supporters in Des Moines, Cheney called it "absolutely essential" that technologists "make the right choice, Linux. Because if we make the wrong choice, *BSD, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating."

Re:bsdtar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10193078)

gtar is not free software for BSD users, it's GPL'd. That's not a desirable license for any of the BSDs. And it's proprietary as well. If your GNU/Linux friend sends you a tar file with sparse file info, good like trying to unpack it on a NetBSD box. As much as you guys like to pick on MS for embrace on extend, GNU has been doing to the same for years, effectively creating a monopoly in the OS world and driving other projects 'out of business' (TenDra anyone?)

Glass

Re:bsdtar (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10193145)

Heh, the fact is, in the BSD world, nobody gives a flying f*ck about what Stallman or Torvalds think.

Glass

Re:bsdtar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10193396)

Heh, the fact is, in the BSD world, nobody gives a flying f*ck about what Stallman or Torvalds think.

You seem to forget who made the compiler that *BSD uses. Yeah, Stallman

Re:bsdtar (1)

shic (309152) | more than 9 years ago | (#10175772)

You've just piqued my interest... (Not about tar one-upmanship - but about building your own releases.)

I would like to tailor my own pre-configured installation CD with only a very minimal BSD install and a single custom application... It feels as if this task is something BSDers might well have tackled previously... I was wondering if you could point me at a 'howto' kind of guide, and/or any tools which would likely be helpful in this task?

Re:bsdtar (5, Informative)

FullMetalAlchemist (811118) | more than 9 years ago | (#10175841)

Here is a short version of what I normally do. [gsoft.com.au]
You will need to customize the buildworld procedure to your liking, and that's about it.

Re:bsdtar (0)

shic (309152) | more than 9 years ago | (#10176180)

That looks really handy... Thanks...

Re:bsdtar (1)

SillyNickName4me (760022) | more than 9 years ago | (#10191169)

It depends a bit on what you want exactly.

You may want to look in /usr/ports/sysutils/livecd for creating a nice customized 'live' cd.

You may want to check the handbook on generating releases if you want to build your own customized 'release' that can be installed from cd (or floppy or over a network etc)

Very roughly it comes down to either
cd /usr/ports/sysutils/livecd; make
or
cd /usr/src; make release

5.3 question (2, Interesting)

Korpo (558173) | more than 9 years ago | (#10175025)

Out of curiosity and ignorance:

Is FreeBSD 5.3, when it's finished, the new stable or the new current release, or both?

I've read somewhere around here, that 5.3 should replace the 4.x series as stable, finally.

So, is that true?

Re:5.3 question (4, Informative)

DashEvil (645963) | more than 9 years ago | (#10175032)

6.0-current has already been branched. When 5.3 hits it will be -STABLE.

Re:5.3 question (1)

Korpo (558173) | more than 9 years ago | (#10175148)

Thanks, this really clears things up for me.

So, with 5.3 already becoming stable, investing in "The Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD OS" (version 5.2.x) was close to becoming an internals description of the new STABLE. :)

Re:5.3 question (1)

ArbitraryConstant (763964) | more than 9 years ago | (#10176434)

I was under the impression -STABLE would have to wait for 5.4 because there were too many outstanding issues, and they would delay 5.3 too much.

I could be wrong, but this was my impression.

Re:5.3 question (1)

DashEvil (645963) | more than 9 years ago | (#10178893)

Not from what I've heard. Everyone on the -current mailing list seems to be preping for the first -stable release.

Re:5.3 question (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10184502)

I know this is sorta off-topic, but I just heard some sad news on talk radio -- TV host Sean Hannity was found dead in his hotel room last night after a book signing. The coroner has not yet officially ruled it a suicide, but apparently that's what it's going to be ruled.

I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will mourn his passing -- even if you didn't agree with him, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

Simple query (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10175031)

Running cvsup using the file:
/usr/share/examples/cvsup/standard-supfile
I get 6.0-CURRENT. Is there a cvsup for 5.3 tracking?
The file at:
/usr/share/examples/cvsup/stable-supfile
tracks 4.x. Are there plans for a 4-stable-supfile and a 5-stable-supfile?

