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 6.2 Released To Mirrors

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the come-and-get-it dept.

Operating Systems 168

AlanS2002 writes "FreeBSD 6.2 has been released to mirrors. The release notes for your specific platform are also available. FreeBSD is an advanced operating system for x86 compatible (including Pentium and Athlon), amd64 compatible (including Opteron, Athlon64, and EM64T), ARM, IA-64, PC-98, and UltraSPARC architectures. It is derived from BSD, the version of UNIX developed at the University of California, Berkeley. It is developed and maintained by a large team of individuals. Additional platforms are in various stages of development."

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

Netcraft (-1, Redundant)

nukem996 (624036) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609468)

Netcraft confirms it BSD is... o wait...

Re:Netcraft (0, Troll)

WindowsIsForArseWipe (990338) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609800)

another BSD dead on Arrival!

Cool (-1, Redundant)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609476)

Something to download tonght :)

Now, all i need is iso images of all the dist files to make up a entire system from scratch, without having to download it all piece by piece.

Re:Cool (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17610968)

Why bother? BSD is dying. ;)

Availability (5, Informative)

cperciva (102828) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609506)

The release announcement will not be available for a couple of hours. Slashdot jumped the gun as usual.

Torrents are available. []

A script for upgrading FreeBSD 6.1 systems is available. []

Re:Availability (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17609634)

I don't have any cds, why can they not put up a dvd image with all three cds on it? :(

Re:Availability (3, Informative)

Barny (103770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609844)

If you have nero (not tried under Xnix) you can load the iso and then select DVD as the medium in the top left corner, then it will burn each CD onto a DVD :)

Re:Availability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17610134)

Because BSD is made for mostly older systems. This is also reflected in the somewhat shaky support for newer devices. But to give an old device a new life, BSD rocks.

Re:Availability (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17610220)

Older devices and the newest and fastest X86 32bit and 64bit servers.

They have support for the expensive and fast disk controllers and the fastest network cards.

10Gbit might be more and more used, but it is to early to say it is old.

Re:Availability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17609782)

At least they beat digg this time...

Release announcement (3, Informative)

cperciva (102828) | more than 7 years ago | (#17610060)

FreeBSD 6.2 has now been announced [] .

with an ad no less (0, Flamebait)

r00t (33219) | more than 7 years ago | (#17610250)

Rather than actually tell us what is new, we get:

"FreeBSD is an advanced [we can argue] operating system [duh] for x86 compatible (including Pentium and Athlon) [yeah, a Pentium is x86 compatible, who'd have thought?], amd64 compatible (including Opteron, Athlon64, and EM64T), ARM, IA-64, PC-98, and UltraSPARC architectures. It is derived from BSD, [says that in the name, doesn't it?] the version of UNIX [actually no, this is a trademark reserved for OSes that meet a standard which FreeBSD violates] developed at the University of California, Berkeley. [you no longer need to put that in your advertising] It is developed and maintained by a large team of individuals."

So, as far as we can tell from this ad, nothing has changed other than the version number. I guess that is a sign of life though, kind of, sort of, maybe a bit.

Re:with an ad no less (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17610282)

According to AT&T's failed lawsuit of *BSD (and *BSD's successfull countersuit), *BSD *is* UNIX.

nope (3, Interesting)

r00t (33219) | more than 7 years ago | (#17610552)

UNIX is a trademark. It's even a registered trademark. A trademark is not a copyright. (and not a patent either, nor a trade secret)

AT+T's lawsuit ran in to problems becuase they hadn't properly protected their code from unpublished disclosure. At the time, copyright law was very different, so this mattered. The judge indicated that AT+T might not have copyright to some things. AT+T was also caught violating Berkeley's copyright.

On the other hand, the trademark was being violated by BSDI and there may have been some minor problems in the BSD code base.

So the parties agreed to quit and keep things quiet.

If you want to use the trademark, you need a license. Licenses are easy to get, provided that you fully and correctly implement an OS that follows a standard called the Single UNIX Specification. FreeBSD violates this standard in many ways, and is thus inelligible for getting a license to use the trademark.

Linux isn't UNIX either, though it's now close enough that the Open Group can maintain a small list of deviations that need to be voted out of existance.

