“FreeBSD 4.6-RC1 (i386) is now available for download. The RC has been on ftp-master for over 24 hours so most of the mirrors have the ISO and FTP install tree, except for some reason ftp.freebsd.org. The build for the Alpha platform should be available within the next 24 hours.” Read more at KernelTrap.
First FreeBSD 4.6 Release Candidate Released
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Good. While Linux and Windows, and Mac users all fight over who has the prettiest GUI or who has the newest programs, someone (or in this case, some group) is helping to make the world a stroger, more stable, more secure place.
Especially good with all the internal turmoil FreeBSD has had.
Quit bitching and start a revolution
Desktop users will always fight over GUIs and new nifty apps, as much as server admins will fight for stronger, more stable and secure solutions. I don’t really see your point…
hehe, they’re really moving fast, RC2 is out.
http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=10276+0+current/freebs…
notice: potentially dumb question follows, please be kind.
i was wonder, win98 was blamed for bein unstable because it was just a layer ontop of dos(somethin along those lines) so MS used NT and made win2k which had the gui integrated…now, with unix, you have *bsd & linux, the kernel, and whatever desktop manager, window manager, kde, gnome, windomaker, layer ontop of that..would it be juist plane stupid to make the gui integrated the way win2k is? would it make it more stable?
Mike,
Obviously you fail to realise that is the core problem to why Windows 2000/XP/NT is unstable, and downright bloody terrible on the server. Microsoft has a fixation that anything GUI is advanced and anything command line is “old” or “untrendy”. The fact is, Micrsoft has thrown the GUI into the kernel space to speed up graphics at the sacrefice of stability, this was the whole reason why old’ what’s it’s face left from Microsoft when NT was being designed (who orriginally worked for the OpenVMS team at DEC).
The fact is, there is no reason why the GUI needs to be intergrated in to the operating system. By keeping it independent, it can run on a number of operating systems, resulting in a cross platform, uniforned GUI, perfect for any organisation with a hetrogenious environment.
Also, Microsoft failed to create an environemnt which is multiplatform. While X is an openstandard, GDI and GDI+ is not. Microsoft needs to realise the whole of the IT world doesn’t revolve around them and their cronnies.
“Obviously you fail to realise that is the core problem to why Windows 2000/XP/NT is unstable, and downright bloody terrible on the server.”
Matthew,
Have you ever actually worked with XP? I don’t think you have. XP is VERY stable. Linux zealots need to admit that and just move on. You aren’t going to make any progress by continuing to say things about operating systems that are no longer true. People who say XP is unstable are just plain lying. The fact is Microsoft has made great strides in the stability department and XP can now compete with Linux in the stability department. You are going to have to find another gig for Linux because the stability argument just doesn’t work anymore.
Simba, what kind of tasks are you running on XP? XP has a little bit more stability than win98 or ME. . . ok. . . is more stable in day to day work with office and other nice (and low load) programs but the bsd and linux people calls stable to an operating system with an uptime of 1+ year(s); check http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html for a stability samples.
🙂
“Simba, what kind of tasks are you running on XP? XP has a little bit more stability than win98 or ME. . . ok. . .”
On my workstation, WinXP Professional has only crashed one time. (I’ve had more crashes with Linux than XP actually).
“is more stable in day to day work with office and other nice (and low load) programs but the bsd and linux people calls stable to an operating system with an uptime of 1+ year(s);”
Please note something interesting. There is not a single Linux server listed in the top 50. So your argument about Linux being stable does not recieve any support from Netcraft. BSD is very stable, and that is widely known.
But as far as stable being an uptime of 1 or more years, Windows 2000 Server qualifies nicely. I have seen Windows 2000 servers that have uptimes of over a year. XP has improved on the stability of even Windows 2000.
It just isn’t true anymore that Windows servers are unstable. And Linux zealots need to find a new gig because lying about Windows stability isn’t going to work. If you start talking about the lack of security in Windows, then you might have something. But uptime and stability simply isn’t an issue anymore.
thanks for the answer guys, i honestly wasn’t tryin to start some lil flame, i was just wondering.
“Please note something interesting. There is not a single Linux server listed in the top 50. So your argument about Linux being stable does not recieve any support from Netcraft. BSD is very stable, and that is widely known. ”
also somethin interesting, no windows servers in the top 50, so windows doesn’t support your claim of being stable(tho i don’t think stability is that bad on win2k). Also interesting, all but 2 of the 50 are running apache, not iis or whatever MS product is for servers(i honestly don’t know), but ofcourse that is cause there are no windows servers in the top 50 so no windows server software…hmm. just thought i would point that out.
