Re: fast rate of major FreeBSD releases to STABLE
all the problem of freebsd is that freebsd-team tries (mostly unsuccesfully) to do EVERYTHING freebsd team not just do freebsd, they doing freebsd5, freebsd6, freebsd7, ports, etc ... and nothing of this can work REALLY STABLE AND FUNCTIONAL i don't like linux, but sometimes i have to choose it i don't like openbsd, but some network features of openbsd i don't see in freebsd people, just try to do FreeBSD, not flavour ... thanx 2007/5/25, Oleg Gritsak [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Actually, I don't see how RELENG_X branch will help. %-\ I would suggest this scheme: branch . - as now, the recent versions branch sec - versions bump strictly at 1-st of january and 1-st of july, other updates fix only security issues. That would be really great improvement to ports, but not sure community has enough programmers among port maintaners, so it's just another dream :o( This looks like another call to have RELENG_x branches on ports, with which I agree. -- системный администратор ООО Сиб-ЭкоМеталл тел. (3912) 609942 (144) ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fast rate of major FreeBSD releases to STABLE
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 10:50:23AM +0400, Alexey Karagodov wrote: all the problem of freebsd is that freebsd-team tries (mostly unsuccesfully) to do EVERYTHING freebsd team not just do freebsd, they doing freebsd5, freebsd6, freebsd7, ports, etc ... and nothing of this can work REALLY STABLE AND FUNCTIONAL i don't like linux, but sometimes i have to choose it i don't like openbsd, but some network features of openbsd i don't see in freebsd people, just try to do FreeBSD, not flavour ... thanx Uh thanks for your input! thx, Kris ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fast rate of major FreeBSD releases to STABLE
and sorry for my english! :) 2007/6/6, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 10:50:23AM +0400, Alexey Karagodov wrote: all the problem of freebsd is that freebsd-team tries (mostly unsuccesfully) to do EVERYTHING freebsd team not just do freebsd, they doing freebsd5, freebsd6, freebsd7, ports, etc ... and nothing of this can work REALLY STABLE AND FUNCTIONAL i don't like linux, but sometimes i have to choose it i don't like openbsd, but some network features of openbsd i don't see in freebsd people, just try to do FreeBSD, not flavour ... thanx Uh thanks for your input! thx, Kris ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OT: Re: fast rate of major FreeBSD releases to STABLE
John Walthall wrote: On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 11:10:06AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: As someone who has had to show many people how to use the FreeBSD installer, I can confirm what Chris is referring to. Here's some of the generic end-user complaints I've heard (and some of which I have); [...] And let's not forget the infamous geometry bug! For me, at least sysinstall has always, 100% of the time, incorrectly detected my disc geometry. Sysinstall is adequate, nothing more, nothing less. I don't mean though, to belittle the efforts of the developers; these days people are going to expect it to be polished on the order of YaST, which is ridiculous. Sysinstall is functional. Although irritated, variously, by every one of these issues, I am most concerned about the geometry bug, it looks lackadaisical. It is worth noting however, that of all the BSD's I have tried, FreeBSD has the best installer. NetBSD's installer isn't half bad, but doesn't have the scope of sysinstall, and is much less valuable as a configuration tool. OpenBSD's installer is Spartan; like the rest of OpenBSD, only more-so. I should not like ever to use OpenBSD's nightmarish installer again. If people have trouble with sysinstall-the-configuration-tool, perhaps they might examine sysutils/webmin? Off topic! What can i do to see the correct geometry on my disks?? -- Sten Daniel Soersdal ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fast rate of major FreeBSD releases to STABLE
Actually, I don't see how RELENG_X branch will help. %-\ I would suggest this scheme: branch . - as now, the recent versions branch sec - versions bump strictly at 1-st of january and 1-st of july, other updates fix only security issues. That would be really great improvement to ports, but not sure community has enough programmers among port maintaners, so it's just another dream :o( This looks like another call to have RELENG_x branches on ports, with which I agree. -- системный администратор ООО Сиб-ЭкоМеталл тел. (3912) 609942 (144) ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fast rate of major FreeBSD releases to STABLE
On Thu, 17 May 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Linimon) wrote: On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:35:10PM -0500, Craig Boston wrote: The alternative would have been to commit what we had and _then_ found out all the bugs in the upgrade process (note: you won't be able to just blindly use portupgrade -af; you will need to read the UPDATING file for the proper procedure. This is the unusual case of being such a sweeping change that the port management tools are not completely up to the task.) okay could this freeze an explanation for the fact that my x is totally hosed? i know any random joe can't necessarily answer that.. but assuming it is true.. umm.. how long is this freeze going to last then? I don't know if portmgr@ has approved any commits during the xorg freeze or not. Nope. There are simply too many ports that have interdependencies among the xorg ports. mcl ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fast rate of major FreeBSD releases to STABLE