Re:with an ad no less (4, Informative)

cperciva (102828) | more than 7 years ago | (#17610290)

nothing has changed other than the version number

From the release announcement:

Some of the highlights:
  • freebsd-update(8) provides officially supported binary updates for security fixes and errata patches
  • Experimental support for CAPP security event auditing
  • OpenBSM audit command line tool suite and library
  • KDE updated to 3.5.4, GNOME updated to 2.16.1
  • csup(1) integrated cvsup client now included
  • Disk integrity protection and authentication added to geli(4)
  • New amdsmb(4), enc(4) ipmi(4), nfsmb(4), stge(4) drivers
  • IPFW(4) packet tagging
  • Linux emulation support for sysfs
  • BIND updated to 9.3.3
  • Many driver updates including em(4), arcmsr(4), ath(4), bce(4), ata(4), and iwi(4)

Re:with an ad no less (-1, Flamebait)

arivanov (12034) | more than 7 years ago | (#17610446)

* freebsd-update(8) provides officially supported binary updates for security fixes and errata patches

Which year is it? 1995? On a more serious note - about bloody effing time.

Same for IPFW(4) packet tagging. One of the reasons why I stopped using the BSD ALTQ in QoS control applications 2 years ago was exactly this sticking point. It is all so nice and wonderfull to abandon the original lame KAME classifiers in 5.x, but PF(4) is not a replacement for them for most people. Doing firewall rules in PF is like having a really bad brainfuck. IPFW(4) is another matter - it is a more or less sane firewall system. It has its failings, but it can be understood without your brain switching into antisocial Theo mode.

Re:Availability (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17610766)

"Slashdot jumped the gun as usual...."

Yeah, now we can't bitch that it's a dupe!!

Some people are never pleased.

Re:Availability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17611612)

Why does slashdot always do this? grrrr. :(

x86 compatible? (0, Flamebait)

Dolda2000 (759023) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609510)

I would argue that FreeBSD does, in fact, not run on x86 compatible CPUs in general, but rather i386 compatible CPUs. If I'm not vastly misled, x86 means 8086 and forward (16 bit, real mode, no MMU), while i386 basically means IA32.

Re:x86 compatible? (2, Funny)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609558)

Is there a point to your at least pedantic, and at most douchebaggy, comment about the difference between x86 and IA32?

Re:x86 compatible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17610614)

Mod parent UP!

Re:x86 compatible? (1)

kv9 (697238) | more than 7 years ago | (#17611730)

Is there a point to your at least pedantic, and at most douchebaggy, comment about the difference between x86 and IA32?

one could also ask the same thing about your comment.

Re:x86 compatible? (5, Funny)

DamnStupidElf (649844) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609578)

Oh crap! What am I going to do with my cluster of 4Mhz XT machines now!?

Re:x86 compatible? (4, Funny)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609734)

Not run FreeBSD on them?

Re:x86 compatible? (4, Funny)

NMerriam (15122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609750)

Oh crap! What am I going to do with my cluster of 4Mhz XT machines now!?

Yeah, I had the turbo switch fixed and everything...

Re:x86 compatible? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17611690)

Run Minix on them? I don't think Minix 3 supports the 8088, but I'm fairly sure Minix 2 does...

Re:x86 compatible? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17609738)

According to the latest release notes, not all IA32 processors are supported as the 80386 is not specifically listed. Support for the 80386 was dropped starting with 6.0: []

Thank you captain pedantic (2, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17610920)

However these days, x86 is taken to mean "Current CPUs based on the x86 ISA." If you mosey to nVidia's drive page you'll notice they talk about Vista x86 and Vista x64 drivers. What they mean are 32 and 64-bit drivers, of course, both x86 ISA. They don't mean that the x86 drivers will run on any platform, indeed Vista itself will run on nothing less than a Pentium 3 and thus it wouldn't be meaningful for the drivers to support less.

There's no point in breaking down support by specific chip level unless you just feel like being pedantic for no reason, thus people just say "x86" and use it to mean reasonably modern 32-bit x86 ISA chips.

If you really are concerned about compatibility with hardware that old, well, go get DOS and deal with the limitations.

But wait..... (2, Interesting)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609514)

Wasn't development supposed to be delayed or stalled because of license issues?

Re:But wait..... (5, Funny)

MavEtJu (241979) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609536)

If you're refering to the AT&T vs BSDi lawsuit, you're 10 years late :-)

Re:But wait..... (3, Informative)

bmac83 (869058) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609550)

That was Gentoo/FreeBSD [] .

Re:But wait..... (1)

Grinin (1050028) | more than 7 years ago | (#17610302)

I could have sworn the same... Gentoo/FreeBSD had some issues due to some piece of code... but if 10 mins = 10 years... than we could be wrong?

Installed it this morning (0)

Derwood5555 (828126) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609526)

cvsup is a great thing.