Actually, the only two OSs that made the uptime survey at all are BSD and IRIX. But when I said Windows was stable, I was using the definition of “stable” given to me in the post I was responding to, which was uptimes of a year or more. And I have seen Windows 2000 servers with uptimes of over a year.
But uptime is highly overrated anyway. When I see insanely high uptimes like 800 days or 1,000 days, the only thing that tells ms is that the admin is not doing his job. 1000 days without a patch that requires a reboot is a long time unless you haven’t been keeping up on the patches.
my SQL Servers and Exchange Servers run for 274 days now on Windows 2000 Advsrv.
i agree with ya there, it would seem that 1k days without patching anything on the system seems dangerous, but does freebsd release patches? or is it just an OS update? and also, could it be that the os&apache are just that secure that they don’t need it? just wondering, thanks.
my SQL Servers and Exchange Servers run for 274 days now on Windows 2000 Advsrv.
So tso how much did you or your company have to pay for the Advsrv license? What about your mssql server licenses? Face it, dollar for dollar freebsd or linux is by far the most economical choice. Thier are plenty of “other” reasons besides stability not to choose MS as your server backbones. Speaking of which, then why is it every financial firm in the world uses some form of *nix for it’s server backbones and not Winblows? Because of stability! Imagine what a conversation between the CTO of lehman brothers and the CEO would sound like.
CTO: listen, I think we should switch over our core operations that run on *nix to windows XP or Advsrv. I believe thier really stable these days and could support our buisness.
CEO: So, your willing to bet your career and lehman brothers assets on MS technology?
CTO: Yes sir I am!
CEO: You want to take the core trading systems servers and switch them over to MS. With the way our buisness runs over 1 to 5+ million different transactions a day with zero down time and 365 days a year globally!
NOT OVER MY DEAD BODY, YOUR FIRED!!
I’m going a little bit over the top but seriously think about it. That day will never happen, just the opposite is taking place as we speak. Lehman and other major finacial companies are slowly replacing there solaris servers with linux servers. So the more people like yourselves think windows is getting more “stable” in the server world it really is only getting good enough to use on serious desktop machines. Sorry, MS will alway be considered a great UI (probalbly the best) but that’s it. MS servers will never be able to really handle 1000’s of trans per min. Prove me wrong. One last thing to suck on, MS hot mail runs on freebsd, they have tried to change it to ms server and failed due to the fact that MS servers couldn’t handle the load that hot mail get per day!!
I don’t even know why I am responding because this is one of those typical Linux zealots I talk about who ends up proving how little they know about the IT industry… But anyway…
“So tso how much did you or your company have to pay for the Advsrv license? What about your mssql server licenses? Face it, dollar for dollar freebsd or linux is by far the most economical choice.”
This is the oldest lie that Linux zealots perpetuate. And everyone who knows anything about this industry at all knows it is NOT always true. You completely fail to take support costs into your equation at all. Simple fact, studies have been done that show that many companies have saved money by dumping UNIX and going with Windows. Not all, but many.
“Because of stability! Imagine what a conversation between the CTO of lehman brothers and the CEO would sound like.”
Like the average CEO knows shit about what their servers are enen running much less which OS is better. The average CEO probably knows about as much about this as you seem to know based on your post.
“Lehman and other major finacial companies are slowly replacing there solaris servers with linux servers.”
I would really love to see a source for this. Because more often the opposite is true. Companies start with Linux and then find that Linux can’t scale worth shit past 16 way processing and they end up moving to Sun or AIX so that they can do 64 or 108 way scaling. Of course, the x86 archecture doesn’t scale well either.
“MS hot mail runs on freebsd, they have tried to change it to ms server and failed due to the fact that MS servers couldn’t handle the load that hot mail get per day!!”
Once again, you show how little you know. MS Hotmail does not run on FreeBSD anymore. The only thing still running on FreeBSD are Hotmail’s DNS servers. The rest of the system is running on Windows and has been for quite some time.
“MS servers will never be able to really handle 1000’s of trans per min.”
Typically, Windows can handle more transactions per minute than Linux can because Linux’s process scheduler is so lame. Most people running extremely high transaction environments are running Solaris or some other commercial UNIX. Linux doesn’t scale well and doesn’t cut it on very high end servers.
“Most people running extremely high transaction environments are running Solaris or some other commercial UNIX. ”
Actually one of the best systems for running high tranaction loads are the Compaq Non-Stop servers (Formerly Tandem)