FreeBSD 7.0 has been released. “The FreeBSD Release Engineering Team is pleased to announce the availability of FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE. This is the first release from the 7-STABLE branch which introduces many new features along with many improvements to functionality present in the earlier branches.”
While I think that the large improvements under certain workloads is exciting, and congratulate the devs on the results of their work… I’m trying to think of a Linux distro which has put out a press release about a new offering which goes out of its way, in the first paragraph, to diss FreeBSD. And I can’t think of one.
I don’t see it as a diss, per se. Linux 2.6 kernel is well known for good performance. The comment in the announcements provides some basis for comparison that a relatively wide audience should understand.
Agreed. I also think the point is more likely to just show that they have really worked a lot towards improving the performance, even so much that in some cases they rival the Linux kernel. In essence I think they are just proud of that, not trying to belittle Linux in any way as such.
Anyways, seems like they’ve really done a good job, congrats to the devs
I will use FreeBSD when it has *native* support for embedded Flash content. I need that for work.
Just a comparison. But you’ll not see this in any distro, because the real work is done in the kernel. And there you will see sometimes a real diss toward other operating systems (Windows, Solaris, BSD …).
http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0604.2/1219.html
Just an example.
A mailing list post is not a press release.
Linus, still a dumass ….
The more I see Linus talking, the more I see him like an idiot.
He is speaking against closed source software, he should better think about his closed mind …
Just a question here: do you happen to know a lot about TLBs, costs associated with invalidating those tables, and all the other related memory management issues? If not then on what basis are you calling him a “dumbass”? Just wondering…
I suppose by the fact that the “incompetent idiots” (i.e. the FreeBSD and Mach people) are turning out software that rivals his own. If they were so incompetent and if Linus were so superior in his knowledge why isn’t Linux (the kernel) way ahead?
Well, atleast Linus himself doesn’t do any kernel related coding anymore, hasn’t been doing quite some time actually. And maybe Linux just has gotten to a point that even he doesn’t really know how to squeeze much more performance out of it?
Well, considering that Mach and FreeBSD are different products, lumping them together like that would make me consider him at least a little bit of a dumbass
Honestly, Linus comments are targeted at the teenage “Linux or die” geeks, religious zealots, or people like that (Linus seems to like being the prophet for those oscurantists).
Well, I don’t care a s**t about what this guy has to say, I simply don’t consider him to contribute with scientific views, or valuable opinions, to the free-Unix community.
Edited 2008-02-28 12:42 UTC
What right does Linus have to rag on FreeBSD’s VM subsystem when his own kernel’s underwent how many rewrites due to brokenness beyond repair?
I don’t think there is particularly anything wrong with it. On the contrary, I think it is very important information and that you are perhaps a little too sensitive. While FreeBSD never had performance issues on single processor systems, it has never been able to scale almost linearly on SMP based systems. This has been the focus of the project for several years and the comparison to Linux gives everyone a point of reference. What good does it do for them to state that there are substantial improvements compared to previous versions if they do not qualify what that exactly means? For example, if I was producing a car and stated that fuel efficiency has increased 1000% compared to last years model, are you going to run out and by my car? Well, you just purchased a car that gets 1 mpg. OTOH, if I qualify the statement and also inform you that efficiency rivals that of the Prius and in certain cases, you get 15% more miles per gallon, you now have a point of reference. I really think people need to be far less sensitive about things. If anything, I think it will give the Linux hackers more motivation to improve things.
I’ll agree with all of you that “dissing” was no doubt too strong a term. But it seems notable to me that they felt it necessary to drag out that MySQL benchmark, yet again, in the press release. With benchmarks and server loads, YMMV is a universal truth. Heck, sometimes even that OS out of Washington gets lucky! I should say that while the differences between 7 and previous versions are impressive… the 15% difference clocked between it and Linux is still in the noise, statistically speaking. I’m not at all upset that they came out 15% higher in a benchmark. You see, I consider myself to be a Unix advocate ahead of being a Linux advocate. (My unix advocacy predates the *existence* of Linux by a good 3 years.) If FreeBSD can show Linux a thing or two, then that’s peachy with me. In fact, I recall that back when we were having VM troubles, FreeBSD was one of the places we looked for guidance. So please do not take my original comment as indicating that I am displeased with FreeBSD’s advances, poorly stated as it perhaps was.
It’s more a matter of my feeling that FreeBSD has enough going for it that there is no need for them to compare themselves to Linux in the press release, when there are so many solid advances to fill it with, instead.
Ironically, in pointing out that they were coming across as a little defensive, I ended up coming across as a bit defensive, myself.
