Re: Why userland , basesystem and Kernel are together?!
> > On 11 Dec C. Ulrich wrote: > > On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 14:08, Jerry McAllister wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't wish to get into a shouting match, but I don't think I > > > > completely agree with some of the things you say here. > > > > > > OK. Well, just toddle on over to the advocacy list where this > > > can more appropriately be hashed out. > > > > > Jerry, > > > > Actually, I didn't intend to post it to the list, I meant to send it > > privately. After I had hit the Send button and realized what I had > > done, I sent a follow up message apologizing for the off-topic nature > > of the previous message. For whatever reason, *that* message didn't > > make it to the list... > > FWIW, I did not mind reading your message. It was well written, so > unless it would become an "endless (sub) thread" people could be a > little more forgiving, imho. It is not really a matter of being forgiving or not. It is just that there is a great place for such conversations where people will be happy to get in to them while folks here are busy trying to solve problems with their systems. jerry > > -- > dick -- http://www.nagual.st/ -- PGP/GnuPG key: F86289CE > ++ Running FreeBSD 4.8 ++ Debian GNU/Linux (Woody) > + Nai tiruvantel ar vayuvantel i Valar tielyanna nu vilya > ___ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Why userland , basesystem and Kernel are together?!
On 11 Dec C. Ulrich wrote: > On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 14:08, Jerry McAllister wrote: > > > > > > I don't wish to get into a shouting match, but I don't think I > > > completely agree with some of the things you say here. > > > > OK. Well, just toddle on over to the advocacy list where this > > can more appropriately be hashed out. > > > Jerry, > > Actually, I didn't intend to post it to the list, I meant to send it > privately. After I had hit the Send button and realized what I had > done, I sent a follow up message apologizing for the off-topic nature > of the previous message. For whatever reason, *that* message didn't > make it to the list... FWIW, I did not mind reading your message. It was well written, so unless it would become an "endless (sub) thread" people could be a little more forgiving, imho. -- dick -- http://www.nagual.st/ -- PGP/GnuPG key: F86289CE ++ Running FreeBSD 4.8 ++ Debian GNU/Linux (Woody) + Nai tiruvantel ar vayuvantel i Valar tielyanna nu vilya ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Why userland , basesystem and Kernel are together?!
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 10:00:28AM -0800, Allan Bowhill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 67 lines which said: > Don't send him away. This is a good question. I did not want to send anyone away. I was just saying that each operating system has its own logic, its own philosophy and, while discussing the pros and cons of these philosophies is very interesting (but may be off-topic here), in the end, you have to choose one that pleases you. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Why userland , basesystem and Kernel are together?!
On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 14:08, Jerry McAllister wrote: > > > > I don't wish to get into a shouting match, but I don't think I > > completely agree with some of the things you say here. > > > > OK. Well, just toddle on over to the advocacy list where this > can more appropriately be hashed out. > > jerry Jerry, Actually, I didn't intend to post it to the list, I meant to send it privately. After I had hit the Send button and realized what I had done, I sent a follow up message apologizing for the off-topic nature of the previous message. For whatever reason, *that* message didn't make it to the list... Charles Ulrich -- http://bityard.net ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Why userland , basesystem and Kernel are together?!
> > I don't wish to get into a shouting match, but I don't think I > completely agree with some of the things you say here. > OK. Well, just toddle on over to the advocacy list where this can more appropriately be hashed out. jerry > On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 11:39, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > You are comparing apples and oranges. Linux is a kernel, not an > > operating system. "Distributions" is a specially ill-choosen word in > > the Linux world. > > I don't see why. I think "distribution" is a perfectly fine term for > what it describes. My comments below explain why. > > > There are several operating systems, Debian, RedHat, > > Mandrake, which only have in common to use the Linux kernel. > > This is incorrect. All relevant Linux distributions are not only based > on the same kernel, but almost almost all of the same userland software > as well. (Specifically, GNU software, much of which is a core part of > FreeBSD as well.) The main areas where they differ are the configuration ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Why userland , basesystem and Kernel are together?!
