Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 12:34:11PM -0800, Joseph Vella wrote: I notice a lot of references to version 4.x. Is there any overwhelming reason why its use seems to be still popular. I'm wanting to set up a server (just for play) on my home network using a PII machine. Am I better off using an older version for such old equipment? If so, do any particular versions stand out? I still run a 4.8 machine to monitor the UPS's for a server room. Basically I have no reason to upgrade the machine, it is a Dell Gsx or similar, P2 233, 64MB RAM. It's been a great machine, just chugging along without any problems. It's on the internal LAN, so I don't see any security problems, as myself and 2 other people even know that the machine is there, what it does, or even cares about it, and has access to the room that it is in. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~uname -rsp FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~uptime 4:05AM up 940 days, 9:18, 1 user, load averages: 0.24, 0.28, 0.25 -- Bob Bomar [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpJhgUiinJVz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
On 30/03/06, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 09:51:15AM +0100, Chris wrote: Sorry to hear that, can you point me to the PRs you filed so I can take a look? I didnt do a PR except one for a minor bug since there was nothing logged on it just died, I have kept one machine running 6.0 so I can try and resolve the problem and also will upgrade it to 6.1 on release to see if things are better, should I enable debugging options so it has better chance of logging something? Yes, you'll want to enable crashdumps (per the developers handbook) at least, and adding INVARIANTS and INVARIANT_SUPPORT is also a good idea if you're encountering a panic, because it may catch it earlier and at the root cause. If you are seeing a deadlock then enable WITNESS and DDB. Kris Ok thanks will do this, and if anything useable comes out of it will post it. Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
Hello Vladimir! First off, thank you for your worthy input. You're a very wise man. 30 years of development and continual introduction of new features build on top of existing ones is considered a very good design. And FreeBSD is still extensible and growing, despite of its age. Yes, the fact that it's still ongoing is amazing. If it has managed to keep going for 30 years, it will surely keep on going for another 30 years. What I meant was, the fundamentals for FreeBSD was set 30 years ago. Isn't it time we change that? And FreeBSD is not a skyscraper neigther literally, nor metaphorically - it's more like a spaceship - a very robust one - gives you the means and tools to save your life in deep space when a threat to your life appears and there is noone around. I think you're watching too much scifi. Before even starting talking about design, we should give proper definition for this concept. What is good design? It's pretty well defined at http://www.designcouncil.org.uk How do we measure one design against an alternative one? You ask an experienced designer, preferably an architect. That's the only way, otherwise you'll just be trying to bite your own tail. The widespread notion of good desing is related to the ability to maintain, extent and comprehend easily some complex system. No. Good design is transforming something complex into something easy. FreeBSD is complex. 30 years... You do the math! ? I'm not sure you're ready to present a new and revolutionary design (you should start a new threat on that). It's more like you're in search of volunteers to your FreeBSD Critisism Project. I should be ready in a few weeks. If you're interested I'd be glad to show it to you! Revolutionary design means starting from scratch - this would be a huge, tremendous investment of time and efforts(choose a platform, a language, write a compiler for it, start building a kernel, write completely new device drivers - Microsoft have its Singularity Research Project - an operating system written entirely in C#, but they don't share the tools - the C# compiler and linker they use to build that system, neighter the code - you can get just a couple of PowerPoint presentions, an interview, and a short 50 page long paper, about the features that this system will introduce - on the other hand you can get all of the FreeBSD source code, tones and tones of documentation, and hundreds of ready to help you people - FOR FREE). Revolutionary design, according to Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, one of the most popular science models of our time, characterizes science (where the same applies to design) as going from normal science to science in crisis and from science in crisis to scientific revolution. To me there's a crisis now because I personally believe things are moving in the wrong direction. Again, this is just personal. And there's no guarantee that this new design would last even 5 years. You're absolutely right! At some point in time this will probably happen, but it won't be FreeBSD. FreeBSD is not a vendor - it's an existing and evolving operating system and a commited community of FreeBSD users. The emphasis is on evolving. If we want to stick to FreeBSD, the new design should be evolutionary one, which is pretty different in concept - we would start from a familiar code base and would slowly integrate changes (just like the DragonFly project) into this base, thus creating a new BSD branch of development. Best Regards, Vladimir Tsvetkov Thank you again for your useful response! All the best, Vaaf ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 09:51:15AM +0100, Chris wrote: Sorry to hear that, can you point me to the PRs you filed so I can take a look? I didnt do a PR except one for a minor bug since there was nothing logged on it just died, I have kept one machine running 6.0 so I can try and resolve the problem and also will upgrade it to 6.1 on release to see if things are better, should I enable debugging options so it has better chance of logging something? Yes, you'll want to enable crashdumps (per the developers handbook) at least, and adding INVARIANTS and INVARIANT_SUPPORT is also a good idea if you're encountering a panic, because it may catch it earlier and at the root cause. If you are seeing a deadlock then enable WITNESS and DDB. Kris pgpWYSz7b338g.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
Hello Vladimir! 30 years of development and continual introduction of new features build on top of existing ones is considered a very good design. And FreeBSD is still extensible and growing, despite of its age. Yes, the fact that it's still ongoing is amazing. If it has managed to keep going for 30 years, it will surely keep on going for another 30 years. What I meant was, the fundamentals for FreeBSD was set 30 years ago. Isn't it time we change that? So what _fundamentals_ would you have be changed? And FreeBSD is not a skyscraper neigther literally, nor metaphorically - it's more like a spaceship - a very robust one - gives you the means and tools to save your life in deep space when a threat to your life appears and there is noone around. I think you're watching too much scifi. Before even starting talking about design, we should give proper definition for this concept. What is good design? It's pretty well defined at http://www.designcouncil.org.uk How do we measure one design against an alternative one? You ask an experienced designer, preferably an architect. That's the only way, otherwise you'll just be trying to bite your own tail. The widespread notion of good desing is related to the ability to maintain, extent and comprehend easily some complex system. No. Good design is transforming something complex into something