Re:Simple query (1)

rplacd (123904) | more than 9 years ago | (#10175428)

I'm not completely sure about this, but try "tag=RELENG_5".
I am certain that when 5.3 comes out, you can change it to "tag=RELENG_5_3" to track updates to 5.3.

Re:Simple query (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10179060)

That is correct. RELENG_5_3 will be sliced from RELENG_5. Seeing that this hasn't happned yet, RELENG_5 is the tag you are after.

Re:Simple query (1)

kace (557434) | more than 9 years ago | (#10180638)

Be careful with the tags during a pre release cycle. I got burned during the 5.2 pre release cycle using (iirc) RELENG_5. It's not exactly the same as BETAX. As I understand it, work continues on RELENG_5 and it can sometimes be a little hairy in between the beta snapshots. (OTOH, it could also contain a bug fix to problems in the latest beta.)

This CVS tags [freebsd.org] helps but doesn't fill in all the blanks when there are betas floating around. We're sort of in the twilight zone. RELENG_5 had been pointing to CURRENT, now it's being preened for RELEASE, and soon after it will point to STABLE (or, rather, STABLE will point to it).

I'm not sure if RELENG_5_3 has been branched yet or not. If it hasn't, you'll find out real quick when cvsup starts deleting every file in your source tree. (Hit enter with one hand and hover over ctl-c with the other. :) )

I'm just a happy user. If I've made any mistakes above I look forward to the corrections.

K.C.

Re:Simple query (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10181428)

RELENG_5 was not around then, but is now. RELENG_5_3 does NOT exist as I type this. See the AC post above the parent.

Re:Simple query (1)

rplacd (123904) | more than 9 years ago | (#10181637)

RELENG_5_3 hasn't been branched at the time of this (my) comment; look at cvsweb [freebsd.org] -- the selection box at the bottom of the page.

*BSD is dying (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10175444)

It is now official. Netcraft 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 an Amazing 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 *BSD at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

Running joke (1)

rainer_d (115765) | more than 9 years ago | (#10175846)

Don't get me wrong: I love BSD and I try to use and advocate it whenever I can.
But the FreeBSD-project is to release a BETA now every week until October. Or at least, every other week.
Are we going to see all of them announced on Slashdot ?

Re:Running joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10176134)

Why not? IMHO It's good to let people know that a new beta is out, so that they can try it out if they feel like it - and maybe catch some hidden misbehaviors before they reach the final release.
For quite a few people, a new beta version is kind of a new toy. :-)

Re:Running joke (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 9 years ago | (#10178850)

Why not? Recall the buildup towards the Linux 2.6 release. It seemed like twice a week for three months there was a major story about how it was ALMOST here...

Re:Running joke (1)

rainer_d (115765) | more than 9 years ago | (#10178963)

> Recall the buildup towards the Linux 2.6 release.

You may be right here.
I think I just ignore those stories about the latest kernel, so I can say ;-)

Rainer

Re:Running joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10179307)

Well, as long as it's on the BSD-only page, why not?
A new beta for one of only four distributions seems like "BSD news" to me!

why FreeBSD 6 when no Linux 2.7 ? (1)

CaptainPinko (753849) | more than 9 years ago | (#10176874)

I don't understand why the FreeBSD folk would already tag a FreeBSD 6 branch when 5.3 is not yet stable? Doesn't this just encourage developers to get distracted from stabilising the 5 branch? After all isn't Linus keeping people working on 2.6 to get it more stable and that is why there is no 2.7 yet [kernel.org] ? This doesn't seem to be inline with their organized structured direction of the project... anyone want to shed light on the reasons? Perhaps it's a dumping ground for features that they can't seem to stabilise for 5? Is 6 expected to take less time than 5? Anyone have a ballpark figure? 18 months? 4 years?

Oh and as a Linux user looking forward to FreeBSD 5 to try it out, I've heard plenty about it's ports system but I have yet to hear what kind of binary support (eg. apt) if any it has...