> > There are several operating systems, Debian, RedHat, > > Mandrake, which only have in common to use the Linux kernel. > > This is incorrect. All relevant Linux distributions are not only based > on the same kernel, but almost almost all of the same userland software > as well. (Specifically, GNU software, much of which is a core part of > FreeBSD as well.) The main areas where they differ are the configuration > details (what files are where, how to configure services such as init > scripts and networking, etc) and package management. There are of course > other differences, but these two are the biggies. All Linux distributions use glibc; while BSDs use their own version of libc. But these are only technicalities. More important is that the BSDs use a central CVS repository for the whole OS (minus third party packages), whereas in the Linux world, the "vendors" maintain separate (mostly with source, but sometimes binary-only as well) collections of separately maintained software. If the developers of Linux' base utilities, glibc, kernel etc... submitted all their source code to a "Linux CVS" repo, and all distributions were built on top of that, they would have adopted an important part (though not everything) of BSDs philosophy [putting the different licensing schemes aside for a moment]. However, this is unlikely to happen any time soon (if at all), mostly for political reasons: the FSF, Linus, and a lot of other developers would have to agree to share a single repository, and this is particulary difficult to achieve. Anyway, both development models are quite viable, and it is amazing to see how both "camps" are making excellent progress. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Why userland , basesystem and Kernel are together?!
I don't wish to get into a shouting match, but I don't think I completely agree with some of the things you say here. On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 11:39, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > You are comparing apples and oranges. Linux is a kernel, not an > operating system. "Distributions" is a specially ill-choosen word in > the Linux world. I don't see why. I think "distribution" is a perfectly fine term for what it describes. My comments below explain why. > There are several operating systems, Debian, RedHat, > Mandrake, which only have in common to use the Linux kernel. This is incorrect. All relevant Linux distributions are not only based on the same kernel, but almost almost all of the same userland software as well. (Specifically, GNU software, much of which is a core part of FreeBSD as well.) The main areas where they differ are the configuration details (what files are where, how to configure services such as init scripts and networking, etc) and package management. There are of course other differences, but these two are the biggies. > Forget > the word "distributions" which seems to imply that an operating > system is defined by its kernel. Again, there's nothing wrong with the word "distributions." What you're really saying is that you just don't like how the Linux community places so much emphasis on the kernel instead of the entire operating system as a whole. Linux-based operating systems first came together in the early 90's by taking various pieces of software and fitting them all into a system that worked. FreeBSD (unless I misunderstand) has always been a cohesive whole. While there are advantages to this in the sense that the left hand always knows what the right hand is up to, there are plenty of applications (for example, embedded ones) that benefit from a more disconnected and flexible framework. > And there are several operating systems based on a BSD kernel, too: > FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, there is even now a Debian/BSD which uses a > NetBSD kernel instead of Linux. Except that these are forks of the entire operating system, not just the kernel. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Like you said, the comparison between Linux and BSD is an apples-and-oranges issue. Similar in some ways, different in others, and both have differing abilities even if many of those abilities overlap. Charles Ulrich -- http://bityard.net ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Why userland , basesystem and Kernel are together?!