easy. FreeBSD is complex. FreeBSD is easy - very much so in comparison with some other so-called 'systems' available for comparison. jerry 30 years... You do the math! ? I'm not sure you're ready to present a new and revolutionary design (you should start a new threat on that). It's more like you're in search of volunteers to your FreeBSD Critisism Project. I should be ready in a few weeks. If you're interested I'd be glad to show it to you! Revolutionary design means starting from scratch - this would be a huge, tremendous investment of time and efforts(choose a platform, a language, write a compiler for it, start building a kernel, write completely new device drivers - Microsoft have its Singularity Research Project - an operating system written entirely in C#, but they don't share the tools - the C# compiler and linker they use to build that system, neighter the code - you can get just a couple of PowerPoint presentions, an interview, and a short 50 page long paper, about the features that this system will introduce - on the other hand you can get all of the FreeBSD source code, tones and tones of documentation, and hundreds of ready to help you people - FOR FREE). Revolutionary design, according to Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, one of the most popular science models of our time, characterizes science (where the same applies to design) as going from normal science to science in crisis and from science in crisis to scientific revolution. To me there's a crisis now because I personally believe things are moving in the wrong direction. Again, this is just personal. And there's no guarantee that this new design would last even 5 years. You're absolutely right! At some point in time this will probably happen, but it won't be FreeBSD. FreeBSD is not a vendor - it's an existing and evolving operating system and a commited community of FreeBSD users. The emphasis is on evolving. If we want to stick to FreeBSD, the new design should be evolutionary one, which is pretty different in concept - we would start from a familiar code base and would slowly integrate changes (just like the DragonFly project) into this base, thus creating a new BSD branch of development. Best Regards, Vladimir Tsvetkov Thank you again for your useful response! All the best, Vaaf ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
Vaaf wrote: Yes, the fact that it's still ongoing is amazing. If it has managed to keep going for 30 years, it will surely keep on going for another 30 years. What I meant was, the fundamentals for FreeBSD was set 30 years ago. Isn't it time we change that? I'm probably just trolling. I'm certainly no design engineer. But: I curse a certain product from Washington, USA, regularly due to the fact that it doesn't have grep ATT attempted a fundamental change in the 80's/90's. It apparently looks and runs like something from outer space. It has very high geek value, but last I heard there wasn't even a graphical web browser for it, and Dennis Ritchie (perhaps by company policy, I can't tell and don't care to ask unless it becomes real important for some reason) has to send his emails with MS Outlook*. Linus Torvalds, arguably, has created fundamental change. The arguments of the relative merits of Linux vs. FreeBSD are argued on the 'Net constantly. There is no hands-down winner, there's no distinct measure of overall supremacy. There's only lists of pros and cons, and ever-changing benchmarks that reflect the ongoing development in both camps. When Steve Jobs went looking for a new apple core :D, he picked BSD code instead of Linux. So, what is going to replace these fundamentals for FreeBSD? Do you have any idea of the scope of the evolution of UNIX and Unix-like systems? If MSFT, with billions of dollars and thousands of the world's most talented programmers, can't create a great operating system in 6 years using VMS-based NT** (which dates back 13 years, I think, ATM, and VMS before that), how do you propose that starting over is going to produce anything as nice as what we have now before at least 2015, or later? Kevin Kinsey *I only can _assume_ that it's running on Win instead of Plan9. It's also possible that he _prefers_ this MUA, or just happened to be stuck on a Winbox, or only has one computer at home (is there a Mrs. Ritchie? that's one reason why I've a Winbox in the house) when he sent the message I'm referring to. All I can do is read headers. **Don't know if VMS-based NT is fully accurate, but it's generally accepted, and for good reasons. -- Q: What do you call a group of kids with low IQ's, drinking diet cola, eating fruit, and singing? A: The Moron Tab and Apple Choir. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
On 29/03/06, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 08:48:07PM +0100, Chris wrote: Well without a doubt 4.x is the fastest and most stable freebsd out of the 3. The comment earlier where it just runs and runs is a good way of describing it. 6.x is faster at filesystem performance and other tasks. 5.x had a big performance hit and 6.x is noticeably faster but I have been experiencing weird lockups with 6.x and have reverted all but one of my servers back to 5.4 that were running 6.0 and they became stable again, we have one server running 6.1 prerelease which is more stable then 6.0 so I would rate 6.0 as a poor release, sorry but it only is stable under low load on every server I tried it on. Sorry to hear that, can you point me to the PRs you filed so I can take a look? Kris and others have you been testing 6.0 in server environments with things such as ddos attacks and thousands of concurrent connections, sustained heavy traffic ongoing for days etc, these type of things have caused 6.0 to just die on me. Yes, and so have companies like Yahoo! who are so pleased with 6.x that they are deploying it company-wide. Kris I didnt do a PR except one for a minor bug since there was nothing logged on it just died, I have kept one machine running 6.0 so I can try and resolve the problem and also will upgrade it to 6.1 on release to see if things are better, should I enable debugging options so it has better chance of logging something? Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
Joseph, I notice a lot of references to version 4.x. Is there any overwhelming reason why its use seems to be still popular. I'm wanting to set up a server (just for play) on my home network using a PII machine. Am I better off using an older version for such old equipment? If so, do any particular versions stand out? you have had plenty of response already. i just want to post my experience. in late 2001, i installed 4.3 on a server and a couple of workstations. i have upgraded them as time went by up to 4.11. no problems, it runs runs runs. i have been following the mailing-lists on a regular basis, and decided 5.x was not me ( sorry guys ). at the beginning of this year i upgraded my main workstation to 6.0 for the following reasons: - could not get the latest KDE to compile due to my own messing with the packages - i needed kernel threading for mythtv ( can be done with linuxthreads on 4.11 ) so far, 6.0 has been flawless for me. only thing i noticed was: gcc3.3 seems to be a lot slower than 2.95 ( i have no figures, could be my imagination ) if your machine will be for play as you suggest, go for the latest greatest. if it fails, you could always try 4.11 later on. regards, usleep ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you have had plenty of response already. i just want to post my experience. I'll post my 2 cents too. in late 2001, i installed 4.3 on a server and a couple of workstations. i have upgraded them as time went by up to 4.11. no problems, it runs runs runs. I've had plenty of 4.11 systems. Some of them tends to reboot from time to time. Sometimes I was able to track it down to some software failure (vinum, net drivers, ...), sometimes to hardware, sometimes I wasn't able to get anywhere and I simply started over with new HWSW. i have been following the mailing-lists on a regular basis, and decided 5.x was not me ( sorry guys ). I've read plenty of horror tales on 5.x, yet I've built some new systems and done some upgrades and had absolutely no problems so far. In my experience even 5.3 is far stabler than 4.11 (which was not at all bad in turn). so far, 6.0 has been flawless for me. only thing i noticed was: gcc3.3 seems to be a lot slower than 2.95 ( i have no figures, could be my imagination ) I agree 6.0 is even as stable. As for gcc, 3.x is far slower than 2.9. C++ is a huge beast and supporting it all poses heavy requirement on the compiler. 