Re:Installed it this morning (3, Informative)

lactose99 (71132) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609920)

With 6.2, csup [] is even better...

Benefits of csup (1)

dewarrn1 (985887) | more than 7 years ago | (#17610372)

I poked around a bit; csup's got no dependencies to build, which I like. Does it speed source and ports-tree updates substantially? How about versus portsnap in the latter case?

Embarrassed (1)

dewarrn1 (985887) | more than 7 years ago | (#17610806)

And it's in the base system. That's a really easy compile.

*BSD is Dying (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17609546)

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 [] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact: *BSD is dying

Re:*BSD is Dying (3, Funny)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609792)

Considering the announcement in the topic...

"I'm not dead yet!"

"I'm getting better!"

"I don't want to go on the cart!"

Re:*BSD is Dying (1)

XnR'rn (793753) | more than 7 years ago | (#17611132)

Corpse, don't argue. Doctor said Morgue, then Morgue it is. ;-)

Optional Lame Apple Joke... (0, Troll)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609566)

But does it run on the iPhone or the Apple TV?

Re:Optional Lame Apple Joke... (1)

rainman_bc (735332) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609642)

But does it run on the iPhone or the Apple TV?

You're thinking of NetBSD that claims to run on everything, not FreeBSD :)

Re:Optional Lame Apple Joke... (1)

cepler (21753) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609868)

You're confusing this with NetBSD...

I noramlly check (0, Flamebait)

QueePWNzor (1044224) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609588)

When it comes to these things. I guess that and Slashdot are opposites; doesn't give a damn for BSD, and Slashdot doesn't give a damn for anything that anybody puts together and calls a distro. FreeBSD is actually a good OS. Mac users use it, Solaris is based around it, and most of Linux is a cheap ripoff of it. (But I still use Linux) So it's good that somebody cares for the forgotten OS. I'd call this a weak excused for a full story, but it's good that somebody cares at all.

yes they do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17609698)

distrowatch covers *BSD developments all the time, including betas and testing-release candidates.

Re:I noramlly check (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17609742)

Oh, that's funny!

I check distrowatch, too. And, when 6.1 was released, I saw it on distrowatch.

As far as "forgotten OS", I am in the process of configuring my own home server on an HP LH3. FreeBSD is the only distro I found that supports the embedded AMI megaRAID controller "out-of-the-box". It also supports (6.1 at least) dual CPU's to the extent that, according to the benchmarks I ran, it outperforms most Linux distros with MySQL. It also runs flawlessly on a Thinkpad 600E that I had trouble getting many Linux distros to run on.

Forgotten it may be, but not at my house and not on my systems. And that pesky GPL that everyone worries about? ... not a problem!

Re:I noramlly check (1)

mr_da3m0n (887821) | more than 7 years ago | (#17610054)

I hear you. I went through all sorts of pain to get the HP Raid 3i (which basically uses the 'megaraid' driver, so I guess it is rebrandred) working on my quad xeon. I had to use gentoo, but somehow, I had to install using knoppix and 2.4 kernel.

The machine is sort of wonky, too. I wonder if FreeBSD would be a happy camper on it.. Maybe I'll give it a try :)

Re:I noramlly check (1)

Laughing Dog (913885) | more than 7 years ago | (#17610454)

Speaking as someone who uses it for a desktop, FreeBSD is great on *older* hardware (the Gentoo installer had no idea what to do with my network card, and the special "low" RAM version of Ubuntu somehow couldn't install GRUB correctly, making it rather useless), and it does seem to have good support for server setups, so it might be worth a shot. I've been following the 6.2 release candidates, and they've both been nice and stable. (No more kernel panics when powering up with a USB printer connected, like I experienced with 6.0 stable! Seriously, the operating system has come a long way even in just the past year.) One issue I have noticed is with the handbook itself- it's possible to do things, relatively common tasks, even, that the last time I checked, the handbook seems to discourage. You can print from USB printers just fine, for example (and could even under 6.0, despite the startup issue), but you wouldn't know it from reading the print section. This makes the forums and mailing lists the best source for configuration help, provided that they don't tell you to RTFM.

Re:I noramlly check (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17611960)

The machine is sort of wonky, too. I wonder if FreeBSD would be a happy camper on it..

It has only been a couple of months for me, but I have no problems with FreeBSD 6.1 on my HP LH3. So far Apache + MySQL4 + PHP5 all run flawlessly with a combo of RAID1 and RAID5 arrays of ~ 170 Gbytes. I am using the embedded RAID controller which is, I think, exactly the HP raid 3i controller you mentioned. Until I really start beating on the machine tho, who can say? One of the things that I really like about FreeBSD is the large number of diagnostic tools available in the ports system to stress/test memory, disk I/O and network access.