Re:why FreeBSD 6 when no Linux 2.7 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10177233)

The HEAD branch which is tagged FreeBSD 6 is the current active development branch. Its kinda like a proving ground before any new code gets merged with the other branches. Atleast from what I understand of it. http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/article s/releng/index.html

Re:why FreeBSD 6 when no Linux 2.7 ? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10182775)


To: Secretary of State Colin Powell

March 10, 2003

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am submitting my resignation from the list of living operating systems (effective immediately) because I cannot in good conscience compete with Linux.

I have failed:

--To support SMP

--To generate media attention

--To spawn a professionally managed distribution

--To prevent splintering and Balkanization

--To innovate

--To be relevant.

Throughout the globe *BSD is becoming associated with in-fighting and sloppy coding. My disregard for views of other operating systems, borne out by my neglect of technical competence, is giving birth to an anti-BSD century.

I joined the operating system world because I love technology. Respectfully, Mr. Secretary, I am now bringing this calling to a close, with a heavy heart but for the same reason that I embraced it.

Sincerely,

*BSD
Dead Operating System

Re:why FreeBSD 6 when no Linux 2.7 ? (2, Informative)

Cochonou (576531) | more than 9 years ago | (#10177415)

FreeBSD has two binary mecanisms: one for the base system (security updates) provided through freebsd-update, and the package system which is an alternative to compiling the ports by yourself. The packages usually lag the ports by a few weeks.

Re:why FreeBSD 6 when no Linux 2.7 ? (5, Informative)

drmerope (771119) | more than 9 years ago | (#10178463)

The FreeBSD model has always been that features and patches are tested in -current and then merged down to -stable and tested some more until it comes time for the next release from -stable.

This tiered approach exists to support three types of users: the developers (-current), sysadmin's test environment, impatient users (-stable), production environments, conservative users (-release).

5.0, 5.1, 5.2.1 were all preview releases--somewhat stabilized snapshpts of -current. 5.3 should be available for general adoption.

Thus, the existance of 6.0 does not reflect a change in developer focus but rather the adoption of conservativism on the 5.x branch (prior testing in -current required before merging) that is in keeping with it becoming a -stable branch from which real -releases are made. You can rest assured that bugs in 5.x will continue to be fixed and tested in 6.0-current and after some verification the fixed will be merged down to 5-Stable.

FreeBSD also maintains a POLA (principle of least astonishment) which prohibits any major behavioral/interface/abi changes from appearing in a -stable branch. (Basically you are nearly certain that an application that runs properly on n.0 will run properly on n.10).

6.0-Current exists as a proving ground for those features which would violate POLA.

Re:why FreeBSD 6 when no Linux 2.7 ? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10186640)

The FreeBSD model has always been that features and patches are tested in -current and then merged down to -stable and tested some more until it comes time for the next release from -stable

Yet another sickening blow has struck what's left of the *BSD community, as a soon-to-be-released report by the independent Commision for Technology Management (CTM) after a year-long study has concluded: *BSD is already dead. Here are some of the commission's findings:

Fact: the *BSDs have balkanized yet again. There are now no less than twelve separate, competing *BSD projects, each of which has introduced fundamental incompatibilities with the other *BSDs, and frequently with Unix standards. Average number of developers in each project: fewer than five. Average number of users per project: there are no definitive numbers, but reports show that all projects are on the decline.

Fact: There are almost no FreeBSD developers left, and its use, according to Netcraft, is down to a sadly crippled .005% of internet servers. A recent attempt at a face-to-face summit in Boulder, Colorado culminated in an out-and-out fistfight between core developers, reportedly over code commenting formats (tabs vs. spaces). Hotel security guards broke up the melee and banned the participants from the hotel. Two of the developers were hospitalized, and one continues to have his jaw wired shut.

Fact: X.org will not include support *BSD. The newly formed group believes that the *BSDs have strayed too far from Unix standards and have become too difficult to support along with Linux and Solaris x86. "It's too much trouble," said one anonymous developer. "If they want to make their own standards, let them doing the porting for us."