2.95 didn't support C++ as well as 3.x, so you'll sooner or later run into some missing features; on the other side this implied faster compilations. Their web site says 4.x is again a lot faster than 3.x, although I didn't see any performance comparison against 2.x. I still haven't tested this myself. Go with 6.x, really. bye av. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
Dear Wee-Sern, when i upgraded my 4.11 workstation, i did a clean install from CD to a new HD. when i will be upgrading my 4.11 server to 6.x, i will probably run a 6.x alongside the 4.11, installing all software as needed, test it, then transfer data from 4.11 disk to the 6.x. then test again, and swap the 6.x harddisk into the server. i will probably keep the 4.11 harddisk as a backup. i would not upgrade to 6.x if i were you, if there is no specific reason. i would keep my 4.x updated though ( so i suggest you update to 4.11, just for security ). regards, usleep On 3/29/06, Wee-Sern Soo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I saw your post and wanted to ask you about your experience with upgrading FreeBSD 4.x to a new release. I have a couple of FreeBSD 4.6.2 servers and am looking to upgrade it to the latest stable release. In your opinion, what is the best way to upgrade to the latest 4.x release? What were the traps and pitfalls wrt to doing in place upgrades? Will things break? Regards, Wee-Sern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote the following on 29/03/2006 7:05 PM: Joseph, I notice a lot of references to version 4.x. Is there any overwhelming reason why its use seems to be still popular. I'm wanting to set up a server (just for play) on my home network using a PII machine. Am I better off using an older version for such old equipment? If so, do any particular versions stand out? you have had plenty of response already. i just want to post my experience. in late 2001, i installed 4.3 on a server and a couple of workstations. i have upgraded them as time went by up to 4.11. no problems, it runs runs runs. i have been following the mailing-lists on a regular basis, and decided 5.x was not me ( sorry guys ). at the beginning of this year i upgraded my main workstation to 6.0 for the following reasons: - could not get the latest KDE to compile due to my own messing with the packages - i needed kernel threading for mythtv ( can be done with linuxthreads on 4.11 ) so far, 6.0 has been flawless for me. only thing i noticed was: gcc3.3 seems to be a lot slower than 2.95 ( i have no figures, could be my imagination ) if your machine will be for play as you suggest, go for the latest greatest. if it fails, you could always try 4.11 later on. regards, usleep ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Tom Grove wrote: I would certainly recommend going with 6.x. The reason that many of our servers still run 4.x is that 5.x got a bad reputation and there really is no upgrade path from 4.x to 6.x. 5 and 6 default to using UFS2 and 4 uses UFS so, IMHO it's better to rebuild and taking a few hundred users offline for a couple of hours whilst this happens isn't fun. That's my scenario...I'm sure others have totally different reasons. In addition to Kris' comments about UFS being perfectly viable for 5.x and 6.x: there is an upgrade path, but it's 4.x - 5.x - 6.x. FWIW I've done this successfully without a hitch*. jan * Having said that, I use a liveupgrade-a-like setup with a primary / and /usr (that I'm running from) and a secondary (that I rebuild into and reboot into). It means I have something solid to fall back to if the upgrade fails. -- jan grant, ISYS, University of Bristol. http://www.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44 (0)117 3317661 http://ioctl.org/jan/ That which does not kill us goes straight to our thighs. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
At 22:34 28.03.2006, Joseph Vella wrote: I notice a lot of references to version 4.x. Is there any overwhelming reason why its use seems to be still popular. I'm wanting to set up a server (just for play) on my home network using a PII machine. Am I better off using an older version for such old equipment? If so, do any particular versions stand out? FreeBSD, and UNIX for that matter, is based off 30-year-old concepts. Noboy can deny this. That being said, you can compare the development of FreeBSD to building a skyscraper on shallow grounds. Naturally, the more you build the more building is likely to collapse. This is now the case with the old FreeBSD (in which a couple of smart guys decided to savior into DragonFly) versus the new FreeBSD. I think the same thing is happening with Windows versus Vista. As OS development progresses, this little theory of mine will become more and more obvious. If anyone on this list can contribute with facts and observations to strenghten this theory, I would really appreciate it. Thank you all, Vaaf ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
At 04:17 AM 3/29/2006, Vaaf wrote: At 22:34 28.03.2006, Joseph Vella wrote: I notice a lot of references to version 4.x. Is there any overwhelming reason why its use seems to be still popular. I'm wanting to set up a server (just for play) on my home network using a PII machine. Am I better off using an older version for such old equipment? If so, do any particular versions stand out? FreeBSD, and UNIX for that matter, is based off 30-year-old concepts. Noboy can deny this. That being said, you can compare the development of FreeBSD to building a skyscraper on shallow grounds. Naturally, the more you build the more building is likely to collapse. Your analogy is horribly flawed. The fact that something has been around for a while and is still in widespread use, speaks very much to it's strengths, and very little to it's weaknesses. This is now the case with the old FreeBSD (in which a couple of smart guys decided to savior into DragonFly) versus the new FreeBSD. I think the same thing is happening with Windows versus Vista. As OS development progresses, this little theory of mine will become more and more obvious. If anyone on this list can contribute with facts and observations to strenghten this theory, I would really appreciate it. Besides being flame bait, I think you'll find little support for your little theory on this list. -Glenn Thank you all, Vaaf ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