I found this server when it was being retired from a local school system. It had been running 24/7/365 for about 5 years with hundreds of users and I fully expect to get another 5 or 6 years from it. Parts are readily available (cheap!) from e-bay and the level of hardware design on this server really impresses me. If your machine seems a little wonky, I would certainly give FreeBSD a try.

Re:I noramlly check (1)

kv9 (697238) | more than 7 years ago | (#17611720)

FreeBSD is the only distro I found that supports the embedded AMI megaRAID controller "out-of-the-box".

small correction: FreeBSD is not a "distro", it's a full blown OS.

Re:I noramlly check (3, Interesting)

mdemonic (988470) | more than 7 years ago | (#17610148)

FYI, distrowatch donated the money they made from ads to a handful of open source projects, among them FreeBSD. Someone has to be first, and this time it was slashdot. html []

Re:I noramlly check (5, Insightful)

BrainInAJar (584756) | more than 7 years ago | (#17610276)

FreeBSD is actually a good OS.
Yes, it's very nice

Mac users use it,
No they don't, they use Mach with a BSD api wrapper

Solaris is based around it,
No it's not, Solaris was on the SysV side of the SysV/BSD Unix wars (not a bad thing, Solaris is nice too)

and most of Linux is a cheap ripoff of it.
No, Linux is a school project based loosely off SunOS & Minix

Re:I noramlly check (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17611880)

FreeBSD is actually a good OS.
Yes, it's very nice
                    - Why is it "very nice"? Can you elaborate? I bet you can't.

Mac users use it,
No they don't, they use Mach with a BSD api wrapper
                    - It's a Mach microkernel with a BSD *environment*, and a generic UNIX syscall API,
                        with IOKit / other assorted Apple abstractions bolted on.

Solaris is based around it,
No it's not, Solaris was on the SysV side of the SysV/BSD Unix wars (not a bad thing, Solaris is nice too)
                    - Solaris was the Operating Environment sitting atop SunOS. Solaris was rebranded
                        as the "OS" around Solaris 2.0 / SunOS 5.0. Again, why is it nice?

and most of Linux is a cheap ripoff of it.
No, Linux is a school project based loosely off SunOS & Minix
                    - About the only thing we agree on, although I am tentative about the SunOS links..

Developer Laments: What Killed FreeBSD (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17609606)

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.


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?


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.


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

someday (-1, Troll)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609624)

Linux hit 6.2 10 years ago.

FreeBSD is dead.

Re:someday (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17609722)

Linux is still at 2.6. What timezone are you in?

Re:someday (2, Funny)

nukem996 (624036) | more than 7 years ago | (#17610242)

I think hes thinking of Redhat 6.2

Race to post the first FUD? (0)

LM741N (258038) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609654)

Seems like there was some sort of a race to see who could post the most FUD the fastest. Almost like the /. story was placed to achieve just that.

Well my computer is working awefully well for one running on an OS that is dying. And I haven't even CVSUPd from the prerelease to the release yet.

Ha! I did it! (5, Funny)

Bluesman (104513) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609670)

I was waiting, and waiting, and waiting for this release.

So last night I downloaded 6.1 and installed it.

Voila! 6.2 out today.

Wanna see it rain? I'm going to go wash my car.

Re:Ha! I did it! (1)

coredog64 (1001648) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609724)

I just finished my embedded system based on 6.1. ding. ding. Serenity now!

Re:Ha! I did it! (3, Informative)

linguae (763922) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609988)

Luckily, FreeBSD has an excellent system for updating the operating system by source code. This guide [] teaches you how to update to the latest stable release of FreeBSD via source code. It's really nice and works well. Just remember to use FreeBSD-STABLE instead of FreeBSD-CURRENT, unless you are a FreeBSD developer or are interested in the absolute latest development version of FreeBSD, working or not.

Re:Ha! I did it! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17611848)

Noooo.!!!! I hate when people recommend STABLE. Use 6.2-RELEASE and then update with security patches. Have you read what STABLE is ?? It's not what you think.

Re:Ha! I did it! (1)

KingOfGod (884633) | more than 7 years ago | (#17610234)

Same here, man. I *just* finished installing a 6.1-RELEASE and patching it up to p12, and now I have to start all over again.

Oh well, I guess that's just the way Beastie likes to torture us sometimes.