On 19/05/07, Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - --On Saturday, May 19, 2007 01:22:40 -0700 KAYVEN RIESE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 17 May 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Linimon) wrote: On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:35:10PM -0500, Craig Boston wrote: The alternative would have been to commit what we had and _then_ found out all the bugs in the upgrade process (note: you won't be able to just blindly use portupgrade -af; you will need to read the UPDATING file for the proper procedure. This is the unusual case of being such a sweeping change that the port management tools are not completely up to the task.) okay could this freeze an explanation for the fact that my x is totally hosed? i know any random joe can't necessarily answer that.. but assuming it is true.. Not sure how ... since the freeze started, I haven't seen any commits to the X system go through, or anything else for that matter (sorry, except for one port that I can't recall its name) ... I know in my case, I'm looking forward to the freeze being lifted since there was a recent release of new versions of PHP ... :) how long is this freeze going to last then? Not 100% certain, but Kris just posted a note about the X stuff bbeing committed, so I'm guessing RSN ... - Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFGTxzN4QvfyHIvDvMRAkIqAKDAV3YQkNPIS8+XXtM13dpA7CQybgCbBhUK rxDqsrCVzL9DFQ+lLpCrSRs= =ur1s -END PGP SIGNATURE- Hi thanks for all the time spent on responses and it been civil. I have checked and I think my comments about the times of STABLE major releases is inaccurate and based on percieved memory rather then facts I apologise for that, I do hope tho ports will continue to work on 6.x a while after 7.x released. regarding network bugs in 6.x, generally its stable, the nfs problems were mainly fixed in 6.2 the issue comes under circumstances where the network load is higher then the typical situation ie. a DDOS attack. I would expect under a hevay attack for the server to go offline which is fine, but I wouldnt expect the server to deadlock and need a reboot as a result of a DDOS attack especially a small/medium attack, on 4.x and even 5.x to a limited extenct the machine could cope with a fairly high pps but on 6.x with same hardware it can handle much less, I have no idea why but thats what happens. I friend of mine runs FreeBSD routers in a large network and had to downgrade back to 4.x because of this. With the ports freeze I wonder in situations when a full freeze is needed it is better to do so on a seperate testing branch so it allows security commits etc. to carry on as normal and then remerge again after testing is complete. Or is this simply not possible to do? Sysinstaller I do agree it does the job but thats it, its not good enough for people not familiar with freebsd I feel and is a major reason for adoptivity to freebsd. Good news on the dynamic tcp stuff :) Thanks Chris ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fast rate of major FreeBSD releases to STABLE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - --On Saturday, May 19, 2007 01:22:40 -0700 KAYVEN RIESE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 17 May 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Linimon) wrote: On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:35:10PM -0500, Craig Boston wrote: The alternative would have been to commit what we had and _then_ found out all the bugs in the upgrade process (note: you won't be able to just blindly use portupgrade -af; you will need to read the UPDATING file for the proper procedure. This is the unusual case of being such a sweeping change that the port management tools are not completely up to the task.) okay could this freeze an explanation for the fact that my x is totally hosed? i know any random joe can't necessarily answer that.. but assuming it is true.. Not sure how ... since the freeze started, I haven't seen any commits to the X system go through, or anything else for that matter (sorry, except for one port that I can't recall its name) ... I know in my case, I'm looking forward to the freeze being lifted since there was a recent release of new versions of PHP ... :) how long is this freeze going to last then? Not 100% certain, but Kris just posted a note about the X stuff bbeing committed, so I'm guessing RSN ... - Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFGTxzN4QvfyHIvDvMRAkIqAKDAV3YQkNPIS8+XXtM13dpA7CQybgCbBhUK rxDqsrCVzL9DFQ+lLpCrSRs= =ur1s -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fast rate of major FreeBSD releases to STABLE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - --On Saturday, May 19, 2007 22:01:26 +0100 Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With the ports freeze I wonder in situations when a full freeze is needed it is better to do so on a seperate testing branch so it allows security commits etc. to carry on as normal and then remerge again after testing is complete. Or is this simply not possible to do? IMHO, not impossible, but creates alot more work then the disruption of a couple of weeks without commits would justify ... you have to bear in mind, once the freeze is lifted, all of the ports that had been modified on the 'branch' would then need to be re-modified on the regular branch, putting alot of work onto the shoulders of the maintainers themselves ... - Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFGT2ph4QvfyHIvDvMRAjCsAJ9bMyqm63cIFsP+my+FbRjcSNSNQQCgnmbt UYmaKyCFgIc3ABhM82cTqYg= =m+LC -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fast rate of major FreeBSD releases to STABLE