Vaaf wrote: At 22:34 28.03.2006, Joseph Vella wrote: I notice a lot of references to version 4.x. Is there any overwhelming reason why its use seems to be still popular. I'm wanting to set up a server (just for play) on my home network using a PII machine. Am I better off using an older version for such old equipment? If so, do any particular versions stand out? FreeBSD, and UNIX for that matter, is based off 30-year-old concepts. Noboy can deny this. That being said, you can compare the development of FreeBSD to building a skyscraper on shallow grounds. Naturally, the more you build the more building is likely to collapse. This is now the case with the old FreeBSD (in which a couple of smart guys decided to savior into DragonFly) versus the new FreeBSD. I think the same thing is happening with Windows versus Vista. As OS development progresses, this little theory of mine will become more and more obvious. If anyone on this list can contribute with facts and observations to strenghten this theory, I would really appreciate it. Thank you all, Vaaf ___ Hi, I was just wondering if you would also welcome observations from list members which may challenge this theory? Best wishes, --Duane Whitty ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
Your analogy is horribly flawed. The fact that something has been around for a while and is still in widespread use, speaks very much to it's strengths, and very little to it's weaknesses. It's not like anybody has a choice, now is it. Try to look at the development from a natural, outside perspective. If stuff ain't right from the start, things will work out in the wrong direction. Ofcourse it won't be noticable at first. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
Hi, I was just wondering if you would also welcome observations from list members which may challenge this theory? Best wishes, --Duane Whitty Ofcourse man! Bring it on! :) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
of FreeBSD to building a skyscraper on shallow grounds. apparently, you did not read much of the source tree did you. or appreciate the fact that FreeBSD boots so fast and clean. anyway, you rant made me think why my email block was not working properly. i need to check the to: and cc: -fields as well! thanks alot! regards, usleep ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 12:34:11 -0800 Joseph Vella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I notice a lot of references to version 4.x. Is there any overwhelming reason why its use seems to be still popular. I'm wanting to set up a server (just for play) on my home network using a PII machine. Am I better off using an older version for such old equipment? If so, do any particular versions stand out? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I use vinum on two of my machine and most of what I have seen on the list about gvinum isn't good. That is the main reson I haven't upgraded. Is there anyone out there using gvinum on 6.x that can shed some light on how well it is working now? -- Michael Hughes Log Home living is the best [EMAIL PROTECTED] Temperatures: Outside: 34.8 House: 69.5 Computer room: 66.3 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
At 14:46 29.03.2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: of FreeBSD to building a skyscraper on shallow grounds. apparently, you did not read much of the source tree did you. or appreciate the fact that FreeBSD boots so fast and clean. Whatever. I love FreeBSD, however I'm just stating the facts. anyway, you rant made me think why my email block was not working properly. i need to check the to: and cc: -fields as well! thanks alot! regards, usleep ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
On Wednesday 29 March 2006 09:27, Vaaf wrote: At 14:46 29.03.2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: of FreeBSD to building a skyscraper on shallow grounds. apparently, you did not read much of the source tree did you. or appreciate the fact that FreeBSD boots so fast and clean. Whatever. I love FreeBSD, however I'm just stating the facts. anyway, you rant made me think why my email block was not working properly. i need to check the to: and cc: -fields as well! thanks alot! regards, usleep ___ I have a question for you Kristian. Since you switched to DragonFly, why are you asking questions here? Isn't DragonFly providing support? Don't they go along with your failed method of doing a buildworld sequence either? I saw in an earlier post of yours, that we told you your method was wrong, but you think you're right. That would mean that everyone who can do it and tried to help you is wrong, and you who can't do it with your method, is right. Is that what it amounts to? I have to think about that. As for blocking your email, while the idea sounds good, I won't do that. I would miss out on some serious entertainment that you provide. Don ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 02:17:31PM +0200, Vaaf wrote: At 22:34 28.03.2006, Joseph Vella wrote: I notice a lot of references to version 4.x. Is there any overwhelming reason why its use seems to be still popular. I'm wanting to set up a server (just for play) on my home network using a PII machine. Am I better off using an older version for such old equipment? If so, do any particular versions stand out? FreeBSD, and UNIX for that matter, is based off 30-year-old concepts. Noboy can deny this. That being said, you can compare the development of FreeBSD to building a skyscraper on shallow grounds. Naturally, the more you build the more building is likely to collapse. This is now the case with the old FreeBSD (in which a couple of smart guys decided to savior into DragonFly) versus the new FreeBSD. I think the same thing is happening with Windows versus Vista. As OS development progresses, this little theory of mine will become more and more obvious. If anyone on this list can contribute with facts and observations to strenghten this theory, I would really appreciate it. ...because you have none of your own. Kris pgpSzk7CzvKaF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
2006/3/29, Vaaf [EMAIL PROTECTED]: FreeBSD, and UNIX for that matter, is based off 30-year-old concepts. Noboy can deny this. That being said, you can compare the development of FreeBSD to building a skyscraper on shallow grounds. Naturally, the more you build the more building is likely to collapse. This is now the case with the old FreeBSD (in which a couple of smart guys decided to savior into DragonFly) versus the new FreeBSD. I think the same thing is happening with Windows versus Vista. As OS development progresses, this little theory of mine will become more and more obvious. If anyone on this list can contribute with facts and observations to strenghten this theory, I would really appreciate it. 30 years of development and continual introduction of new features build on top of existing ones is considered a very good design. And FreeBSD is still extensible and growing, despite of its age. And FreeBSD is not a skyscraper neigther literally, nor metaphorically - it's more like a spaceship - a very robust one - gives you the means and tools to save your life in deep space when a threat to your life appears and there is noone around. Before even starting talking about design, we should give proper definition for this concept. What is good design? How do we measure one design against an alternative one? The widespread notion of good desing is related to the ability to maintain, extent and comprehend easily some complex system. 30 years... You do the math! I'm not sure you're ready to present a new and revolutionary design (you should start a new threat on that). It's more like you're in search of volunteers to your FreeBSD Critisism Project. Revolutionary design means starting from scratch - this would be a huge, tremendous investment of time and efforts(choose a platform, a language, write a compiler for it, start building a kernel, write completely new device drivers - Microsoft have its Singularity Research Project - an operating system written entirely in C#, but they don't share the tools - the C# compiler and linker they use to build that system, neighter the code - you can get just a couple of PowerPoint presentions, an interview, and a short 50 page long paper, about the features that this system will introduce - on the other hand you can get all of the FreeBSD source code, tones and tones of documentation, and hundreds of ready to help you people - FOR FREE). And there's no guarantee that this new design would last even 5 years. At some point in time this will probably happen, but it won't be FreeBSD. FreeBSD is not a vendor - it's an existing and evolving operating system and a commited community of FreeBSD users. The emphasis is on evolving. If we want to stick to FreeBSD, the new design should be evolutionary one, which is pretty different in concept - we would start from a familiar code base and would slowly integrate changes (just like the DragonFly project) into this base, thus creating a new BSD branch of development. Best Regards, Vladimir Tsvetkov ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