FixrsBt (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17609692)

220 runnIng NT []

Re:FixrsBt (-1, Offtopic)

Rebelgecko (893016) | more than 7 years ago | (#17610150)


Upgrading from 4.x (3, Interesting)

ShaunC (203807) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609712)

I run FreeBSD 4.11 on a number of machines, many of which I have no physical access to. Those who keep up with such things will know that 4.11 will be EOL'd for security purposes as of the end of this month (i.e. the RELENG_4_11 branch will no longer have guaranteed security updates). Does anyone have any experience with a remote, networked upgrade from 4.11 to 6.x? I dread that this is going to become necessary sooner rather than later, and I'm curious if anyone can give any pointers on the migration, or if it's even possible without physical access and burned media.

Thanks in advance..!

Re:Upgrading from 4.x (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609772)

i've never done it before, but i've heard from several people that it's not hard, the main thing is to read the upgrade guide and take note of any gotcha's. all it essentially does it replace much of the core OS files and builds a new kernel, then you reboot the system and all things going well, it works. of course the degree of complexity might vary depending on the apps your running and what they depend on, but that's all well documented.

Re:Upgrading from 4.x (1)

NMerriam (15122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609780)

But how much from a security standpoint is changing on those systems? You might be better off just leaving them as-is, since the versions of everything on there are old enough that few folks are targeting it anymore. I know our WinNT4 IIS3 server was wonderful despite never having updates available, because IIS3 didn't have any of the features that constantly get attacked!

Re:Upgrading from 4.x (2, Interesting)

excelblue (739986) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609818)

This is surely a tough upgrade. However, read the FreeBSD handbook section about updating the source tree, as well as the section on rebuilding world. It should give you a step-by-step guide on how to do a source upgrade (the easiest way to do a remote upgrade). Just ignore the stuff about single-user mode - it may be recommended, but it'll still work fine in multiuser if you are careful (eg. try not to have too much going on while doing the upgrade).

I suggest you go from 4.11 to 5.5 (RELENG_5_5) first, and then go from there to 6.2 (RELENG_6_2) just to be safe. It might be possible to go directly from 4.11 to 6.2, but doing such a big jump is an extremely risky process. In any case, I'd set up a test environment with something like vmplayer and experiment first before doing the actual update.

Re:Upgrading from 4.x (5, Informative)

cepler (21753) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609902)


3 Upgrading from previous releases of FreeBSD

      Source upgrades to FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE are only supported from
      FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE or later. Users of older systems wanting to
      upgrade 6.2-RELEASE will need to update to FreeBSD 5.3 or newer
      first, then to FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE.


    Warning: Binary upgrades to FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE from FreeBSD
          4-STABLE are not supported at this time. There are some files
          present in a FreeBSD 4-STABLE whose presence can be disruptive,
          but are not removed by a binary upgrade. One notable example is
          that an old /usr/include/g++ directory will cause C++ programs
          to compile incorrectly (or not at all).

Re:Upgrading from 4.x (1)

Ben Jackson (30284) | more than 7 years ago | (#17610436)

Those kinds of upgrade problems are very subtle. I have a FreeBSD box with filesystem continuity back to 1994 (I think it was 1.1 or 1.1.5 when I installed). At some point sysctl moved from /usr/sbin to /sbin and for more than a year I just thought sysctl was oddly broken, when really I just had one that did not match my kernel in my path.

Just a warning for those thinking, "how bad could it be??"

Re:Upgrading from 4.x (1)

Derwood5555 (828126) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609952)

You'll have to recompile all ports after the upgrade.
I'd also be really careful with mergemaster.
Much of /etc changed between 4.x and 5.x
Maybe tar up /etc, /usr/local/etc and /var before doing the upgrade just in case.

Re:Upgrading from 4.x (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17611726)

You'll have to recompile all ports after the upgrade.
You won't if you build 6.2 with the FreeBSD 4.x compatibility option. I think this is still on by default, but I'd have to check to be sure.

Re:Upgrading from 4.x (1)

Derwood5555 (828126) | more than 7 years ago | (#17611800)

Yep.. forgot all about this switch in the kernel.. It's on by default.

options COMPAT_FREEBSD4 # Compatible with FreeBSD4

Re:Upgrading from 4.x (2, Interesting)

MadAhab (40080) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609978)

Yeah, I called up the datacenter dudes and asked for an upgrade from 5.3 to 6.0. From there, remote upgrades have been smooth.

I know 4.11 was probably the most stable operating system I've ever used, but I'd recommend a wipe and reinstall (and if you have your non-OS stuff in its own partition, of course, it's always easier).

