v4.11 vs v[56].x

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Preferences

· nixdoc.net

· man pages

· Linux HOWTOs

· FreeBSD Tips

· Forums

Forum index » *nix » BSD » FreeBSD

v4.11 vs v[56].x

Page 1 of 1 [12 Posts]

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Tim Judd
*nix forums beginner

Joined: 06 Jun 2006
Posts: 19

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:41 am Post subject: Note

v4.11 vs v[56].x

Good evening all,

I perceive Freebsd v5.x or higher (including the latest 6.1) as really a
poorly done OS. Little to none of the docs are accurate, there are
remnants to the v4.x days still installed on a clean install of 6.1. I
just see FreeBSD 5.x and 6.x as "dirty" that it's not as good as it has
been in the past.

My question is how many people still use v4.11 over anything newer like
v5.x or v6.x?

I'm HIGHLY considering installing FreeBSD v4.11 (which was gold, loved
it), but am a little cautious because of what bugs it might have that
haven't been resolved, now that it's beyond retirement.

Anybody care to chip in?

Steven G. Kargl
*nix forums Guru Wannabe

Joined: 02 Dec 2003
Posts: 146

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:48 am Post subject: Note

Re: v4.11 vs v[56].x

In article <lNudnX-av-bC1yHZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Tim Judd <tjudd01@hotmail.com> writes:

Quote:

I perceive Freebsd v5.x or higher (including the latest 6.1) as really a
poorly done OS. Little to none of the docs are accurate,

Do you have specific examples? Kind of hurt to discuss vague
generalizations?

Quote:

there are remnants to the v4.x days still installed on a clean
install of 6.1.

Do you have specific examples? You are aware that several utilities
that were installed on 4.11 are the same utilities installed on
5.x and higher. If it's not broken, then why fix it?

Quote:

I'm HIGHLY considering installing FreeBSD v4.11 (which was gold, loved
it), but am a little cautious because of what bugs it might have that
haven't been resolved, now that it's beyond retirement.

AFAIK, no one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to use
anything other than 4.11. If it works for you, fine. If you
find a bug, you have the source code so you can fix it.

--
Steve
http://troutmask.apl.washington.edu/~kargl/

Tim Judd
*nix forums beginner

Joined: 06 Jun 2006
Posts: 19

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:44 pm Post subject: Note

Re: v4.11 vs v[56].x

Steven G. Kargl wrote:

Quote:

In article <lNudnX-av-bC1yHZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Tim Judd <tjudd01@hotmail.com> writes:
I perceive Freebsd v5.x or higher (including the latest 6.1) as really a
poorly done OS. Little to none of the docs are accurate,

Do you have specific examples? Kind of hurt to discuss vague
generalizations?

What first bugged me was why put the kernel in subdirectories at all?
what was wrong with putting the kernel just under /kernel ?

OK, so maybe storing it under a directory called /boot might make a
little sense. but why spread that to a subdirectory of /boot? It just
doesn't seem logical to put it in directories.

Quote:

I'm trying to get diskless clients working, and most of the online docs
refer to the old 4.x days, using a script under /usr/share/diskless
(IIRC), called clone_root

That script is still being installed on new 6.1 installations, where it
fails miserably every time.

Quote:

No, they're not. but that didn't really answer my original statement in
the paragraph: are there any critical security bugs in 4.x that were
fixed in newer releases of FreeBSD? Essentially leaving FreeBSD v4.x
vulnerable to these bugs?

And not everyone can code in C or C++ -- I can't. So the source code to
me is like having japanese money, it's cool to have, but gives me
nothing advantageous.

I'm looking at others, what they are using. What are you using, Steven
Kargl? I know you're using knews, but I dunno what OS.

Thank you for your time to reply.

Michel Talon
*nix forums Guru

Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 557

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:18 pm Post subject: Note

Re: v4.11 vs v[56].x

Tim Judd <tjudd01@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Well this is purely cosmetic. It is very logical to have kernel and kernel
modules in a directory which gets moved when you run make installkernel
to kernel.old.