On 0, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 01:37:48AM +0200, : Vahric MUHTARYAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : a message of 46 lines which said: : :> Why some programs are in base system . What is the meaning of :> Sendmail or SSH in base system . Programs are only executable things :> What is the relation about those programs with base system ?! : :With the ideas you have about how an operating system should be :assembled, I suggest that you use Debian http://www.debian.org/> :instead of FreeBSD. it is much closer to your philosophy. Don't send him away. This is a good question. FreeBSD has third-party software (like Sendmail, SSH, Gnats, CVS, Kerberos, ppp etc.) included as part of its source code base distribution, and this generally confuses people accustomed to other Unix- like distributions. I don't know what the underlying rationale was for each piece, but I guess this more integrated approach was meant to make it convenient for programmer/sysadmins to install the software, contribute changes, and communicate about the OS with other people in the FreeBSD community. In principle the integrated approach is attractive because it is simpler to treat an operating system as a single piece with a lot of features for convenience, rather than a bunch of unrelated components laying on the floor that you have to fetch-and-assemble yourself. I like the fact that the operating system comes with development tools built-in (C, C++, gdb, CVS, Gnats). It impresses me as a fair and correct choice in design that an open-source operating system should have these things. -- Allan Bowhill [EMAIL PROTECTED] Real software engineers don't like the idea of some inexplicable and greasy hardware several aisles away that may stop working at any moment. They have a great distrust of hardware people, and wish that systems could be virtual at *___all* levels. They would like personal computers (you know no one's going to trip over something and kill your DFA in mid-transit), except that they need 8 megabytes to run their Correctness Verification Aid packages. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why userland , basesystem and Kernel are together?!
> You are comparing apples and oranges. Linux is a kernel, not an > operating system. "Distributions" is a specially ill-choosen word in > the Linux world. There are several operating systems, Debian, RedHat, > Mandrake, which only have in common to use the Linux kernel. Well, this is what I indendet to express. Besides that, I'd say that the various GNU/Linux flavours (let's put it that way ;-) have more in common than just the kernel: The GNUish userland (parts of which are used in FreeBSD, too). > Forget > the word "distributions" which seems to imply that an operating > system is defined by its kernel. I also dislike the term `distribution', I only used it for better comparability. Simon signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Why userland , basesystem and Kernel are together?!
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 03:42:17PM -0500, Scott W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 104 lines which said: 1. Kernel. Umm, I hope I don't have to expain this one ;-) 2. Core system- This one can likely be argued a bit with bsd (and 3. userland apps- Kernel and core make a rudimentary system, but I don't have the Handbook to check and I'm offline at the present time but I'm suprised. I thought that "userland" meaned "everything which is not the kernel", including the base system. What you call "userland", "everything but the base system", seems to be what the Handbook calls the ports. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" Your statement's completely true- 'userland' is anything outside of the kernelbut for explanations sake to the original poster, it seemed the most fitting explanation. I guess it would have been better worded as 'all the rest of the apps' AKA ports :-) Sorry for any confusion... Scott ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Why userland , basesystem and Kernel are together?!
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 02:19:04AM +0100, Simon Barner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 101 lines which said: > If you have a look at all this, you will easily understand why there > aren't multiple FreeBSD distributions (like in the Linux world): > The FreeBSD Project provides more than a kernel - it also maintains > the base system and almost 1 ported third-party applications (the > so-called ports collection). You are comparing apples and oranges. Linux is a kernel, not an operating system. "Distributions" is a specially ill-choosen word in the Linux world. There are several operating systems, Debian, RedHat, Mandrake, which only have in common to use the Linux kernel. Forget the word "distributions" which seems to imply that an operating system is defined by its kernel. And there are several operating systems based on a BSD kernel, too: FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, there is even now a Debian/BSD which uses a NetBSD kernel instead of Linux. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Why userland , basesystem and Kernel are together?!
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 03:42:17PM -0500, Scott W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 104 lines which said: > 1. Kernel. Umm, I hope I don't have to expain this one ;-) > 2. Core system- This one can likely be argued a bit with bsd (and > 3. userland apps- Kernel and core make a rudimentary system, but I don't have the Handbook to check and I'm offline at the present time but I'm suprised. I thought that "userland" meaned "everything which is not the kernel", including the base system. What you call "userland", "everything but the base system", seems to be what the Handbook calls the ports. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Why userland , basesystem and Kernel are together?!
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 01:37:48AM +0200, Vahric MUHTARYAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 46 lines which said: > Why some programs are in base system . What is the meaning of > Sendmail or SSH in base system . Programs are only executable things > What is the relation about those programs with base system ?! With the ideas you have about how an operating system should be assembled, I suggest that you use Debian http://www.debian.org/> instead of FreeBSD. it is much closer to your philosophy. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Why userland , basesystem and Kernel are together?!
