Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 22:45 UTC
FreeBSD The FreeBSD team has pushed out the first test build of FreeBSD 7.2, a beta release. "The first of the test builds for the FreeBSD 7.2-RELEASE cycle is now available. Testing of two recent changes to the system would be particularly valuable. The bce(4) network driver was updated a few days ago. And some significant work was done on the threading libraries a short time ago that is known to fix several major issues but testing to see if it introduced any regressions would be appreciated."
Order by: Score:
Great!
by obsidian on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 23:56 UTC
obsidian
Member since:
2007-05-12

Looking forward to trying this. Many thanks to all involved with this release!

Reply Score: 4

dmr updates also
by vermaden on Sat 4th Apr 2009 11:36 UTC
vermaden
Member since:
2006-11-18

After 7.1-RELEASE there was a lot commits to the drm subsystem in FreeBSD kernel, so gfx support is now also a lot better.

Reply Score: 2

Page 2?
by kill on Sat 4th Apr 2009 14:47 UTC
kill
Member since:
2005-11-03

Now, why is this on page 2? ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Page 2?
by sbenitezb on Sat 4th Apr 2009 16:34 UTC in reply to "Page 2?"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

It's a beta.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Page 2?
by darknexus on Sat 4th Apr 2009 16:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Page 2?"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

It's a beta.

So's Windows 7, and whenever something about Windows 7, no matter how small, shows up it's always on page one.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Page 2?
by sbergman27 on Sat 4th Apr 2009 17:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Page 2?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

FWIW, I predicted this. In the beginning there was just Page 1. And rarely is there enough news that all the news that is news couldn't just flow through page one. We've never been in any danger of facing an "information overload" crisis here, and people can just ignore stories which do not pique their interests.

But... people whined and complained about why this or that story was on OSNews. The complaints were never rational. The stories were simply an excuse to complain. And some people love to complain. Especially regarding stories about software they actively don't like. The OSNews staff initially seemed to realize this. But over time, it seems they started to believe. I can't say as I blame them; It's true that if you say something enough times, you can eventually wear down other people's natural skepticism.

So now we have Page 2. And because it was addressing an excuse to complain, and not a real issue, Page 2 has become yet another excuse to complain. And perhaps "excuse" is not the right word. Because some complaints as to selection of Page 1 or Page 2 actually seem to have more legitimacy than the old "What's this even doing on OSNews" complaints of olde.

I'd as soon just dump the whole Page 2 idea and go back to the way we were doing things before.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Page 2?
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 5th Apr 2009 18:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Page 2?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It's real simple, and we've been clear about it ever since our CLean Slate thing.

Page 1 is for "long" items, page 2 for "short" items. It has little to nothing to do with relevance.

There's simply too little to say about this beta to fill up a long item - as simple and as cold as that. If you want items like this on the frontpage, then feel free to submit items with more details.

It's really that simple.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Page 2?
by sbergman27 on Sun 5th Apr 2009 18:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Page 2?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Page 1 is for "long" items, page 2 for "short" items. It has little to nothing to do with relevance.

Please define "long items" and "short items". Despite having paid attention, it seems that this attentive reader has missed something.

Are "long items" where OSNews staff feel like using OSNews as there personal blog? "short items" being where they don't?

Enquiring minds want to know. :-)

Edited 2009-04-05 18:24 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Page 2?
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 5th Apr 2009 21:14 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Page 2?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Yes.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Page 2?
by sakeniwefu on Sun 5th Apr 2009 13:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Page 2?"
sakeniwefu Member since:
2008-02-26

A beta of a bugfix release. A 8.0 beta release or new information about 8.0 would be news. This is hardly more relevant than Windows Malware Removal Tool updates. It only makes it to OSnews because FreeBSD calls it a release.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Page 2?
by Piranha on Mon 6th Apr 2009 13:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Page 2?"
Piranha Member since:
2008-06-24

A beta of a bugfix release. A 8.0 beta release or new information about 8.0 would be news. This is hardly more relevant than Windows Malware Removal Tool updates. It only makes it to OSnews because FreeBSD calls it a release.