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 11:10:06AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: As someone who has had to show many people how to use the FreeBSD installer, I can confirm what Chris is referring to. Here's some of the generic end-user complaints I've heard (and some of which I have); [...] And let's not forget the infamous geometry bug! For me, at least sysinstall has always, 100% of the time, incorrectly detected my disc geometry. Sysinstall is adequate, nothing more, nothing less. I don't mean though, to belittle the efforts of the developers; these days people are going to expect it to be polished on the order of YaST, which is ridiculous. Sysinstall is functional. Although irritated, variously, by every one of these issues, I am most concerned about the geometry bug, it looks lackadaisical. It is worth noting however, that of all the BSD's I have tried, FreeBSD has the best installer. NetBSD's installer isn't half bad, but doesn't have the scope of sysinstall, and is much less valuable as a configuration tool. OpenBSD's installer is Spartan; like the rest of OpenBSD, only more-so. I should not like ever to use OpenBSD's nightmarish installer again. If people have trouble with sysinstall-the-configuration-tool, perhaps they might examine sysutils/webmin? -- SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fast rate of major FreeBSD releases to STABLE
John Walthall wrote: And let's not forget the infamous geometry bug! For me, at least sysinstall has always, 100% of the time, incorrectly detected my disc geometry. Same here. I ignored it every time and got no problems at all... Sysinstall is adequate, nothing more, nothing less. I don't mean though, to belittle the efforts of the developers; these days people are going to expect it to be polished on the order of YaST, which is ridiculous. Sysinstall is functional. Full ACK. Although irritated, variously, by every one of these issues, I am most concerned about the geometry bug, it looks lackadaisical. The only other concern I have is the I-don't-know-which-field-is-in-focus-bug. But I have to admit that I rarely use sysinstall, so I don't bother that much... If people have trouble with sysinstall-the-configuration-tool, perhaps they might examine sysutils/webmin? That my be true for post-installation situations, but it doesn't help those people who want to *install* FreeBSD on their machines... Just my 2 cent Philipp -- www.familie-ost.info/~pj ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fast rate of major FreeBSD releases to STABLE
On Thursday 17 May 2007 15:10:06 Jeremy Chadwick wrote: On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 05:51:07PM +0100, Gavin Atkinson wrote: On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 16:30 +0100, Chris wrote: A more user friendly installer so datacentres stop been put off FreeBSD. Although work on a new installer is ongoing, nobody ever seems to be clear what the problems are with the current installer that they are trying to fix. I believe PC-BSD uses a different installer, which is the current candidate, although I personally prefer the current one. I'm guessing a new installer never make everybody happy. As someone who has had to show many people how to use the FreeBSD installer, I can confirm what Chris is referring to. datacenters probably do not use the installer at all but that is another point further to the points you mentioned already I like to add that the most missing thing is that the installer does not suggest a default disk layout. Jumping directly into fdisk is where a user aborts and also as mentioned, since disk geometry is not necessary to show at all, first because it is mostly wrong and second who cares. This is not for a standard installer and should be an option (if). a user does not know what fdisk is and what to do (and eventually he does not even speak nor read english so the options list is what scares him still more) so he is bailing out here and for my understandings this is the most important point which cause freebsd does not make it to the user's desktop. So a better solution would be to invert the current situation and give a default layout for fdisk AND labels which can be accepted (OK) or cancelled and if then jumps into fdsik for advanced users My personal suggestion is to invert the IP screen and put GW and DNS after IP and mask fields what is kind of more usual and logical -- João A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura. Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik https://datacenter.matik.com.br ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fast rate of major FreeBSD releases to STABLE