Hi Vahric, > First thanks for your answer . Please correct me if I mis understand > something . > > 1) You mean if I want to keep source up-to-date method and use make world > process I must test it another test machine before apply it to the > production server . I think that Scott put this quite nicely. Of course, you will not have a test machine for your desktop machine at home, but depending on the importance of a particular machine you, as a responsible admin, will not use untested patches/updates, ... To continue the home network example, you will try a patch on your FreeBSD desktop first, before applying it to your FreeBSD gateway, proxy or whatever that several other people depend on. > 2) You said that FreeBSD was more than a kernel . What do you mean > Could you explain little more or Do you know any documentation or whitepaper > which explain mind of the FreeBSD operating System . Have a look at http://www.freebsd.org/ and follow the links in the main text. This might also interest you: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/explaining-bsd/ > 3)I red small paragraf from http://www.daemonology.net/freebsd-update/ > after your advise -FreeBSD Update is a system for automatically building, > distributing, fetching, and applying binary security updates for FreeBSD. > This makes it possible to easily track the FreeBSD security branches without > the need for fetching the source tree and recompiling - > *** it seems really good _! Soory but if binary update make all things > easyer than soruce update mechanism Why Everybody advising source-update > instead of freebsd-update IMO, the reason is two-fold: 1. Using the source based method, you can tailor the system to your needs: You can build only those parts of the system you need (increasing security), use custom options, optimize for your CPU, ... If you are familiar with programming, you could also fix small issues on your own - although most people won't most likely do that. 2. Historically, FreeBSD is very source-centric. Not only the binary update-mechanism is rather young, but also FreeBSD started its life as a (source) patch set against 4.4BSD-Lite. If you browser the CVS repository, you will see, how carefully people document the changes to the source tree. In contrast to Linux, for example, you are able to reconstruct the history of every single FreeBSD feature. And this does not apply to FreeBSD's kernel only, but also to all the great pieces of software in the base system. If the responsible people of the FreeBSD team decide to add a new tool to the base system, they import it into the CVS repository and apply FreeBSD specify patches to it (which are, of course, fed back upstream). For example, FreeBSD 4.9-RELEASE does not have the latest and greatest version of OpenSSH, but it came with a known-good version plus patches for the security holes. If you have a look at all this, you will easily understand why there aren't multiple FreeBSD distributions (like in the Linux world): The FreeBSD Project provides more than a kernel - it also maintains the base system and almost 1 ported third-party applications (the so-called ports collection). Hope that answered your questions at least a bit. I'd suggest that you browse the web site and have a look at the documentation (also a very important part of the project) in order to get a better feeling for FreeBSD. Simon signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Why userland , basesystem and Kernel are together?!
> 2) You said that FreeBSD was more than a kernel . What do you mean > Could you explain little more or Do you know any documantation or whitepaper > which explain mind of the FreeBSD operating System . Hmm, try www.freebsd.org (sic). These two areas should be partiularly useful. http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/index.html http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/index.html ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Why userland , basesystem and Kernel are together?!