Of course, it's not necessarily dangerous to stretch out your 4.11 installations for another year or two, if you'll commit to keeping your ported software upgraded, even if via hand installs. I haven't seen a FreeBSD base system remote exploit of any real active significance since some damn telnet thing from years and years ago.

Re:Upgrading from 4.x (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17610138)

I had the best success with doing a CD based upgrade. Sorry.

Re:Upgrading from 4.x (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17610202)

The other reply with the "test it first in vmware" is very sound advice. The other bit of general advice I'd have, having done some similar long-jump upgrades is to think outside of the box. (This is a terrible pun, because:) namely, it might be time to upgrade the hardware too, and if so it might actually be easier to bring up the new OS and new machine(s) and do the migration that way. (This also gives you a cold backup if the shit really hits the fan.) Obviously budget issues might crop up, but it's worth a shot if your hardware is more than a few years old (typical corporate accounting methods run on a three-year deprication cycle so at the three year point or later replacing it makes sense). Given advances in capacity (more cpu, ram, disk etc. per physical box and per dollar spent), you might even be able to pass it off as a net cost savings by consolidating down to less space and saving money on colocation. Good luck!

Where oh Where is XEN as a Domain controller (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17609910)

Alas, I've been awaiting this for some time. :-(

annnd, now it's official (1)

kace (557434) | more than 7 years ago | (#17610112)

From: Ken Smith
Date: Jan 15, 2007 12:29 AM
Subject: [FreeBSD-Announce] FreeBSD 6.2 Released

So, wow, Slashdot was only an hour and eleven minutes ahead of the announcement.

If you're not on the announce mailing list, the full text should appear at this URL soon: [] -- not yet working as I write this!

is this news? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17610222)

since when did the release of an os/distro became a major news?

Re:is this news? (1)

KingOfGod (884633) | more than 7 years ago | (#17610284)

One word: "Vista"

But... (1)

slack_prad (942084) | more than 7 years ago | (#17610268)

..does it run linux?


Re:But... (5, Informative)

nacturation (646836) | more than 7 years ago | (#17610438)

..does it run linux?
You probably weren't expecting a serious reply but... yes, it does [] . Note that this isn't running some kind of virtual machine emulation -- it's running Linux binaries natively on the processor and doing some kind of magical remapping of kernel and library calls that, to be honest, I don't understand that well. More details in this article [] .

Re:But... (3, Informative)

heroofhyr (777687) | more than 7 years ago | (#17611938)

The article has fewer details than the last section of the chapter you linked to, which basically explains everything.

When the ELF loader sees the Linux brand, the loader replaces a pointer in the proc structure. All system calls are indexed through this pointer (in a traditional UNIX system, this would be the sysent[] structure array, containing the system calls). In addition, the process is flagged for special handling of the trap vector for the signal trampoline code, and several other (minor) fix-ups that are handled by the Linux kernel module.

The Linux system call vector contains, among other things, a list of sysent[] entries whose addresses reside in the kernel module.

When a system call is called by the Linux binary, the trap code dereferences the system call function pointer off the proc structure, and gets the Linux, not the FreeBSD, system call entry points.

In addition, the Linux mode dynamically reroots lookups; this is, in effect, what the union option to file system mounts (not the unionfs file system type!) does. First, an attempt is made to lookup the file in the /compat/linux/original-path directory, then only if that fails, the lookup is done in the /original-path directory. This makes sure that binaries that require other binaries can run (e.g., the Linux toolchain can all run under Linux ABI support). It also means that the Linux binaries can load and execute FreeBSD binaries, if there are no corresponding Linux binaries present, and that you could place a uname(1) command in the /compat/linux directory tree to ensure that the Linux binaries could not tell they were not running on Linux.

In effect, there is a Linux kernel in the FreeBSD kernel; the various underlying functions that implement all of the services provided by the kernel are identical to both the FreeBSD system call table entries, and the Linux system call table entries: file system operations, virtual memory operations, signal delivery, System V IPC, etc... The only difference is that FreeBSD binaries get the FreeBSD glue functions, and Linux binaries get the Linux glue functions (most older OS's only had their own glue functions: addresses of functions in a static global sysent[] structure array, instead of addresses of functions dereferenced off a dynamically initialized pointer in the proc structure of the process making the call).

Which one is the native FreeBSD ABI? It does not matter. Basically the only difference is that (currently; this could easily be changed in a future release, and probably will be after this) the FreeBSD glue functions are statically linked into the kernel, and the Linux glue functions can be statically linked, or they can be accessed via a kernel module.