Joseph Vella wrote: I notice a lot of references to version 4.x. Is there any overwhelming reason why its use seems to be still popular. I'm wanting to set up a server (just for play) on my home network using a PII machine. Am I better off using an older version for such old equipment? No, I run 6.0-RELEASE on a Pentium I 200mHz with 32mB RAM. If so, do any particular versions stand out? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- --hackmiester Walk a mile in my shoes and you will be a mile away in a new pair of shoes. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFD/yYl3ApzN91C7BcRAoVVAJ97uhjh30nQ4hd9bQ90gJqiwsLEfgCeKSrg bVfqEeJ09WhO6Y51WHEHb6o= =VTUd -END PGP SIGNATURE- -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: Geek Code v3.1 (PHP) GCS/CM/E/IT d-@ s: a- C++$ UBLS*$ P+ L+++$ E- W++$ !N-- !o+ K-- !w-- !O- M++$ V-- PS@ PE@ Y--? PGP++ !t--- 5--? !X-- !R-- tv-- b+ DI++ D++ G+ e h r+++ z --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- Quick contact info: Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personal: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Large files/spam: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GTalk:hackmiester/AIM:hackmiester1337/Y!:hackm1ester/IRC:irc.7sinz.net/7sinz ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
Kris Kennaway wrote: On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 05:11:05PM -0500, DAve wrote: Really you want to use 6.0 or 6.1 on any new system, simply because that's the modern, supported version of FreeBSD. Kris I get frightened when something is no longer modern when it is less than a year old. http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.4R/announce.html Good reasons to recommend 6.X would be bug FOO is fixed, hardware FOO is now fully supported, FOO is now a kernel module and can be unloaded or loaded at will, disk performance is gazillion% better, etc. If it makes you happy, all of those things are also true. Kris It would be nice to actually tell new users why 6.X is better wouldn't you think? Simply saying you should use it because it is new, is a page from RedHat's book. So please don't be trite, it looks bad in the archives later when new users are searching for information. It also does little to answer the user's question. Better that new users get several descriptive answers to their query, even if the answers disagree, than to get cute remarks. So to help him out, here are a few reasons you, Joseph Vella, should look into using 6.X over 4.X if you are still interested. http://www.freebsd.org/releases/6.0R/relnotes-i386.html#NEW Of interest (IMO) is Jails, GEOM, and ACL. All of which I've seen mentioned several times on other lists. Users seem to be deploying these features a lot. I am sure there is more, but they would be features I am not following or currently have no use for. I am impressed with GEOM, I have three new backup servers using gmirror and gstripe as a test and I am quite happy with it. Much easier than using vinum with 4.X if you need software mirroring. Best of luck, DAve -- This message was checked by forty monkeys and found to not contain any SPAM whatsoever. Your monkeys may vary ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 01:19:30PM -0500, DAve wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 05:11:05PM -0500, DAve wrote: Really you want to use 6.0 or 6.1 on any new system, simply because that's the modern, supported version of FreeBSD. Kris I get frightened when something is no longer modern when it is less than a year old. http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.4R/announce.html Good reasons to recommend 6.X would be bug FOO is fixed, hardware FOO is now fully supported, FOO is now a kernel module and can be unloaded or loaded at will, disk performance is gazillion% better, etc. If it makes you happy, all of those things are also true. Kris It would be nice to actually tell new users why 6.X is better wouldn't you think? No, because I have better things to do with my time than to repeat information that is widely available and locatable with a few seconds of searching. Kris pgpNcJwEXJuqo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
On 3/29/06, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 02:17:31PM +0200, Vaaf wrote: At 22:34 28.03.2006, Joseph Vella wrote: I notice a lot of references to version 4.x. Is there any overwhelming reason why its use seems to be still popular. I'm wanting to set up a server (just for play) on my home network using a PII machine. Am I better off using an older version for such old equipment? If so, do any particular versions stand out? FreeBSD, and UNIX for that matter, is based off 30-year-old concepts. Noboy can deny this. I don't, and I don't think anyone would deny that statement. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that those concepts are not solid ground on which to build an OS. Hammurabi wrote the first set of laws for a civilized nation, and those laws have been under refinement for the past ~2200 years. Granted there are some problems with current laws, but just like in (most first-world) countries where the public has a say in how they are governed, so does the open source community have a say in the development of thier projects. That being said, you can compare the development of FreeBSD to building a skyscraper on shallow grounds. Naturally, the more you build the more building is likely to collapse. Please explain how building an OS on solid techniquies and with a mind towards usability, stability, and scalability constitutes building on shallow grounds. Furthermore, please explain what shallow ground actually means. I was under the impression that all grounds are pretty deep, going through the core of the Earth and all This is now the case with the old FreeBSD (in which a couple of smart guys decided to savior into DragonFly) versus the new FreeBSD. I think the same thing is happening with Windows versus Vista. As OS development progresses, this little theory of mine will become more and more obvious. If anyone on this list can contribute with facts and observations to strenghten this theory, I would really appreciate it. ...because you have none of your own. Kris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 01:30:51PM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 01:19:30PM -0500, DAve wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 05:11:05PM -0500, DAve wrote: Really you want to use 6.0 or 6.1 on any new system, simply because that's the modern, supported version of FreeBSD. Kris I get frightened when something is no longer modern when it is less than a year old. http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.4R/announce.html Good reasons to recommend 6.X would be bug FOO is fixed, hardware FOO is now fully supported, FOO is now a kernel module and can be unloaded or loaded at will, disk performance is gazillion% better, etc. If it makes you happy, all of those things are also true. Kris It would be nice to actually tell new users why 6.X is better wouldn't you