Vahric MUHTARYAN wrote: Hi Simon Barner , First thanks for your answer . Please correct me if I mis understand something . 1) You mean if I want to keep source up-to-date method and use make world process I must test it another test machine before apply it to the production server . I realize I'm jumping in mid-thread here, but: Anyone that gets paid to maintain a system or group of systems is certifiably insane if they routinely 'just apply patches and fixes' to their production box without testing on a staging server or cloned test system. I realize that the definition of 'production' varies, ranging anywhere from someone running a web server at home (ok, not production, but some treat it as such) to companies primary database, web, mail, development and build systems. While I've been 'guilty' myself of applying smaller patches to Solaris, HP-UX, etc boxes for development without prior testing: a. It's minimal impact- I could recreate the systems in question of need be from scratch. It would be an inconvenience, and still not the best idea, but for some systems you don't always have cloned systems... b. Anything that could cost a company money or loss of uptime that customers depended on NEVER gets upgraded/patched/etc without testing on a staging system. This includes kernel builds or patches, library changes, application patches etc. Virtually anything. Only exception will vary from person to person and company to company, but only sane changes are changes you KNOW (a in 99.99%) are limited in scope, as in self-contained applications that don't touch any of the core libraries required for the system to do it's job. Even so, this one's debateable, as a 'self contained' app can certainly turn out to eat CPU or RAM, thus degrading system performance... 2) You said that FreeBSD was more than a kernel . What do you mean Could you explain little more or Do you know any documantation or whitepaper which explain mind of the FreeBSD operating System . I'm sure this is covered in the Handbook or other docs at www.freebsd.org...Briefly...BSD is comprised of: 1. Kernel. Umm, I hope I don't have to expain this one ;-) 2. Core system- This one can likely be argued a bit with bsd (and others), but this should be considered any additional libraries and/or services that are required for mimimum accepted or targetted functionality. In the strictest sense, this can be seen as core libraries that userland apps will generally require- libc and others, and core services- login/getty, inetd, etc. Like a Windows kernel without any of the GUI or Win32 libraries would be of little use, Unix systems have their own generally accepted list of 'core requirements.' SSH and a few others may be debateable as far as if they're really core requirement or not, but it's generally agreed on that most networked *nix systems will be running ssh (hopefully as a replacement to telnet and ftp..) FreeBSDs equivalent here is the output of 'make world.' 3. userland apps- Kernel and core make a rudimentary system, but without much 'specialized' functionality. You're networked, and perhaps running mail and ssh, but that's about it. userland = everything else. Databases, Window Manager(s), MatLab, or whatever else you need to turn the system from a 'generic' system into what it's going to be used for. As already mentioned, without some of the contents of the 'core system,' you wouldn't be very likely able to even install userland apps as libc and friends would be missing 3)I red small paragraf from http://www.daemonology.net/freebsd-update/ after your advise -FreeBSD Update is a system for automatically building, distributing, fetching, and applying binary security updates for FreeBSD. This makes it possible to easily track the FreeBSD security branches without the need for fetching the source tree and recompiling - *** it seems really good _! Soory but if binary update make all things easyer than soruce update mechanism Why Everybody advising source-update instead of freebsd-update Binary updates don't allow compile time options to be set, nor are the binaries optimized for your specific system. Check out the output of the 'configure' script on a samba or Perl tarball sometime- some apps have quite a few possible configurations, and binary distributions don't fit everyone's needs. It's possible, depending on what you use your system(s) for that you can solely rely on binary packages, but as you expand the purpose of a given system further, it's likely you'll eventually need to configure and compile from source yourself. BSD Ports is a good compromise or in between here, as it does compie from source, with the ability to still allow customization of packages... Scott Thanks . Vahric ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To uns
Re: Why userland , basesystem and Kernel are together?!
Hi Simon Barner , First thanks for your answer . Please correct me if I mis understand something . 1) You mean if I want to keep source up-to-date method and use make world process I must test it another test machine before apply it to the production server . 2) You said that FreeBSD was more than a kernel . What do you mean Could you explain little more or Do you know any documantation or whitepaper which explain mind of the FreeBSD operating System . 3)I red small paragraf from http://www.daemonology.net/freebsd-update/ after your advise -FreeBSD Update is a system for automatically building, distributing, fetching, and applying binary security updates for FreeBSD. This makes it possible to easily track the FreeBSD security branches without the need for fetching the source tree and recompiling - *** it seems really good _! Soory but if binary update make all things easyer than soruce update mechanism Why Everybody advising source-update instead of freebsd-update Thanks . Vahric - Original Message - From: "Simon Barner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Vahric MUHTARYAN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "FreeBSD questions List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 3:30 AM Subject: Re: Why userland , basesystem and Kernel are together?! ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Why userland , basesystem and Kernel are together?!