On Fri, 18 May 2007, Philipp Ost wrote: The only other concern I have is the I-don't-know-which-field-is-in-focus-bug. But I have to admit that I rarely use sysinstall, so I don't bother that much... Jeremy hit the nail on the head with that one. I do use it fairly often and have gotten used to that quirk. But new users... that clearly will confuse them. If there were one area to focus on, I'd say that's the one. It's a tough one though because the people that work on that probably also haven't seen a n00b sitting in front of it in some time and anyone that uses sysinstall regularly has patched it in their head. That said, for a quick I don't want to read anything I just want to jam the CD in and get it installed tool, I think the PC-BSD installer is outstanding. Charles Just my 2 cent Philipp -- www.familie-ost.info/~pj ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
fast rate of major FreeBSD releases to STABLE
I have mentioned this before about releasing a new major version of FreeBSD at such short intervals. Now I am wondering what path the FreeBSD community is taking in regards to server and desktop use. Stuff I would love to see in FreeBSD 7.x (CURRENT) before 7.0 release which looks like it isnt going to happen Multi IP Jails - waiting since 4.x, patches done for both 5.x and 6.x but never commited. Dynamic tcp windows - I think is patched but not heard if commited. More hardware support - FreeBSD still has poor hardware support when compared to other OS's, in particular vendors such as realtek nics. A more user friendly installer so datacentres stop been put off FreeBSD. Work on the network code so STABLE stops panicing and lagging on low amounts of ddos that 4.x barely flexed at and even 5.x could cope with. The recent ports freeze has also concerned me, this is the longest ports freeze I have witnessed since I started using FreeBSD years ago and its for a desktop element of the os, does it matter if servers running FreeBSD have to remain on vulnerable versions of ports as a result of this? The viability of upgrading FreeBSD to a new major version at least every 2 years is small, can choose not to upgrade as security patches will exist but ports only get supported on the latest STABLE tree now and I expect 5.x development will be killed off like 4.x was when 7.0 hits release. Why cant 7.0 be released when more long awaited features are added and then not as STABLE tree only as CURRENT (like 5.0 was) and if 7.0 is considered stable then 7.1 can be STABLE branch. I consider 6.2 to be the first release in 6.x branch close to proper stability and that release is under a year old before a new major release is due. Please dont flame me as I am a avid FreeBSD server user not a fan of linux so not been a troll this is a serious post. Chris ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fast rate of major FreeBSD releases to STABLE
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 04:30:50PM +0100, Chris wrote: The recent ports freeze has also concerned me, this is the longest ports freeze I have witnessed since I started using FreeBSD years ago and its for a desktop element of the os, does it matter if servers running FreeBSD have to remain on vulnerable versions of ports as a result of this? I'll leave the src release discussion for others, and just remark that this claim is entirely false: every release cycle has had a longer ports freeze than this one, with the same consequences. We don't take freezes lightly, and the alternative is to import a bunch of incompletely tested changes that will cause untold chaos for our users. I'm sure you wouldn't advocate that. Kris (for portmgr) ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fast rate of major FreeBSD releases to STABLE
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 16:30 +0100, Chris wrote: Stuff I would love to see in FreeBSD 7.x (CURRENT) before 7.0 release which looks like it isnt going to happen [snip] More hardware support - FreeBSD still has poor hardware support when compared to other OS's, in particular vendors such as realtek nics. Do you actually have a card which isn't recognised or doesn't work? I can only see one open PR about an unsupported Realtek NIC, and that is a specific 3 port NIC, which is probably trivial to support. I note also that Realtek do provide FreeBSD drivers for all of their PCI network cards. If you are having problems, open a PR, and include information about the card, a verbose dmesg, and the output of pciconf -l at the bare minimum. A more user friendly installer so datacentres stop been put off FreeBSD. Although work on a new installer is ongoing, nobody ever seems to be clear what the problems are with the current installer that they are trying to fix. I believe PC-BSD uses a different installer, which is the current candidate, although I personally prefer the current one. I'm guessing a new installer never make everybody happy. Work on the network code so STABLE stops panicing and lagging on low amounts of ddos that 4.x barely flexed at and even 5.x could cope with. Again, 6.x is proving very stable for a *lot* of people. What sort of problems are you seeing? URLs to posts on mailing lists would be fine. As there are so many people using 6.x for huge work loads, it may well be something specific to your workload/hardware etc, in which case you may well have to help with debugging. The recent ports freeze has also concerned me, this is the longest ports freeze I have witnessed since I started using FreeBSD years ago and its for a desktop element of the os, does it matter if