Yeah, but is this really emulation? No. It is an ABI implementation, not an emulation. There is no emulator (or simulator, to cut off the next question) involved.

So why is it sometimes called "Linux emulation"? To make it hard to sell FreeBSD! Really, it is because the historical implementation was done at a time when there was really no word other than that to describe what was going on; saying that FreeBSD ran Linux binaries was not true, if you did not compile the code in or load a module, and there needed to be a word to describe what was being loaded--hence "the Linux emulator".
Also there is this, which is another good explanation of the differences between but support for the two OS's in FreeBSD programming.

FreeBSD is an extremely flexible system. It offers other ways of calling the kernel. For it to work, however, the system must have Linux emulation installed.

Linux is a Unix-like system. However, its kernel uses the Microsoft system-call convention of passing parameters in registers. As with the Unix convention, the function number is placed in EAX. The parameters, however, are not passed on the stack but in EBX, ECX, EDX, ESI, EDI, EBP:

open: mov eax, 5
mov ebx, path
mov ecx, flags
mov edx, mode
int 80h

This convention has a great disadvantage over the Unix way, at least as far as assembly language programming is concerned: Every time you make a kernel call you must push the registers, then pop them later. This makes your code bulkier and slower. Nevertheless, FreeBSD gives you a choice.
If you do choose the Microsoft/Linux convention, you must let the system know about it. After your program is assembled and linked, you need to brand the executable:

% brandelf -f Linux filename

2.3. Which Convention Should You Use?

If you are coding specifically for FreeBSD, you should always use the Unix convention: It is faster, you can store global variables in registers, you do not have to brand the executable, and you do not impose the installation of the Linux emulation package on the target system.

If you want to create portable code that can also run on Linux, you will probably still want to give the FreeBSD users as efficient a code as possible...
Quote 1 []
Quote 2 []

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17610480)

Actually, yes it does.

Re:But... (1)

kamochan (883582) | more than 7 years ago | (#17610546)

..does it run linux?

Actually, for all practical purposes, it does. The Linux kernel is a bit iffy, but all userland Linux binaries run just fine. The Linux syscall emulation works really well.

Re:But... (1)

Bottlemaster (449635) | more than 7 years ago | (#17610918)

all userland Linux binaries run just fine
That's quite a stretch. The Linux compatibility is not complete, but it's still very usable and many Linux binaries run just fine. There are even wrappers for Linux binary browser plugins.

FreeBSD 6.2 Released to Minors (1)

RincewindTVD (1011435) | more than 7 years ago | (#17610342)

That's what I read at first.

I don't know what a child would have to do to deserve that.

now, did I mean that as a reward or as a punishment? Let the fanboys decide!

Re:FreeBSD 6.2 Released to Minors (1)

vga_init (589198) | more than 7 years ago | (#17610434)

I read that too. It was pretty creepy at first. I mean, I was a minor when I was first exposed to Unix, but that doesn't mean other young people should do the same. Some just aren't ready, you know?

Linux ripped it off? (1)

badhat (944785) | more than 7 years ago | (#17610356)

I do believe Linux was born before FreeBSD... hehe... Now now I didn't say Unix. I have used the BSD's in the past and I have to admit I am glad to see it still creeping forward.

Re:Linux ripped it off? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17610592)

Nice try ass hat. []

Re:Linux ripped it off? (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 7 years ago | (#17610764)

Only if you ignore that FreeBSD is a fork of 386BSD, which is itself a fork of 4.3BSD (or more accurately Net/2).

m0n0wall (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17610754)

Then I guess M0n0wall is not far off from release either.

The next version of m0n0wall will be based on FreeBSD 6.2 release.

For the curious: []

Pleasantly surprised with laptop support! (5, Informative)

srinravi (789262) | more than 7 years ago | (#17610826)

I downloaded the netboot version of 6.2RC2 some days back and was pleasantly surprised to find that almost all the hardware was correctly recognized. This is a 2 year old compaq laptop with an Ralink PCMCIA wireless card. Not even the latest Linux distros can detect this card but OpenBSD and FreeBSD have the excellent ral [] driver in the kernel. Moreover the configuration is so simple when compared to the mess in Linux (iwconfig,iwpriv,ifconfig??) not to mention the troubles I had with ndiswrapper

All the BSD's use anyway nowadays, so the folks who are looking for a good GUI environment won't be disappointed. Again, the laptop display settings were correctly detected and I didn't have to touch xorg.conf at all

Give OpenBSD and FreeBSD a try - you won't regret it. Having said that, prepare to actually RTFM in case you run into problems. 99% of the time the answers are in the fine integrated documentation that comes along with your OS install.