think? No, because I have better things to do with my time than to repeat information that is widely available and locatable with a few seconds of searching. Anyway, I think you kind of misconstrued my emails. The original question was what version of FreeBSD should a new user run, and it was suggested that a new user runs 4.11. The important questions for new users are not what new technical features does 6.x have that I probably won't understand nor care about anyway, but: * Is it a good release? * Who can I ask when I need help? Clearly, 4.11 is a very good release (the 6.x series are also very good releases; the 5.x series not so good in comparison). However, 4.11 fails on the second point, because 4.11 is in practise no longer completely supported; this is my point. For example, what if you want to run GNOME, and encounter a problem? You'll be told by the GNOME team that running GNOME on 4.11 is no longer supported (in fact you may not even be able to compile it). Ditto KDE. What if you run into a FreeBSD bug? You'll be told that 4.11 is no longer supported and to try 6.1 since it's probably fixed already anyway. What if you want to write some PERL code? The version in 4.x is very old and will no longer work with many current PERL modules, so you'll have to work out how to replace it. Ditto the C compiler. etc. So why is 4.11 is no longer fully supported? Because the resources of the FreeBSD community are finite, and it's our opinion that it's more productive to devote our limited resources to the FreeBSD branches that are actively being developed. Yes, 4.11 was only released 14 months ago - but it's the final release of a branch that is *over 7 years old* and carrying over 7 years worth of legacy baggage, and that's really the key point here. In about 9 months the FreeBSD 4.x branch will be desupported entirely, so things are only going to get worse for any remaining 4.x users who need help to run their system. So when 4.11 is ruled out for your new installation, applying the same reasoning tells you that it's smart to install the current stable release, which is currently 6.0 and soon to be 6.1. You wouldn't pick some random older release like 5.4 unless you have good reason to, in which case you don't need to ask. Kris pgpxX7jOIKcka.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
On 29/03/06, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 01:30:51PM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 01:19:30PM -0500, DAve wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 05:11:05PM -0500, DAve wrote: Really you want to use 6.0 or 6.1 on any new system, simply because that's the modern, supported version of FreeBSD. Kris I get frightened when something is no longer modern when it is less than a year old. http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.4R/announce.html Good reasons to recommend 6.X would be bug FOO is fixed, hardware FOO is now fully supported, FOO is now a kernel module and can be unloaded or loaded at will, disk performance is gazillion% better, etc. If it makes you happy, all of those things are also true. Kris It would be nice to actually tell new users why 6.X is better wouldn't you think? No, because I have better things to do with my time than to repeat information that is widely available and locatable with a few seconds of searching. Anyway, I think you kind of misconstrued my emails. The original question was what version of FreeBSD should a new user run, and it was suggested that a new user runs 4.11. The important questions for new users are not what new technical features does 6.x have that I probably won't understand nor care about anyway, but: * Is it a good release? * Who can I ask when I need help? Clearly, 4.11 is a very good release (the 6.x series are also very good releases; the 5.x series not so good in comparison). However, 4.11 fails on the second point, because 4.11 is in practise no longer completely supported; this is my point. For example, what if you want to run GNOME, and encounter a problem? You'll be told by the GNOME team that running GNOME on 4.11 is no longer supported (in fact you may not even be able to compile it). Ditto KDE. What if you run into a FreeBSD bug? You'll be told that 4.11 is no longer supported and to try 6.1 since it's probably fixed already anyway. What if you want to write some PERL code? The version in 4.x is very old and will no longer work with many current PERL modules, so you'll have to work out how to replace it. Ditto the C compiler. etc. So why is 4.11 is no longer fully supported? Because the resources of the FreeBSD community are finite, and it's our opinion that it's more productive to devote our limited resources to the FreeBSD branches that are actively being developed. Yes, 4.11 was only released 14 months ago - but it's the final release of a branch that is *over 7 years old* and carrying over 7 years worth of legacy baggage, and that's really the key point here. In about 9 months the FreeBSD 4.x branch will be desupported entirely, so things are only going to get worse for any remaining 4.x users who need help to run their system. So when 4.11 is ruled out for your new installation, applying the same reasoning tells you that it's smart to install the current stable release, which is currently 6.0 and soon to be 6.1. You wouldn't pick some random older release like 5.4 unless you have good reason to, in which case you don't need to ask. Kris Well without a doubt 4.x is the fastest and most stable freebsd out of the 3. The comment earlier where it just runs and runs is a good way of describing it. The only reason I dont use 4.x on new servers is because it has limited time left and the upgrade path involves a reinstall. The only hardware I think benefits performance wise on 5.x and newer is SMP hardware for any UP hardware I have used 4.x has always had the best performance. 5.x had a big performance hit and 6.x is noticeably faster but I have been experiencing weird lockups with 6.x and have reverted all but one of my servers back to 5.4 that were running 6.0 and they became stable again, we have one server running 6.1 prerelease which is more stable then 6.0 so I would rate 6.0 as a poor release, sorry but it only is stable under low load on every server I tried it on. Kris and others have you been testing 6.0 in server environments with things such as ddos attacks and thousands of concurrent connections, sustained heavy traffic ongoing for days etc, these type of things have caused 6.0 to just die on me. The todo list for 6.1 seems to indicate their is a problems with the 6.x branch but I am glad it is delayed rather then rushed out with a bunch of deffered bugs and hopefully it will be stable enough to use on production servers. Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 08:48:07PM +0100, Chris wrote: Well without a doubt 4.x is the fastest and most stable freebsd out of the 3. The comment earlier where it just runs and runs is a good way of describing it. 6.x is faster at filesystem performance and other tasks. 5.x had a big performance hit and 6.x is noticeably faster but I have been experiencing weird lockups with 6.x and have reverted all but one of my servers back to 5.4 that were running 6.0 and they became stable again, we have one server running 6.1 prerelease which is more stable then 6.0 so I would rate 6.0 as a poor release, sorry but it only is stable under low load on every server I tried it on. Sorry to hear that, can you point me to the PRs you filed so I can take a look? Kris and others have you been testing 6.0 in server environments with things such as ddos attacks and thousands of concurrent connections, sustained heavy traffic ongoing for days etc, these type of things have caused 6.0 to just die on me. Yes, and so have companies like Yahoo! who are so pleased with 6.x that they are deploying it company-wide. Kris pgpRW4Aoj9wVv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