servers running FreeBSD have to remain on vulnerable versions of ports as a result of this? Kris has already responded to this. The viability of upgrading FreeBSD to a new major version at least every 2 years is small, can choose not to upgrade as security patches will exist but ports only get supported on the latest STABLE tree now and I expect 5.x development will be killed off like 4.x was when 7.0 hits release. [ I speak purely as a FreeBSD user myself, here] Information on EoLs of various releases is available at http://www.freebsd.org/security/ - showing that support for both both 5.5 and 6.1 extend over a year from now. Given the current plan is to release 7.0 some time this year, there's at least 6 months of overlap there. And given 6.3 isn't yet released, and will be supported by the Security Officer for a minimum of 12 months after the release, there will be a fair amount of overlap there too. And I wouldn't be surprised if at least one more 6.x release is designated an extended support release. Why cant 7.0 be released when more long awaited features are added and then not as STABLE tree only as CURRENT (like 5.0 was) and if 7.0 is considered stable then 7.1 can be STABLE branch. http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/version-guide/past-schedules.html explains this far better than I ever could. I consider 6.2 to be the first release in 6.x branch close to proper stability and that release is under a year old before a new major release is due. Again, without knowing what issues you saw, I'm not sure anyone can answer that. The only real issues I am aware of with 6.0/6.1 that weren't fixed with errata patches were either quota, IPv6 or CARP related. Please dont flame me as I am a avid FreeBSD server user not a fan of linux so not been a troll this is a serious post. Please don't take my response as a flame :) Gavin ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fast rate of major FreeBSD releases to STABLE
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:30:50 +0100 From: Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have mentioned this before about releasing a new major version of FreeBSD at such short intervals. Now I am wondering what path the FreeBSD community is taking in regards to server and desktop use. Stuff I would love to see in FreeBSD 7.x (CURRENT) before 7.0 release which looks like it isnt going to happen Multi IP Jails - waiting since 4.x, patches done for both 5.x and 6.x but never commited. No idea. Dynamic tcp windows - I think is patched but not heard if commited. It should be in 7.0. 7.0 will have really major network improvements. I even had one vendor tell us that if we wanted to improve the performance of their 10GE card, we should switch from Linux to FreeBSD-current. More hardware support - FreeBSD still has poor hardware support when compared to other OS's, in particular vendors such as realtek nics. An on-going issue. Linux simply has more people working on device support, so it often (but no always) gets support first. Current does have several new network devices including more wireless NICs. A more user friendly installer so datacentres stop been put off FreeBSD. While sysinstall is ugly, I find it very easy to use and use it for non-installation stuff (fdisk and bsdlabel) for its friendlier user interface. I have never been happy with GUI installers although a re-write if sysinstall would probably be a good thing. Work on the network code so STABLE stops panicing and lagging on low amounts of ddos that 4.x barely flexed at and even 5.x could cope with. This is probably better, but I have not done much testing. The recent ports freeze has also concerned me, this is the longest ports freeze I have witnessed since I started using FreeBSD years ago and its for a desktop element of the os, does it matter if servers running FreeBSD have to remain on vulnerable versions of ports as a result of this? Now this is totally bogus. The freeze before the 6.0 release was VERY long and several have been longer than this one has been so far. The ports collection is one of the greatest things about FreeBSD and having lots of ports break when a major one (such as Xorg) is updated is very difficult and takes a lot of time to build test everything. Just creating an upgrade procedure that works for everyone running FreeBSD of any supported version is a major effort. The viability of upgrading FreeBSD to a new major version at least every 2 years is small, can choose not to upgrade as security patches will exist but ports only get supported on the latest STABLE tree now and I expect 5.x development will be killed off like 4.x was when 7.0 hits release. ??? I should leave this to others, but in the past FreeBSD has received heavy criticism for taking too long between releases. I guess you just can't win. Yes, V5 development is pretty well at an end (though V5 was not one of FreeBSD's better releases and I never used it on production systems), but V6 support will continue for quite a while. Why cant 7.0 be released when more long awaited features are added and then not as STABLE tree only as CURRENT (like 5.0 was) and if 7.0 is considered stable then 7.1 can be STABLE branch. I consider 6.2 to be the first release in 6.x branch close to proper stability and that release is under a year old before a new major release is due. The release of V5.0 was as a development release because V5.0 had so