Quote:

Have you read
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/network-diskless.html
which gives some information, in particular:
"
A sample script (/usr/share/examples/diskless/clone_root) eases the creation
and maintenance of the workstation's root file system on the server. The
script will probably require a little customization but it will get you
started very quickly.
"
and also
"
All the information in this section has been tested using FreeBSD
5.2.1-RELEASE.
"

Quote:

I am presently using a laptop which runs FreeBSD-4.11 because it is old and
has a small disk. So i can see that 4.11 is not magically more performant
and has a *lot* of annoying bugs that have been ironed in modern FreeBSD.
On my other machines i have FreeBSD-6.1 and i am *very* happy with it.
I have access to Linux machines running Fedora Core 5, and i am also very
happy with these machines. If you want a modernised FreeBSD-4 you should take
a look at DragonflyBSD, they are on the verge of releasing their 1.6 version.

--

Michel TALON

Steven G. Kargl
*nix forums Guru Wannabe

Joined: 02 Dec 2003
Posts: 146

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:31 pm Post subject: Note

Re: v4.11 vs v[56].x

In article <pvudnclk5oFWeCHZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Tim Judd <tjudd01@hotmail.com> writes:

Quote:

Steven G. Kargl wrote:
In article <lNudnX-av-bC1yHZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Tim Judd <tjudd01@hotmail.com> writes:
I perceive Freebsd v5.x or higher (including the latest 6.1) as really a
poorly done OS. Little to none of the docs are accurate,

Do you have specific examples? Kind of hurt to discuss vague
generalizations?

What first bugged me was why put the kernel in subdirectories at all?
what was wrong with putting the kernel just under /kernel ?

OK, so maybe storing it under a directory called /boot might make a
little sense. but why spread that to a subdirectory of /boot? It just
doesn't seem logical to put it in directories.

The reason is that you can have more than 1 kernel and its
specific modules on a system. This comes in handy when you
add a device to your system and build a new kernel that
does not boot. At the boot loader prompt, you can do

set module_path /boot/kernel.old
boot /boot/kernel.old/kernel

Quote:

there are remnants to the v4.x days still installed on a clean
install of 6.1.

Do you have specific examples? You are aware that several utilities
that were installed on 4.11 are the same utilities installed on
5.x and higher. If it's not broken, then why fix it?

I'm trying to get diskless clients working, and most of the online docs
refer to the old 4.x days, using a script under /usr/share/diskless
(IIRC), called clone_root

Read the Handbook.

Quote:

That script is still being installed on new 6.1 installations, where it
fails miserably every time.

File a bug report.

Quote:

I'm HIGHLY considering installing FreeBSD v4.11 (which was gold, loved
it), but am a little cautious because of what bugs it might have that
haven't been resolved, now that it's beyond retirement.

AFAIK, no one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to use
anything other than 4.11. If it works for you, fine. If you
find a bug, you have the source code so you can fix it.

No, they're not. but that didn't really answer my original statement in
the paragraph: are there any critical security bugs in 4.x that were
fixed in newer releases of FreeBSD? Essentially leaving FreeBSD v4.x
vulnerable to these bugs?

You can find out what has and hasn't been fixed at

http://www.freebsd.org/security/

In fact, the estimated End of Life is 31 Jan 07 for 4.11. So,
all known critical security problems should be fixed.

Quote:

And not everyone can code in C or C++ -- I can't. So the source code to
me is like having japanese money, it's cool to have, but gives me
nothing advantageous.

I'm looking at others, what they are using. What are you using, Steven
Kargl? I know you're using knews, but I dunno what OS.

Well, I've been running FreeBSD-current since it was called
386BSD+patchkit. So, I've run every version of FreeBSD at some
point in time. As of now, I have

FreeBSD-current:
Dell 4150 laptop (2 GHz pentium-m, 512 MB ram, 20 GB ATA partition)
Home mutt system (1.2 GHz athlon, 1.5 GB ram, 8 GB scsi drive)
Work system (dual 2.2 GHz opteron, 12 GB ram, 200 GB ATA and 8 GB scsi)

FreeBSD 6-stable
Appro Hyperblade Cluster with 6 nodes (dual 2.4 dual-core opteron,
16 GB ram, 200 GB, GigE per node)

--
Steve
http://troutmask.apl.washington.edu/~kargl/

Conrad J. Sabatier
*nix forums Guru Wannabe

Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 142

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:40 am Post subject: Note

Re: v4.11 vs v[56].x

Tim Judd (tjudd01@hotmail.com) wrote:

Quote:

Steven G. Kargl wrote:
In article <lNudnX-av-bC1yHZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Tim Judd <tjudd01@hotmail.com> writes:
I perceive Freebsd v5.x or higher (including the latest 6.1) as
really a
poorly done OS. Little to none of the docs are accurate,

Do you have specific examples? Kind of hurt to discuss vague
generalizations?