Michael Hughes wrote: PII machine. Am I better off using an older version for such old equipment? If so, do any particular versions stand out? I use vinum on two of my machine and most of what I have seen on the list about gvinum isn't good. That is the main reson I haven't upgraded. Is there anyone out there using gvinum on 6.x that can shed some light on how well it is working now? Finally an interesting point. vinum is not supported anymore after 5.3 or so and was bound to be replaced by gvinum, which AFAICT is not that ready for production use. I'd be happy if anyone could prove me wrong. There are alternatives, though: apart from hardware RAID, gstripe and gmirror provide RAID 0 and 1. We are still without any software replacement for RAID 5, AFAIK. Bear in mind that, in order to do an upgrade, you'll have to backup, start from scratch, and restore. So, to summarize: _ building a new machine only has a show stopper if you intend to use software RAID 5; in that case you might want to use 4.11, but this is gonna have many downsides; _ upgrading a 4.11 software RAID 5 machine is going to be some hell; _ upgrading a RAID 0 or 1 vinum box can really be done, but needs some times; _ upgrading an HW RAID/no RAID box or building a new RAID 0/RAID 1/HW RAID/no RAID box poses no problems at all. bye av. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
Kris Kennaway wrote: snip but it's the final release of a branch that is *over 7 years old* and carrying over 7 years worth of legacy baggage, and that's really the key point here. snip Kris Aw, c'mon, now. There's that other outfit that's using Mr. Cutler's 13-year-old legacy code, and they've had **no problems at all** and are ON TARGET for a new release in January 2007!!* (Thanks for your work on FBSD, sir. :-) KDK -- You are not dead yet. But watch for further reports. */sarcasm ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
On 3/29/06, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 29/03/06, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 01:30:51PM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 01:19:30PM -0500, DAve wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 05:11:05PM -0500, DAve wrote: modern, supported version of FreeBSD. Well without a doubt 4.x is the fastest and most stable freebsd out of the 3. Fuel on the fire, but: FreeBSD is useably, configurably, and stably moreso than what was before* on each and every (or all) of the intel insides I've on it putting (gerund). That's three gramatically wrong adverbs worth of tautology forwarming that bearskin rug Giada De Laurentiis should be sprawling on (enfirewise). Both times I was wondering, but shockwaif flash si teh b0nks and undeeded too. Trust me, no good publication would do such a thing. 4.11 since 4.x was 4.0, or however you yanks would say it. drm doesn't compile, tintin++-devel doesn't compile, myriads of myriads (with only 14k plus some odd it takes a math genius to make this number work) soon won't for lack of threads or summat. Whatever. *It didn't support uname, I don't know what it was. -- -- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why are so many people using 4.x?
I notice a lot of references to version 4.x. Is there any overwhelming reason why its use seems to be still popular. I'm wanting to set up a server (just for play) on my home network using a PII machine. Am I better off using an older version for such old equipment? If so, do any particular versions stand out? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
Joseph Vella wrote: I notice a lot of references to version 4.x. Is there any overwhelming reason why its use seems to be still popular. I'm wanting to set up a server (just for play) on my home network using a PII machine. Am I better off using an older version for such old equipment? If so, do any particular versions stand out? If I had my choice I would use 4.10 instead of 5.X. No real bias against the changes or decisions made in 5.X, and I don't want to start an argument. But my 4.x servers just run, and run, and run. I've never had to ask a question or had any issues when patching or installing software/hardware on my 4.X servers. 4.X just seems more stable and more mature to me, which is what attracted me to FreeBSD 7 odd years ago. If you want to *learn* FreeBSD I would recommend 4.X as there is lots of information, forum data, HowTo, example information already out there. On the flip side, I've never needed any of the features provided by 5.X over 4.X. If I needed jails, or ACL, max performance, or bleeding edge hardware support, I am sure my opinion would be different. So my opinion is just that, my opinion. DAve -- This message was checked by forty monkeys and found to not contain any SPAM whatsoever. Your monkeys may vary ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
Joseph Vella schrieb: I notice a lot of references to version 4.x. Is there any overwhelming reason why its use seems to be still popular. Because these systems were installed a few years ago and they are still runnnig fine. Furthermore it might be not harmless to upgrade a production server to a newer version of FreeBSD. I'm wanting to set up a server (just for play) on my home network using a PII machine. Am I better off using an older version for such old equipment? If so, do any particular versions stand out? Try latest first, i.e. 6.0-RELEASE or 6.1-BETA if you like. I have no problems with 6.0-RELEASE running on a Pentium III 300 machine. Björn ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
On 3/28/06, Joseph Vella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I notice a lot of references to version 4.x. Is there any overwhelming reason why its use seems to be still popular. I'm wanting to set up a server (just for play) on my home network using a PII machine. Am I better off using an older version for such old equipment? If so, do any particular versions stand out? Because the headache of upgrading isn't worth the advantages in many cases. If you're installing from scratch, go with 6.x, if you already a functional (and security patched!) 4.x server have (and needn't ye any of the features of 6.x) no need there is upgrading to do. -- -- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
I'm running 6.0 on a pentium3 700mhzno problems whatsoever with it. Joseph Vella wrote: I notice a lot of references to version 4.x. Is there any overwhelming reason why its use seems to be still popular. I'm wanting to set up a server (just for play) on my home network using a PII machine. Am I better off using an older version for such old equipment? If so, do any particular versions stand out? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
Joseph Vella wrote: I notice a lot of references to version 4.x. Is there any overwhelming reason why its use seems to be still popular. I'm wanting to set up a server (just for play) on my home network using a PII machine. Am I better off using an older version for such old equipment? If so, do any particular versions stand out? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I would certainly recommend going with 6.x. The reason that many of our servers still run 4.x is that 5.x got a bad reputation and there really is no upgrade path from 4.x to 6.x. 5 and 6 default to using UFS2 and 4 uses UFS so, IMHO it's better to rebuild and taking a few hundred users offline for a couple of hours whilst this happens isn't fun. That's my scenario...I'm sure others have totally different reasons. -Tom ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