many changes from V4 that all developers had to know that there were going to be problems, but the RE team also realized that, if they did not draw a line in the sand, it would only get worse. I am VERY sure that RE and the developers NEVER want to go through that again. As of today, CURRENT is in pretty excellent shape, but it still does have a few issues and more will certainly pop up when it is released. No one who has any experience is going to drop 7.0 on any critical system. I run it on one desktop and my laptop. I am NOT going to install 7.0 on my DNS servers or any other critical system. Depending on how things go with 7.0, I will probably install 7.1 on most systems. I may be braver than most, though (or more foolish). Please dont flame me as I am a avid FreeBSD server user not a fan of linux so not been a troll this is a serious post. I'm not flaming (yet), because you ask some good questions and are probably suffering from fading memory of prior releases. (I know that I try to forget a couple of them.) -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 pgpklYjpz3zjx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: fast rate of major FreeBSD releases to STABLE
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 05:51:07PM +0100, Gavin Atkinson wrote: On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 16:30 +0100, Chris wrote: A more user friendly installer so datacentres stop been put off FreeBSD. Although work on a new installer is ongoing, nobody ever seems to be clear what the problems are with the current installer that they are trying to fix. I believe PC-BSD uses a different installer, which is the current candidate, although I personally prefer the current one. I'm guessing a new installer never make everybody happy. As someone who has had to show many people how to use the FreeBSD installer, I can confirm what Chris is referring to. Here's some of the generic end-user complaints I've heard (and some of which I have); 1) Difficult to tell what's in-focus (selectiom menu vs. OK/Cancel) on the screen. This could be solved by using a different colour for the selection area (instead of blue, use something like cyan/teal), I think. 2) Many buttons are labelled Cancel rather than Go Back. Some cancel the entire operation (go back to the main menu), others go back a step. Users find this inconsistency to be confusing. 3) Conflicting definitions of keypresses in the menu vs. the OK/Cancel box at the bottom. For example, under Keymap, one of the menu items is labelled (C)entral European ISO, while C is also used for (C)ancel, depending upon which focus/menu context you're in. This confuses people. 4) Some Cancel/Abort items are labelled (C)ancel, others are (X)Exit. Make up your mind; people want a consistent key! 5) I forget which stage of the installation this happens in, but when choosing Cancel/Abort, the dialog you get asks you if you want to continue with the operation or abort. If you choose abort, it reboots the machine. This seems unnecessary. 6) I'll point out that you can hit X to jump to the Exit (go back) menu item, but *only* if that menu item is visible on the screen. I've heard numerous complaints about that as well (and personally I agree with it). 7) The Options menu area requires you to scroll all the way to the bottom of the left column of options, and further down past it to reach the right column. Users hit the Right Arrow key to go to the right column, which does nothing. 8) Video console is 80x25. I am quite happy with this myself, but some others want something larger. This gets complex since to get something larger I believe we require use of VESA. I thought I'd mention it anyways. 9) Lack of mouse support in the menus. I haven't confirmed this, but it seems to me that based on the installer's look, people expect the mouse to work. I personally don't like the mouse (I find gpm to be better/more responsive/capable than moused.), but their point is still valid. -- | Jeremy Chadwickjdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fast rate of major FreeBSD releases to STABLE
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 10:24:15AM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote: The recent ports freeze has also concerned me, this is the longest ports freeze I have witnessed since I started using FreeBSD years ago and its for a desktop element of the os, does it matter if servers running FreeBSD have to remain on vulnerable versions of ports as a result of this? Now this is totally bogus. The freeze before the 6.0 release was VERY long and several have been longer than this one has been so far. I think the complaint may be more a result of this being a deeper freeze than normal. When ports is frozen before a release, it is often still possible to get things like security fixes and minor updates approved and committed. The only time it's completely frozen is during branching, which typically doesn't take very long. I don't know if portmgr@ has approved any commits during the xorg freeze or not. Even if so I suspect the critical bar may be higher this time due to the need to manually merge changes into the git repository. That said, it's a major undertaking and there are valid arguments on both sides. Hopefully it will be done soon (keep in mind this is still a volunteer project!) ??? I should leave this to others, but in the past FreeBSD has received heavy criticism for