One stupid question and one not so stupid

One stupid question and one not so stupid

Post by Igor N Kovalenk » Fri, 04 Apr 1997 04:00:00



Hi FreeBSD gurus,

could someone explain what is *right* release of FreeBSD?

Surfing around website I learned that basically there are two branches:
"current" and "stable".
But looking at FTP for download I see "release-2.1.7" and "release 2.2.1",
as well as "FreeBSD-stable" and "FreeBSD-current". For my impression
"FreeBSD-whatever" dirs contain something different from "release xxx"
dirs.

So, my stupid question is what is correlation between "release" numbers and
"branches"? Which release belongs to which branch? What is *last* "stable"
release?

What exactly (please, URL) I should download to install it from DOS hard
disk? I'm intended to do it in *this* way, so please do not suggest me FTP
installation.

And BTW, can someone say is there any serious advantage in *BSD over last
versions of Linux kernel (2.0.x)? I'm not a dumb DOS guy, so feel free to
dig into details :-) I also heard some splatter that Linux is not so stable
as FreeBSD, is it true? To be specific, I'm going to use one of them for
WEB server.

One advantage of Linux I found: it is MUCH easier to understand what is
appropriate distribution, looking at their websites ... :-)

Thanks
--

 
 
 

One stupid question and one not so stupid

Post by Brian Some » Sat, 05 Apr 1997 04:00:00




Quote:> Hi FreeBSD gurus,

> could someone explain what is *right* release of FreeBSD?

> Surfing around website I learned that basically there are two branches:
> "current" and "stable".

Current == 3.0
Stable == 2.2.*
RockSolidButLackingFeatures == 2.1.*

Quote:> But looking at FTP for download I see "release-2.1.7" and "release 2.2.1",
> as well as "FreeBSD-stable" and "FreeBSD-current". For my impression
> "FreeBSD-whatever" dirs contain something different from "release xxx"
> dirs.

FreeBSD-whatever is the "current sources" of that branch - ie. what
would be released if a release was done "right now".

Quote:> So, my stupid question is what is correlation between "release" numbers and
> "branches"? Which release belongs to which branch? What is *last* "stable"
> release?

When 2.1.7 was released, it was the "stable" branch.
Now 2.2.* is the "stable" branch :)  Confused ?

Quote:> What exactly (please, URL) I should download to install it from DOS hard
> disk? I'm intended to do it in *this* way, so please do not suggest me FTP
> installation.

A good choice IMHO.  At least if things go pear-shaped, you've still got
the distribution :)  I'd suggest 2.2 at

ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/2.2.1-RELEASE/[A-R]*
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/2.2.1-RELEASE/bin/*
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/2.2.1-RELEASE/manpages/*

Creating the following local stuff:

C:\FREEBSD\[A-R]*
C:\FREEBSD\BIN\*
C:\FREEBSD\MANPAGES\*

Quote:> And BTW, can someone say is there any serious advantage in *BSD over last
> versions of Linux kernel (2.0.x)? I'm not a dumb DOS guy, so feel free to
> dig into details :-) I also heard some splatter that Linux is not so stable
> as FreeBSD, is it true? To be specific, I'm going to use one of them for
> WEB server.

I'm not qualified to say - I don't know linux well.

Quote:> One advantage of Linux I found: it is MUCH easier to understand what is
> appropriate distribution, looking at their websites ... :-)

Perhaps, I've never looked at their websites (shows how much I know).

Quote:> Thanks

--

      <http://www.awfulhak.demon.co.uk>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour !

 
 
 

One stupid question and one not so stupid

Post by Jordan K. Hubbar » Sat, 05 Apr 1997 04:00:00



> Hi FreeBSD gurus,

> could someone explain what is *right* release of FreeBSD?

See http://www.cdrom.com/pub/FreeBSD for a more thorough explanation.

--
- Jordan Hubbard
  FreeBSD core team / Walnut Creek CDROM.

 
 
 

One stupid question and one not so stupid

Post by Jordan K. Hubbar » Sat, 05 Apr 1997 04:00:00



> Current == 3.0
> Stable == 2.2.*
> RockSolidButLackingFeatures == 2.1.*

Close:

Current == 3.0
Release = 2.2.x
Stable == 2.1.x

Release will become Stable sometime around 2.2.3, I'd say.

Quote:> When 2.1.7 was released, it was the "stable" branch.
> Now 2.2.* is the "stable" branch :)  Confused ?

Actually, it shouldn't have been renamed to "-stable" yet (it should
have been RELENG or something similar) but Joerg jumped the gun and now
I'm worried that changing it back will result in two groups of
"2.2-STABLE" users - those from phase I or phase II. :-)  I think the
damage is already done and we'll probably just have to live with it.

In any case, 2.2 is not quite "stable" yet - that will happen soon
enough though, with more testing and the wider release of 2.2.1 on the
net and CDROM.

--
- Jordan Hubbard
  FreeBSD core team / Walnut Creek CDROM.

 
 
 

1. Stupid or not so stupid questions

You don't have to have rc files for your shell, those are for adding to
or overriding the system defaults which are set in /etc/profile

That's an audio device, you need to recompile your kernel and support
sound, and go for the /dev/dsp and /dev/audio support after configuring
when configuring your sound card.

Hope this helps,

Jon Mitchell

2. PPP with null modem link

3. REALLY STUPID QUESTIONS (not so stupid)

4. Is Netware Client Access Possible?

5. Stupid, stupid, stupid...

6. ftpd problem

7. Stupid, stupid, stupid! FAT access rights...

8. How to get last Monday's date?

9. stupid stupid stupid

10. --stupid question but then there are no stupid questions--

11. PPP Question.. Really stupid one..

12. Down to ONE stupid newbie question

13. One More Stupid C Question: Thanx