That is why you still need a comparison to Linux. On its own a 350% improvement is bloody phenomenal. But the big question on everyone’s mind when they read such a statement is how does that compare to what we already have? So by comparing it to Linux, it gives people a point of reference. I’m sure they could have done a comparison with Windows too, but then Windows isn’t exactly reknown for it’s SMP performance
If anything, I find that the comparison to Linux is very good move by the FreeBSD team. If the FreeBSD team were some commercial entity whose only aim was to sell you FreeBSD licenses, their press release would say that FreeBSD 7 is 1500% faster than previous versions. 1500% > 350% > 15% so it looks better for marketing. You would then have to dig through the fine print to see how this 1500% improvement would translate to a 15% improvement over the 2.6.22 Linux kernel.
Which approach would you prefer?
it is not dissing, it is a fact. FreeBSD was on top before and everyone knew that performance comes with FreeBSD
Now they are back on top and they love it
When you’re the underdog it’s quite common to compare yourself favorably to the one you’re trying to beat.
But yeah, it’s sort of cheap to put it in the press release.
They are not dissing Linux, they are praising it. You only compare to the ones that are worth beating, and for FreeBSD Linux is the one to beat. Not Windows nor the other *BSDs.
One thing annoying me greatly here: if there’s a usb keyboard present during boot process, the kernel just panics. If I add my usb keyboard AFTER the booting is done, the keyboard works normally.
Moreover, if the kernel finds a usb mouse during the booting process, it mysteriously disables the corresponding usb port and I cannot make that port operational again until I reboot.
I’ve googled a bit and found out that quite handful of other people were experiencing this rather annoying nuissance.
I am more than satisfied with this release, but this one little “bug” is really bugging me…disconnecting my all usb input devices then reconnecting them everytime I turn on my pc…this is very annoying to me.
Of course an operating system should panic because of bogus usb devices, but in the end it’s a problem with the device. Usb _is_ crap and operating systems like *BSD or Linux have to implement lot of patches to work with those crappy devices.
I hope you’re not serious.
I hope you are kidding, but I’ve been puzzled by this kind of argument in GNU/Linux forums time and again.
So if a witch doctor can cure a snake bite a “real” doctor can’t, that’s shame on the witch doctor: curing a snake bite is a hack; the Right Thing to do is to avoid being bitten, hm?
…did you just say that an OS should panic due to an external peripheral being plugged in?
Why not? It’s a long-standing tradition.
http://tinyurl.com/se967
Wow, you managed to link to the video clip that inspired my response.
Hey, that’s just solid engineering for you. And remember, it’s not a FreeBSD-problem, it’s a USB-problem. The fact that Linux can handle it just shows what a hack that system is. Here is another example of that:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.os.freebsd.stable/53443
You’re mentioning a valid problem. I may say that I had similar problems with an USB MP3 player, but I found out that the player was a totally crappy device, not conforming to any existing standard (except the plug). I just say this: kernel quirk.
Regarding the USB keyboard: There are cases when you need your “old” AT keyboard. For example, during boot manager and boot loader operations, the USB keyboard does not work. I found the same problem in Linux. But I think it’s a problem that many mainboards / BIOSes seem to have, others are able to emulate AT keyboard via USB, at least I think so. But after booting the kernel and loading the USB keyboard / mouse driver, there should not be any problem.
Wow, that’s really strange. May I ask which kind of keyboard it is? Personally, I have used differen USB keyboards (Sun Type 6, Apple with hub) without any problems.
Hu… much more stange! If you’ve enabled usbd, it should activate moused for the USB mouse, but the port should not be disabled.
What does usbdevs -v say?
So it seems to be a problem of a keyboard not conforming to the specifications FreeBSD’s ukbd driver follows.
I’d use an AT keyboard and a PS/2 mouse instead (“old stuff”) rather than playing with the cables…
A final note, just in case you didn’t know or start wondering: While in Linux you can access an AT and an USB keyboard in parallel (e. g. one keyboard for each hand), FreeBSD uses “kbdcontrol -k /dev/kbdX” to change the active keyboard (where X is 0, 1, … corresponding to the keyboards detected – mostly kbd0 = atkbd0, kbd1 = ukbd0). So you can only use one keyboard at a time.
At the moment, I have these:
% dmesg | grep “^u[km]”
ums0: Sun Microsystems Type 6 USB mouse, rev 1.00/1.02, addr 2, iclass 3/1
ums0: 3 buttons
ukbd0: Sun Microsystems Type 6 USB keyboard, rev 1.00/1.02, addr 3, iclass 3/1
Works perfectly here.
I hazard from the interview with the developers that this doesn’t virtualize well with Virtualbox?
Edited 2008-02-28 00:40 UTC
I have not been able to test any of the recent 7.0s yet. Anyone tested if fast_ipsec plus support for crypto hardware in this release is good for production? Thanks!