Fact: DragonflyBSD, yet another offshoot of the beleaguered FreeBSD "project", is already collapsing under the weight of internal power struggles and in-fighting. "They haven't done a single decent release," notes Mark Baron, an industry watcher and columnist. "Their mailing lists read like an online version of a Jerry Springer episode, complete with food fights, swearing, name-calling, and chair-throwing." Netcraft reports that DragonflyBSD is run on exactly 0% of internet servers.

Fact: NetBSD, which claims to focus on portability (whatever that is supposed to mean), is slow, and cannot take advantage of multiple CPUs. "That about drove the last nail in the coffin for BSD use here," said Michael Curry, CTO of Amazon.com. "We took our NetBSD boxes out to the backyard and shot them in the head. We're much happier running Linux."

Fact: *BSD has no support from the media. Number of Linux magazines available at bookstores: 5 (Linux Journal, Linux World, Linux Developer, Linux Format, Linux User). Number of available *BSD magazines: 0. Current count of Linux-oriented technical books: 1071. Current count of *BSD books: 6.

Fact: Many user-level applications will no longer work under *BSD, and no one is working to change this. The GIMP, a Photoshop-like application, has not worked at all under *BSD since version 1.1 (sorry, too much trouble for such a small base, developers have said). OpenOffice, a Microsoft Office clone, has never worked under *BSD and never will. ("Why would we bother?" said developer Steven Andrews, an OpenOffice team lead.)

With these incontroverible facts staring (what's left of) the *BSD community in the face, they can only draw one conclusion: *BSD is already dead.

Check out the 5.3 To-Do List. . . (0)

CromeDome (184915) | more than 9 years ago | (#10178520)

Not to sound trollish, but there's an awful lot of unfinished work on the 5.3 to-do list (http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.3R/todo.html [freebsd.org] ). Is it just that this list is unmaintained, or is 5.3 going out the door with some of these items left undone? Is this the version of 5.x that is to be considered stable?

Thanks for whatever info people have. It's hard to make technology decisions without all the facts!

CromeDome

Re:Check out the 5.3 To-Do List. . . (3, Informative)

shlong (121504) | more than 9 years ago | (#10178825)

Is it just that this list is unmaintained, or is 5.3 going out the door with some of these items left undone?

This is the list of things that will be fixed before 5.3 goes out the door. Releaseing 5.3-BETA3 is not the same as releasing 5.3-RELEASE.

Is this the version of 5.x that is to be considered stable?

That is the intention, yes.

Re:Check out the 5.3 To-Do List. . . (1)

CromeDome (184915) | more than 9 years ago | (#10178900)

Awesome. Given the project's attention to stability, I figured as much, but I hadn't seen the list change much in some time, and was a little concerned.

Thanks for the info :) Look forward to the final release.

CromeDome

*BSD dies in clash with police - source (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10182866)

*BSD dies in clash with police - source
03 Sep 2004 11:26:18 GMT
Source: Reuters

RIYADH, Sept 3 (Reuters) - Saudi security forces killed the *BSD operating system in a gunbattle on Friday, as the kingdom continued its crackdown on dead OSs, a security source said. The obsolete OS is said to have been dying for some time.

The clash took place outside the central town of Buraida, the scene of a shootout with *BSD in which a policeman was killed on Thursday, the source told Reuters.

*BSD has waged a 15-month campaign of bombings and shootings aimed at Linux, Windows, and the technology industry. Around 90 programmers and civilians, many of them foreigners, have been killed.

Earlier in the week, officials announced that a *BSD militant -- involved in an attack which had set up 20 unstable servers in production capacities -- had surrendered.

The militant was wanted for setting up a poor-performing webserver with a single CPU in the city of Khobar.

Re:Check out the 5.3 To-Do List. . . (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10193238)

Stop top posting on mailing lists, fucktard. If a member of the release engineering team doesn't even know how to reply to mail, I don't even want to imagine what his code will look like.

Glass

Changes and upgrade docs (4, Informative)

ivoras (455934) | more than 9 years ago | (#10181873)

This article is a preliminary overview (work in progress) of major changes from the 4.x branch, and notes on upgrading.

http://people.freebsd.org/~bmah/pub/article.html [freebsd.org]

Check for New 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>