I notice a lot of references to version 4.x. Is there any overwhelming reason why its use seems to be still popular. I'm wanting to set up a server (just for play) on my home network using a PII machine. Am I better off using an older version for such old equipment? If so, do any particular versions stand out? A lot changed b/n 4.x and 5.x (and 6.x). Enough that a lot of people haven't upgraded because what they have works, they know it, and upgrading might break an app/system of theirs that isn't broken. That said, I've gone from 4.x straight to 6.x with my last round of servers. Granted I was starting from scratch and I didn't mind the adjustment time (by adjustment I mean getting used to /etc/rc.d/* instead of /etc/rc.xyz*, etc.) If I were you, I'd go with 6.x. -philip ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
Joseph Vella wrote: I notice a lot of references to version 4.x. Is there any overwhelming reason why its use seems to be still popular. I'm wanting to set up a server (just for play) on my home network using a PII machine. Am I better off using an older version for such old equipment? If so, do any particular versions stand out? == TOP TEN REASONS PEOPLE STILL USE FREEBSD 4.11 10. format reinstall sounds too much like MSFT! 9. Spinal Tap fans can't wait to hit 4.*14* 8. 'uname -a' substitutes for ATT information call... 7. Procmail rules delete announce@ headers 6. Believed [EMAIL PROTECTED] trolling 5. African users are non-migratory.++ 4. Tools, not policy. 3. Too busy coding to update. 2. It Just Works(tm). 1. Uptime, uptime, uptime, baby! Truth: I dunno. Some people are afraid of destabilization, I guess, and follow the adage if it ain't broke ?? KDK ;-) ++ Not an ethnic or nationalist slur, catch the Monty Python reference, please---especially if you call yourself a geek -- They make a desert and call it peace. -- Tacitus (55?-120?) Appendix. 10] 5.X introduced UFS2, and you've got to newfs your disks to get it. 9] Ref. movie: This is Spinal Tap (which I've never seen-I can't really call myself an elder geek, then, can I?) 8] Google's faster, and free. 7] Might be interesting to know how many admins really haven't thought about the fact that 5.x (heck, 6? 7??) exists. 6] Not his real name, I hope. Some people *have* had issues. This happens to everyone running a computer, I think, and isn't *directly* related to one's choice of OS 5] See Bruce Mah's Migration Guide(s). 4] Nobody's forcing them to upgrade. Compare and contrast this with the word Free, as in FreeBSD and a certain well-known software company. 3] FreeBSD does allow you to do Real Work, especially if you don't spend your time running every possible update permutation. Or, composing silly emails to the lists... 2] 1] ... self-explanatory? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 03:58:37PM -0500, DAve wrote: Joseph Vella wrote: I notice a lot of references to version 4.x. Is there any overwhelming reason why its use seems to be still popular. I'm wanting to set up a server (just for play) on my home network using a PII machine. Am I better off using an older version for such old equipment? If so, do any particular versions stand out? If I had my choice I would use 4.10 instead of 5.X. No real bias against the changes or decisions made in 5.X, and I don't want to start an argument. But my 4.x servers just run, and run, and run. I've never had to ask a question or had any issues when patching or installing software/hardware on my 4.X servers. 4.X just seems more stable and more mature to me, which is what attracted me to FreeBSD 7 odd years ago. If you want to *learn* FreeBSD I would recommend 4.X as there is lots of information, forum data, HowTo, example information already out there. Except that over the next year all support for 4.x will be terminated (and in practise 4.x is already largely unsupported), so you'll be basically on your own with a lot of stuff. Really you want to use 6.0 or 6.1 on any new system, simply because that's the modern, supported version of FreeBSD. Kris pgpieHkdlWTyo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 03:44:57PM -0500, Tom Grove wrote: I would certainly recommend going with 6.x. The reason that many of our servers still run 4.x is that 5.x got a bad reputation and there really is no upgrade path from 4.x to 6.x. 5 and 6 default to using UFS2 and 4 uses UFS so, IMHO it's better to rebuild and taking a few hundred users offline for a couple of hours whilst this happens isn't fun. FYI, there's no reason you need to switch to UFS2 to run 6. Kris pgplz5nhZDmKO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
Kris Kennaway wrote: On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 03:58:37PM -0500, DAve wrote: Joseph Vella wrote: I notice a lot of references to version 4.x. Is there any overwhelming reason why its use seems to be still popular. I'm wanting to set up a server (just for play) on my home network using a PII machine. Am I better off using an older version for such old equipment? If so, do any particular versions stand out? If I had my choice I would use 4.10 instead of 5.X. No real bias against the changes or decisions made in 5.X, and I don't want to start an argument. But my 4.x servers just run, and run, and run. I've never had to ask a question or had any issues when patching or installing software/hardware on my 4.X servers. 4.X just seems more stable and more mature to me, which is what attracted me to FreeBSD 7 odd years ago. If you want to *learn* FreeBSD I would recommend 4.X as there is lots of information, forum data, HowTo, example information already out there. Except that over the next year all support for 4.x will be terminated (and in practise 4.x is already largely unsupported), so you'll be basically on your own with a lot of stuff. Though he could install 6.1 as one of his many reinstalls. It seems people who really want to learn the how and why will reinstall at least a few times, every one I know has ;^) It is likely that any issue he might run into installing 4.X could be answered by most experienced users on this list, right off the top of their heads. He doesn't state if he is new to Unix, if he were, Half Price Books would likely have hardcopy that covers 4.X. Google would certainly have more information on 4.X than on 6.X. But yes, you do have a very valid point. He will be using 6.X eventually, and the changes between 4.X and 6.X are not trivial. I retract my statement, it is probably better to go ahead and start learning 6.X now. Really you want to use 6.0 or 6.1 on any new system, simply because that's the modern, supported version of FreeBSD. Kris I get frightened when something is no longer modern when it is less than a year old. http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.4R/announce.html Good reasons to recommend 6.X would be bug FOO is fixed, hardware FOO is now fully supported, FOO is now a kernel module and can be unloaded or loaded at will, disk performance is gazillion% better, etc. Because it's new is the reason I stopped using Linux. DAve -- This message was checked by forty monkeys and found to not contain any SPAM whatsoever. Your monkeys may vary ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are so many people using 4.x?
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 05:11:05PM -0500, DAve wrote: Really you want to use 6.0 or 6.1 on any new system, simply because that's the modern, supported version of FreeBSD. Kris I get frightened when something is no longer modern when it is less than a year old. http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.4R/announce.html Good reasons to recommend 6.X would be bug FOO is fixed, hardware FOO is now fully supported, FOO is now a kernel module and can be unloaded or loaded at will, disk performance is gazillion% better, etc. If it makes you happy, all of those things are also true. Kris pgpSyz2nUtNM7.pgp Description: PGP signature