Anyone noticed how many “thumbs up” every FreeBSD related article gets on OSAlert? There are plenty of FreeBSD’s friends reading this site.
Thats because its good to see something other than linux making headlines.
I’ve been waiting excitedly for this release just fr ZFS.
This will (hopefully) ease a number of problems I’ve had with upgrading HDD space and backs ups on my home server.
And installation media is now 3 CDs. Come on…
It is trivial to create a DVD. I will upload a torrent to tuxdistro.com in the afternoon.
Still, most people just need the first CD. The rest are only useful if you intend to install ready made packages from CD.
Most people do Net install or use CD1 only to install base and then rebuild base system and ports.
If you need DVD you can create it yourself without any problems: http://bsdforums.org/forums/showthread.php?t=49882
As it has been mentioned correctly before, only CD1 is needed for a base install, afterwards you can install everything else over the Internet using the ports or packages, as you like. The CDs are useful if no Internet connection is available, so you can take the precompiled packages and install the applications you like. 3 CDs isn’t that much, is less than an installation DVD (or set of DVDs). As far as I know, you can even use the live system CD to setup a system, allthough it’s used for diagnostics, maintenance and rescue operations in most cases.
Personally, I only need CD1, recorded it onto CD yesterday. CDs are still cheaper than DVDs, and come computers – hey, you can imagine this! – don’t have the proper drives to create or read DVDs, so the CDs (from which you select what you’re going to need) is very welcome. This concept is well intended.
This weekend is going to be big fun to me – new release, more speed. That’s something that makes me happy each time a new FreeBSD comes out. It’s one of the reasons I’m glad that FreeBSD is my main OS since the days of 4.0. =^_^=
And I’d like to add and sing:
Good morning BSD,
I got a feeling that it’s gonna be a wonderful day.
The Sun in the sky has a T1 on its face
and it’s shining to salute to the SGI’s in place.
*takes newspaper* FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE available for download!
Oh boy, it’s well to say:
“Good norning BSD.”
Good morning BSD!
Here is your DVD if you still want to download it:
http://www.tuxdistro.com/torrents-details.php?id=921
To make your own, look at these instructions:
http://www.pa.msu.edu/~tigner/bsddvd.html
Thanks. It’s much easier to get basic environment and desktop from a single DVD. Regular installation is just crazy disc juggling. If I went with FreeBSD installer requests I’d have to change them about 100 times o_O
also, vote parent up
Edited 2008-02-28 19:42 UTC
Or, use the netinst, get the basic install on the disk, boot into is, and use “pkg_add -r kde3” to get a full-blown KDE install via binary packages. (Substitute whatever WM you want for kde3.)
It’s a personal pet peeve of mine that you can install anything beyond the base OS via sysinstall, and that you can use sysinstall to configure things once the install is done. The installer should just install the OS and configure it enough to boot. Everything else can be done once you are booted into the OS.
That leaves you waiting for everything to download which is inconvenient when FreeBSD servers are hammered by everyone installing new release. I’d rather jump into semi-working environment instantly.
I just started upgrading my servers to FreeBSD 7.0-STABLE.
Thanks for hard work in the SMP and new ULE
Always one day after installing a new server in the datacenter. Always one day.
Sod’s Law in action.
I kind of failed. While the hybrid packaging/compiling
system works well, I find configuring everything a desktop needs, by editing dozens of config files (many of which i have no idea about their existence) in randomly placed locations, to be really, really hackish.
Even non-desktop linux distros such as debian have /etc/alternatives to select which version of what you need. I’d really love to see more improvements in that area of FreeBSD, as it rememinds me of using Solaris, or Slackware Linux in 1995.
I never had much problems running a Gnome desktop on FreeBSD 6.x (IIRC I didn’t have to do that much hacking – but then I only really used it to play MP3s and surf the net)
However, if you’re struggling, then you’re better off downloading DesktopBSD as it’s bascially FreeBSD but already hacked for the desktop (the name says it all really).
Edited 2008-02-28 14:24 UTC
I am just a bit curious about BSD atm so I have a few things I’d like to ask.. Does “FreeBSD” name mean that there will be no proprietary software to be available from the Ports tree? I’d rather have it available, I don’t really have anything against proprietary software. And well, would FreeBSD (or such) have any advantages over a Linux installation? I’ve understood that in the end they’re pretty much alike.
No the name FreeBSD hasn’t anything to do with the strange belief of some GNUish people. It has something to do with the first *free* BSD. The daemon is free -> FreeBSD. So you will find anything possible in the ports.
>And well, would FreeBSD (or such) have any advantages over a Linux installation?