What first bugged me was why put the kernel in subdirectories at all?
what was wrong with putting the kernel just under /kernel ?

OK, so maybe storing it under a directory called /boot might make a
little sense. but why spread that to a subdirectory of /boot? It
just doesn't seem logical to put it in directories.

Is that really that big of a deal to you, and if so, why?

--
Conrad J. Sabatier <conrads@cox.net> -- "In Unix veritas"

Tim Judd
*nix forums beginner

Joined: 06 Jun 2006
Posts: 19

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:07 pm Post subject: Note

Re: v4.11 vs v[56].x

Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:

Quote:

Tim Judd (tjudd01@hotmail.com) wrote:

Steven G. Kargl wrote:
In article <lNudnX-av-bC1yHZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Tim Judd <tjudd01@hotmail.com> writes:
I perceive Freebsd v5.x or higher (including the latest 6.1) as
really a
poorly done OS. Little to none of the docs are accurate,
Do you have specific examples? Kind of hurt to discuss vague
generalizations?
What first bugged me was why put the kernel in subdirectories at all?
what was wrong with putting the kernel just under /kernel ?

OK, so maybe storing it under a directory called /boot might make a
little sense. but why spread that to a subdirectory of /boot? It
just doesn't seem logical to put it in directories.

Is that really that big of a deal to you, and if so, why?

What, you want a system with inaccurate documents? You want a system
with old scripts that don't work anymore? You want a system that to
use, you need to read the documents? Wait, that last one has a
problem.. If I want to read the documents about why something is on the
system, but the documents are inaccurate, how do I find the answer(s)?

This doesn't bother you? You must be psychic or psycho, one or the
other.. I can't decide.

And before you flame me for using the p words, I'm just exaggerating the
issue. The OS doesn't fit together as well as it used to, in the most
general statement I can make about FBSD v[56].x

Please don't mis-interpret me, either.. if FreeBSD is the best OS for
the job, I'll use it.

I was just trying to get a general feel for which version of FreeBSD the
newsgroup public is using. People asked me to explain why I said what I
did, but I've still only got one answer from somebody.

I'm still wanting to hear from others which version of FreeBSD they
prefer to use.

Thanks!

Vlad Mfk
*nix forums beginner

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 7

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:14 pm Post subject: Note

Re: v4.11 vs v[56].x

Tim Judd wrote:

Quote:

Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
Tim Judd (tjudd01@hotmail.com) wrote:

Steven G. Kargl wrote:
In article <lNudnX-av-bC1yHZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Tim Judd <tjudd01@hotmail.com> writes:
I perceive Freebsd v5.x or higher (including the latest 6.1) as
really a
poorly done OS. Little to none of the docs are accurate,
Do you have specific examples? Kind of hurt to discuss vague
generalizations?
What first bugged me was why put the kernel in subdirectories at all?
what was wrong with putting the kernel just under /kernel ?

OK, so maybe storing it under a directory called /boot might make a
little sense. but why spread that to a subdirectory of /boot? It
just doesn't seem logical to put it in directories.

Is that really that big of a deal to you, and if so, why?

What, you want a system with inaccurate documents? You want a system
with old scripts that don't work anymore? You want a system that to
use, you need to read the documents? Wait, that last one has a
problem.. If I want to read the documents about why something is on the
system, but the documents are inaccurate, how do I find the answer(s)?

This doesn't bother you? You must be psychic or psycho, one or the
other.. I can't decide.

And before you flame me for using the p words, I'm just exaggerating the
issue. The OS doesn't fit together as well as it used to, in the most
general statement I can make about FBSD v[56].x

Please don't mis-interpret me, either.. if FreeBSD is the best OS for
the job, I'll use it.

I was just trying to get a general feel for which version of FreeBSD the
newsgroup public is using. People asked me to explain why I said what I
did, but I've still only got one answer from somebody.

I'm still wanting to hear from others which version of FreeBSD they
prefer to use.

Thanks!

The latest release definitely. I believe the developers group are much
more smarter that I'm. I love innovations. ))

Regards,
Vlad

The Doctor
*nix forums addict

Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 82

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:27 am Post subject: Note

Re: v4.11 vs v[56].x

In article <3sudnR9_P-vRJiPZnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Tim Judd <tjudd01@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Time to dive in

..

Irecall BSD/OS 5.X being untested and unstable that most would stay
with BSD/OS 4.3.1 and work from there.