Isn't Windows 7 a 'bugfix' for Vista?

Reply Score: 1

No graphical installer?
by marcelkoopman on Sat 4th Apr 2009 17:24 UTC
marcelkoopman
Member since:
2007-03-23

I believe things like graphical installers should really be in a modern os. I really hate doing text based installs, like in FreeBSD. Why is this not a priority?

Reply Score: 1

RE: No graphical installer?
by J-freebsd_98 on Sat 4th Apr 2009 17:37 UTC in reply to "No graphical installer?"
J-freebsd_98 Member since:
2006-01-01

Freebsd is coded by volunteers almost if not
entirely. If you review the freebsd-questions
list (or either of the two principal forums,
I forget precisely which of the 3 has the
most discussion), you will find threads about
the topic, and can find links to the beta
of the graphical installer. (Hundreds of
Freebsd users probably recall more than I
about the topic).
........
I favor an installer with choices on the left,
consequences on the right (like most BIOS setups)
as well as kernel config's and xorg.conf's
config tools similar. But that is a whole
other project that can be made but broken if
not enough resources are allocated.
.........
Might change my mind if I ever use a
graphical installer. AFAIK, since the
system can be upgrade perpetually, I should
never have to install "per se" again so
am not qualified nor motivated to persue
the issue further.
..........
The above is a rough draft of a reply. Hopefully
it is better than no answer.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: No graphical installer?
by marcelkoopman on Sat 4th Apr 2009 17:41 UTC in reply to "RE: No graphical installer?"
marcelkoopman Member since:
2007-03-23

I used to believe that text based installers is all you need. But i've tried Ubuntu, and that is really a step forward. You can browse the internet while installation is underway. Thats what I call handy if you dont understand some installation options or dont want to stare at a progressbar.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: No graphical installer?
by fithisux on Sat 4th Apr 2009 19:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No graphical installer?"
fithisux Member since:
2006-01-22

I also like text installers.

Reply Score: 2

marcelkoopman Member since:
2007-03-23

I also like text installers.

Great arguments there. Way to go.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: No graphical installer?
by darknexus on Sat 4th Apr 2009 22:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No graphical installer?"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Well, strictly speaking, the graphical installer in Ubunt isn't what allows you to browse the internet. It's the fact that the CD is a live Ubuntu environment. They could just as easily run a text-based installer in a terminal window if they wanted, but they might as well make it graphical, seeing as how the environment is ready and able to accomodate it anyhow.
The graphical installers I hated were the type that weren't a live environment, typically supported much less hardware (in both their kernel and X configuration) than their fully installed environment, and generally caused hell because of it: anything from failure to load the X server, a frozen system, or crashes mid way through. These were the types of installers that Fedora/Red Hat used to have, and I believe they still have them though Fedora also now has a Live CD. Fortunately, in Linux, most distributions have moved to Live installers now and, in the case of the three main BSDs, their installs are text-based.
I, for one, think that Free/Net/OpenBSD should always keep their text-based installers, even if they eventually focus on graphical ones. The BSDs serve very well, naturally, as a server and text-based installs are very handy when installing on to various headless servers or needing to install remotely. Any os or distribution that claims to be server-oriented should never abandon a text-based installation process, they really can get you out of some tight spots.

Reply Score: 2

coreyography Member since:
2009-03-06

I guess I've just become used to the assumption that I will need another computer nearby, Internet-connected and with a working browser, to consult my manuGoogle if I have problems, but I don't see lack of a graphical installer as a huge loss. I know it's often cited as one of those things that keeps Joe Sixpack and his grandma away from Unix-ish open-source OSes, but then again you can't get online with Windows while doing an install, either.

What's more important for inexperienced users in my mind is good hardware detection and assistance with things like disk partitioning (though again, Windows up through XP at least wasn't exceedingly helpful in that latter area).

I've never installed MacOS so don't know about them.

Reply Score: 1

RE: No graphical installer?
by KAMiKAZOW on Sun 5th Apr 2009 11:11 UTC in reply to "No graphical installer?"
KAMiKAZOW Member since:
2005-07-06
RE: No graphical installer?
by Doc Pain on Sun 5th Apr 2009 12:12 UTC in reply to "No graphical installer?"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

I believe things like graphical installers should really be in a modern os.