-different development model (quality first, quantity last – long testing cycles)
-ports (18.000+ applications and so on without the system included like in all Linux distros (userland))
-development of the whole operating system from the same team (no Babylonian-like devlopment)
-30 years of history in development of an UNIX system
-nice code and a real documentation (handbook, code etc.) -> superior quality and reliability
-BSDL (free as in real freedom aka you can do with it whatever you want)
-no need to recompile applications between releases
-no breaking ABIs
and so on. Of course you’ll not see any difference while using KDE etc. but you’ll see the difference while working with FreeBSD. It is just a difference to work with a free UNIX-derivative. And if it is “too hard” just use DesktopBSD. A 100% compatible FreeBSD but preconfigured for the beginner (64bit too).
http://www.desktopbsd.net
Edited 2008-02-28 17:20 UTC
Oh no, not at all. FreeBSD is one of the most pragmatic BSD’s. Pretty much everything is in the ports tree.
From a end user’s perspective, there’s not much difference between Linux and FreeBSD. You can run the same software and most of the commands are alike. Some years, Linux will be faster on some workloads, then the next year FreeBSD will overtake it, et cetera…
My personal preference still remains FreeBSD, because I like the unified approach. File locations, command names, manpages, and handbook are all very consistent. It feels very thought out, and stuff doesn’t change around. With Linux, I often felt that I had to learn a whole new OS every few years… Now, I generally only use Linux for running VMware.
But, both are very stable, both are very good, and they get the job done!
I’d like to add the high quality of the manpages. They do not only cover system tools, they include documentations for programming interfaces, libraries, system calls and maintenance procedures.
Furthermore, the source code of the FreeBSD OS is very tidy and well structured and documented. The source is of high quality, too.
The only thing you’re not going to find that really is a killer for most people is native Flash support. Gnash works somewhat and the Linux emulation Firefox and Flash works okay, but crashes a lot and audio is crappy. I wish Adobe would just release a “framework” or something to let people port to other systems if they don’t want to do it. If Java can go open source I’m sure Flash can as well.
Another good choice for you is PC-BSD. Give it a try, I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
thank you, i fully agree. some people are modding you down but don’t get fooled by that. ports/packges is not the best system. i’m currently running freebsd-update and that seems properly done (with rollbacks and stuff). but that is only for the base system.
but ports 2.0 is coming, just keep hoping (and try pc-bsd in the meanwhile
)
“but ports 2.0 is coming, just keep hoping”
What is ports 2.0?
http://www.freebsd.org/news/status/report-2007-10-2007-12.html#Port…
All core system settings are in /etc
All settings / config files for ports installed software is in /usr/local/etc/
Personally, FreeBSD’s layout of startup and config scripts puts any Linux distro to shame. Linux throws everything in /etc and makes it very difficult to seperate the “core” form any addons / packages install afterwords.
Wouldn’t that stem from the fact that there is no actual “core” and “addons.” It’d be hard to make that distinction on linux since it would be arbitrarily set differently in every distro. Considering the two options, having everything in /etc is probably for the best.
No, no, no…
It should be very clear what binaries and related config files are part of the default system and those that are user added, be it Linux, BSD, Solaris or whatever.
This is the very reason seasoned admins gravitate to the BSD’s – correctness.
Edited 2008-02-29 19:13 UTC
As it has been mentioned correctly before, nothing is “randomly placed” in FreeBSD, not even arbitrary. File locations are logically structured and support the distinction between the base OS and the additional software.
Regarding the OS, every configuration file is documented. Read well: Configuration files are documented! So, if you want to know something about /etc/rc.conf, you just “man rc.conf”.
Regarding additional software, it’s mostly up to the port maintainers and the authors of the software. Don’t expect manpages everywhere. While “man mplayer” gives you a good manual, most parts of, for example, KDE do not come with manpages (sadly…).
For file locations and the structure of the file system, refer to “man hier” where the hierarchy is explained.
The /etc directory only contains config files for the base system. Every additional configuration is placed in /usr/local/etc. This is because everything that does not belong to the base OS resides in /usr/local where you have the commonly known substructures like bin/, lib/ or include/. For many files, default values exist in /etc/defaults or /usr/local/etc/defaults respectively.
I don’t know which “improvements” you could be talking about. In fact. Just because Linux distributions don’t divide between “just the OS” and “everything else” (because Linux distributions contain an arbitrary chosen set from both “classes”), I would not like to see FreeBSD getting untidy in these regards…
If you’re willing to learn more, the FreeBSD handbook should answer all your questions. If you’re not interested in learning why all this stuff is well intended, use preconfigured systems that are based upon FreeBSD, namely PC-BSD and DesktopBSD, which provide exvellent tools to do all the work.
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2008/02/26/whats-new-in-freebsd-70….