I like what I see in FreeBSD 4.11 .

I am running 5.4 without issues, unlessthere is something
I should know of.
--
Member - Liberal International
This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Beware Linux the MS Windows of Unix! Demand UseNet an integral part of Internet!

jpd
*nix forums Guru

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Posts: 877

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:31 am Post subject: Note

Re: v4.11 vs v[56].x

Begin <3sudnR9_P-vRJiPZnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com>
On 2006-07-19, Tim Judd <tjudd01@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Tim Judd <tjudd01@hotmail.com> writes:
I perceive Freebsd v5.x or higher (including the latest 6.1) as
really a poorly done OS. Little to none of the docs are accurate,
[snip!]
I was just trying to get a general feel for which version of FreeBSD
the newsgroup public is using.

What a strange way of asking.

--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

Andrew Reilly
*nix forums Guru Wannabe

Joined: 26 Apr 2002
Posts: 148

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:39 am Post subject: Note

Re: v4.11 vs v[56].x

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:07:57 -0600, Tim Judd wrote:

Quote:

The general approach is: try the documents on the system first. Man pages
are the most likely to be current and correct, but they don't do
tutorials, if that's what you're after. Tutorials are almost always out
of date (for anything, on any system: they're not generally written or
maintained by the same people who write the code and the man pages.)

If you find documents that are inaccurate or out of date, and they're on
the FreeBSD web site or an installed system, then the doc-project folk
would be really happy if you would file a pr (problem report), using
sendpr. This will always be necessary, because as the number of written
documents grows, so does the number that need to be revised whenever
anything changes. Simply not changing is one option, but it has it's own
problems, and so is not the choice that most folk make.

Quote:

I'm still wanting to hear from others which version of FreeBSD they
prefer to use.

I've always used _STABLE[1], tracked and upgraded approximately
fortnightly, on my main workstation. So that's 6.1 on the verge of
becoming 6.2. I run/keep an eye on a CVS server which runs something on
the 5_STABLE series from some time ago, largely because it's solid as a
rock, not broken, and so overpowered for the task that the performance
improvements in the 6 series don't matter.

The step from 4.x to 5/6.x was similar in cause and effect (but quite
different in detail) to the change that Sun made in moving from SunOS-4 to
Solaris-1/SunOS5 [2]: old Unix (BSD4.x vintage) just doesn't do multi
processor shared memory systems or threads properly. That was a much more
painful change, because it was earlier in time, and involved starting
from scratch with an "alien" kernel. I doubt that you'd find many
current Solaris users argue that they really want to go back to SunOS-4 on
their new, multi-processor machines, though. We get the benefit of ending
up in much the same place (functionally), but with underpinnings that
still feel their BSD roots.

[1] since 2.something. I used NetBSD before then, but they lost me at 16M
bounce buffers. Before then it was SunOS and Ultrix. Never really
had any exposure to the SysV way of doing things. I've gone back to
NetBSD for cross-compiled network devices, though. Its build system is
fantastic.

[2] or probably Linux from 2.2.x to 2.6.x, although I know fewer of the
details, there.

Cheers,

--
Andrew

Tim Judd
*nix forums beginner

Joined: 06 Jun 2006
Posts: 19

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:48 am Post subject: Note

Re: v4.11 vs v[56].x

jpd wrote:

Quote:

Begin <3sudnR9_P-vRJiPZnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com
On 2006-07-19, Tim Judd <tjudd01@hotmail.com> wrote:
Tim Judd <tjudd01@hotmail.com> writes:
I perceive Freebsd v5.x or higher (including the latest 6.1) as
really a poorly done OS. Little to none of the docs are accurate,
[snip!]
I was just trying to get a general feel for which version of FreeBSD
the newsgroup public is using.

What a strange way of asking.

and????

Keep in mind -- that you are unique, just like everyone else. I may ask
it strangely, but I'm still getting answers (Thanks, ALL!)

Google

Display posts from previous:

Page 1 of 1 [12 Posts]

View previous topic :: View next topic

The time now is Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:09 am | All times are GMT

Forum index » *nix » BSD » FreeBSD

Jump to:

Loans | Secured Loans | Loans | Electrical Shops | Free All Ebook PDF Download

Other DeniX Solutions sites: Unix/Linux blog | electronics forum | medicine forum | science forum |

[ Time: 0.2290s ][ Queries: 11 (0.0868s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]