taking too long between releases. I guess you just can't win. Yes, V5 development is pretty well at an end (though V5 was not one of FreeBSD's better releases and I never used it on production systems), but V6 support will continue for quite a while. One thing to keep in mind is that with shorter releases, it's a lot easier to move from one release to the next. It was a Very Big Deal to upgrade from 4.x to 5.x and required lots of pain and planning, mostly because so much had changed. Going from 5.x to 6.x was much easier -- for those upgrading from source it wasn't much different than point releases on the 5.x line. I recently upgraded a 6.x server to 7-CURRENT to test out zfs and again it was just like cvsupping and building stable. There's some library version issues, but those should be resolved before the 7.0 release happens. It's still nowhere near the massive undertaking from 4 to 5. I am VERY sure that RE and the developers NEVER want to go through that again. Nor the users ;) No one who has any experience is going to drop 7.0 on any critical system. I run it on one desktop and my laptop. I am NOT going to install 7.0 on my DNS servers or any other critical system. I'm running -current on my home file server, which is fairly critical to me, but then again I'm obsessive about backups, which helps :) I don't think I'd be brave enough to try it on business-critical systems though, which I suspect is your meaning. Craig ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fast rate of major FreeBSD releases to STABLE
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:35:10PM -0500, Craig Boston wrote: Now this is totally bogus. The freeze before the 6.0 release was VERY long and several have been longer than this one has been so far. I think the complaint may be more a result of this being a deeper freeze than normal. That's correct. When ports is frozen before a release, it is often still possible to get things like security fixes and minor updates approved and committed. The only time it's completely frozen is during branching, which typically doesn't take very long. Most freezes are really more of a slush. This is the first time we've done an absolute, hard, freeze of this length in a long time. But importnng or upgrading several hundred ports, moving those and others from X11BASE to LOCALBASE, and all the associated testing and retesting and re-retesting just simply requires that we have everything locked down tight right now. The alternative would have been to commit what we had and _then_ found out all the bugs in the upgrade process (note: you won't be able to just blindly use portupgrade -af; you will need to read the UPDATING file for the proper procedure. This is the unusual case of being such a sweeping change that the port management tools are not completely up to the task.) I don't know if portmgr@ has approved any commits during the xorg freeze or not. Nope. There are simply too many ports that have interdependencies among the xorg ports. mcl ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fast rate of major FreeBSD releases to STABLE
Jeremy Chadwick wrote: As someone who has had to show many people how to use the FreeBSD installer, I can confirm what Chris is referring to. Here's some of the generic end-user complaints I've heard (and some of which I have); [...] As someone who only very rarely plays with the installer, I sometimes get bitten by the Space/Enter thing. -- Tuomo ... Great, so now I get to take shit from Finns on both sides of the Atlantic for a guy I didn't elect and whose policies I don't support. -- http://www.axis-of-aevil.net/archives/2004/11/index.html ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fast rate of major FreeBSD releases to STABLE
Chris wrote: and its for a desktop element of the os, does it matter if servers running FreeBSD have to remain on vulnerable versions of ports as a result of this? This looks like another call to have RELENG_x branches on ports, with which I agree. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fast rate of major FreeBSD releases to STABLE
Ivan Voras wrote: Chris wrote: and its for a desktop element of the os, does it matter if servers running FreeBSD have to remain on vulnerable versions of ports as a result of this? This looks like another call to have RELENG_x branches on ports, with which I agree. Hmm... Branching is not about to do it, or not to do it, but about who will invest their time to do it. By making it as an official offer we have to make sure that: - STABLE branch is well maintained. What's the rule of MFC in these branches? For src/ the answer is clear, but for ports/ I do not think it's obvious. What's the standard choosing particular ports' version? Who will be responsible for that? - packages are continuously built and mirrored. This could cause confusion about should I use -HEAD ports/, or RELENG_X ports/? Not to mention that it needs a doubled computation resource for package cluster. So, while I agree that having branches is a very nice idea I feel that it is not quite exercisable at the moment. It's easy for committers to do make universe to verify that their work does not break build, but it's not that easy for porters to make sure that a commit does not break the -STABLE branch... Cheers, -- Xin LI [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.delphij.net/ FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