So what (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17610830)

This is just a DargonflyBSD-wannabe.

dmod ]up (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17610900)

I don't dwant to []

questions from a linux guy (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17611330)

Recently I had the opportunity to look at some *bsd derivative systems, mainly firewalls and
small servers, and really liked how they were well designed, clean and stable. Therefore I'd like to take a better look at *bsd (*) and probably start using it among my other linux machines. My question is: what are the general caveats for someone coming from Linux, eg. that missing or different command/device/configuration file/installation procedure, etc. In other words those simple tasks that could be made difficult by thinking at them "the linux way"?

* I used *bsd because it's still not clear to me which bsd will suit my needs. I'll probably have to try them all.

Re:questions from a linux guy (5, Informative)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17611736)

Some differences between GNU/Linux and *BSD from the top of my head:

1. Device names are different. What Linux calls /dev/hda, OpenBSD and NetBSD call /dev/wd0, and FreeBSD calls it /dev/ad0, I believe.

2. Partition maps are different. Linux uses DOS (or BIOS, I'm not sure where they originate from) partition tables on the PC, and Apple partition tables on Power Macs. I don't know about other architectures. The BSDs use BSD disklabels, where each partition gets a letter (from a to z), with some letters having special meanings (e.g. a is the root device, c is the whole device). For example, if your root partition in /dev/hda1 under Linux, it would be /dev/wd0a in OpenBSD. FreeBSD also supports DOS partitions, but calls them "slices". Linux's /dev/hda1 would be /dev/ad0s1 under FreeBSD, IIRC.

3. The BSDs do not implement a lot of GNU extensions. This includes library functions (e.g. there's no strndup on OpenBSD), command line switches, and makefile directives. Of course, a lot of software is shared among BSD and GNU systems, but the differences will bite you sometimes. GNU usually implements BSD extensions.

4. GNU make is usually available on BSD systems, but under the name gmake. make is BSD make, which has a different set of extensions to basic make.

5. BSD systems provide third-party software primarily through the ports system (called pkgsrc on NetBSD), although binary packages may also be available. This is not common in Linux distributions, although Gentoo mimics the BSDs in this.

6. There is generally a higher focus on source code. For example, upgrades are typically performed by first getting the latest version of the source code through CVS, and then running "make world".

7. The BSD startup scripts are usually much simpler than those found on Linux distributions, which typically use SysV style init scripts.

8. The BSDs consist of a complete operating system that is maintained as a single unit, whereas, with Linux distros, the kernel, libc, core utilities, etc. are usually maintained and upgraded independently.

9. The BSDs pride themselves on technical quality and good documentation, whereas GNU/Linux is heavier on features and making things work _today_. Complaining about missing features, or asking questions without having read the documentation is likely to rub BSD people the wrong way. Be especially careful with OpenBSD developers.

10. The BSDs have traditional, monolithic kernels. All have some features available as loadable modules, but the modularization is definitely not strong as in Linux. Stability is considered more important.

11. The choice of filesystems is more limited on the BSDs than it is on Linux. All support Berkely FFS, as well as some variations on it, fat, and ext2, but there's no ReiserFS, JFFS2, QNX fs, etc.

12. Among the BSDs, NetBSD focuses on clean code and portability, OpenBSD focuses on security, and FreeBSD is the most featureful. Dragonfly BSD is a fork of FreeBSD that aims to provide a more modern architecture with a microkernel and without the Big Kernel Lock. There are some others, too, but I don't know what they're about.

Just to put this information in perspective: I've used GNU/Linux since 1996, and OpenBSD for about 5 years. My experience with NetBSD and FreeBSD is only sporadic. I've also created ports for OpenBSD and NetBSD, as well as developed quite some new software for them. If you count Mac OS X as a BSD, I've got about 2 years of experience with it, including the creation of pkgsrc ports for it.

YUO FAIL IT... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17611360)

If you haven't before... (3, Insightful)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 7 years ago | (#17611614)

...this is as good an opportunity as any to discover FreeBSD for yourself. As I wrote in my journal, it's a fantastic OS...very much worth obtaining a copy of and investigating.

I've also noticed how much the comments attached to this article are riddled with trolls, flamebait, and assorted rubbish. Richard Stallman was the first to slander the BSD license and attempt to discourage its' use, and it is obvious that there are Linux users who seek to continue their master's work in that regard, and shame themselves in the process. They tell people a lot more about their own character (or lack thereof) than about that of what they are attacking.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?