The fact that FreeBSD allows the user to install it with an excellent text mode installer is a point PRO a modern OS.

Note that the installer, i. e. sysinstall, does more than just installing the OS. It's a handy configuration tool for those who don't want to use the system's CLI tools.

I really hate doing text based installs, like in FreeBSD.


Why? I personally like them. It's fast, you make your choices FIRST, each after another, and then the installation starts. You don't need to sit at the machine and click "Next, Next, Next, Next, Next, OK, Yes, Next, Next, Next, Reboot" which occupies you several hours. The sysinstall tool does what it's intended to do, nothing more, nothing less. And just because it does it in text mode doesn't mean that it's uncomfortable in any way.

Why is this not a priority?


because it't not a priority. :-)

Let me explain: FreeBSD is a multi-purpose OS. You can use it for desktops, for servers, and for mixed forms. For a server, you don't need a graphical installer, it's useless. On the desktop, a text mode installer is sufficient. You install the base OS and can then stick to GUI tools for everything that comes after this point, e. g. GUI system administration tool, GUI package installation tool, GUI ports management tools... they're there. But if you don't want them, they won't be installed.

FreeBSD's "mentalitly" is: If you want it, you'll install it. You're not bothered by stuff installed that you won't touch, just "in case someone could need it some day".

You see, things that are not needed at the first place are available, but optional. As far as I remember, there's even a graphical boot selector. But it isn't default - and useless if your machine runs FreeBSD only, like mine does for years. :-)

FreeBSD's developers are very careful what they declare as "default", and what they include in the base of the OS. Keep in mind that we're talking BSD here, not Linux, where there's no difference between "the OS" and "everything else": Linux distributions consist of an arbitrary set of software, even the kernel is considered as a kind of package and handled this way. On FreeBSD, you could easily rm -rf /usr/local and get rid of "anything else", while "the OS" would still be completely functional.

There are projects that already include a graphical installer. PC-BSD has been mentioned, and I think DesktopBSD has one, too.

Those who install FreeBSD are usually smart enough to have no problems with a powerful text mode installer. Those who are interested in graphical installers with all the "bells and whistles" won't touch pure FreeBSD at all, they're happy with PC-BSD or DesktopBSD.

It has even been mentioned that several Linusi run their installer through the means of a live system CD or DVD. FreeBSD doesn't do this. The installer CD starts a minimal setting that allows you to do the installtion and some maintenance work. Why? Because that's sufficient for installation and maintenance work.

According to this approach, it's worth mentioning FreeSBIE, a LFS CD that has X and several tools preinstalled. I like to use it when I've got do so some diagnostics and data recovery preparations. You can even install FreeSBIE from this LFS CD onto your disk. ANd while doing this, you can browse the Web. :-)

Don't expect FreeBSD to be an "all in one for everything and anybody". It is the base for many different fields of use, but there aren't hundreds of different distributions that, each on its own, try to serve everyone's needs. FreeBSD gives you a solid base to achieve your goals, and if you don't like the way the pure OS does things, use tools that others made to exactly help in such a situation. The request "I want a GUI installer" and the following dependencies can't mess up the OS, so it keeps clean, fast, stable, and of high quality.

And I think that's a perfectly fine situation.

Reply Score: 3

FreeBSD doesn't need YOUR contribution
by apog on Sun 5th Apr 2009 12:07 UTC
apog
Member since:
2007-07-26

Beeing a long time FreeBSD user, few years ago I took two weeks off to port the Solaris' SiS190 NIC driver to FreeBSD. After getting it done, I have posted the working driver to the drivers@ newsgroup for review and comments and asked to include the driver into the source tree. Today, after 2 years the driver is still not included into the system!

Now, the SiS190 NIC is on-board chip, and is used in many netbooks and since you cannot plug a $5 PCI NIC into a netbook, FreeBSD is completely unsuitable for some netbook families.

Very sad! I know I could have pushed stronger, but...

Reply Score: 1