> I want to ask why userland , base-system and Kernel are together ?! Because some userland programs make assumptions on internal kernel structures. Examples: top, fstat, fsck, ... And, most important: Every compiled application needs libc as a wrapper for system calls (which toggle all kinds of actions in the kernel). You can imagine what happens if your libc does not match your kernel version, and something really important changed. > What > is the meaning of this . I mean sync. all source and start to build new > system from the beginning is to hard , it takes too much time and can have > some risk .I don't understand How ISP can use FreeBSD because at the > building time , machine will be off. Okey Maybe yahoo can use it because > it's clustered environment and it's easyly remove one of the machine install > new version or patch it if any problem occur it can be reinstalled after > that making standart configuration now it's ready. You will find a test and build machine on almost any _professional_ installation (independently, if FreeBSD is used as OS). > I think that Kernel must be seperate of userland because it's managing > and controling processes and I don't need rebuild kernel too much if I have > no problem with device driver or if I don't need to add something to kernel > for support ( instead of Firewall or like important things ) . > > > Why some programs are in base system . What is the meaning of Sendmail > or SSH in base system . Programs are only executable things What is the > relation about those programs with base system ?! Because FreeBSD is more than a kernel, but a full Operating System, and as therefore it needs software for basic services like email, remote login, ... > > >in list Some members said that I can patch a system with watching > Security Advisories but same people said that " Sometimes it'wont and I have > to do full kernel / world / build / plus install and reboot " Why ? What > is the problem ?! Of course, you can perform an update for a userland application in FreeBSD without a reboot. The benefit of tracking one of the security branches and doing the full buildworld procedure is, that you are using a well-defined snapshot of the FreeBSD source repository. When you see a security advisory, and you update to the latest security release, you can be sure, that your system will still work afterwards (a.k.a QA provided by the FreeBSD security team). If you don't want to track that branch, there are still the pointers to patches that apply against supported releases. Due to the lack of man power, older versions of FreeBSD cannot be supported for eternity. And if you dislike the idea of keeping your sources up-to-date, there is also a binary security update mechanism: ports/security/freebsd-update > > Which list I have to watch for which Relese will have production quality > ?!! At the present, you should install FreeBSD 4.9 and either update to the latest security release _or_ use the freebsd-update port. Once you use the source method, you will not be able to use the binary updates since the patches won't probably apply. Regards, Simon signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Why userland , basesystem and Kernel are together?!
On Tuesday 09 December 2003 00:37, Vahric MUHTARYAN wrote: > Hi Everybody , > > it's not easy to jump from one operating system to other one , > sometimes people can have too much habit and it's searching same ones in > other , for good understanding it is asking why ?! :) Well, if you're talking about "operating systems" you answered your question yourself! > > I want to ask why userland , base-system and Kernel are together ?! > What is the meaning of this . I mean sync. all source and start to build > new system from the beginning is to hard , it takes too much time and can > have some risk .I don't understand How ISP can use FreeBSD because at the > building time , machine will be off. Okey Maybe yahoo can use it because What a nonsens! > it's clustered environment and it's easyly remove one of the machine > install new version or patch it if any problem occur it can be reinstalled > after that making standart configuration now it's ready. > > > I think that Kernel must be seperate of userland because it's managing You think? *lol* > and controling processes and I don't need rebuild kernel too much if I have > no problem with device driver or if I don't need to add something to > kernel for support ( instead of Firewall or like important things ) . > > > Why some programs are in base system . What is the meaning of Sendmail > or SSH in base system . Programs are only executable things What is the > relation about those programs with base system ?! > > >in list Some members said that I can patch a system with watching > Security Advisories but same people said that " Sometimes it'wont and I > have to do full kernel / world / build / plus install and reboot " Why ? > What is the problem ?! > > > Which list I have to watch for which Relese will have production > quality ?!! > > > > > > > > ___ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" pgp0.pgp Description: signature
