Re: FreeBSD Version recommend for OLD machine
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 03:25:56PM -0400, alexus typed: On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:21 PM, andrew clarke m...@ozzmosis.com wrote: On Fri 2010-03-12 00:16:35 UTC-0500, Steve Bertrand (st...@ibctech.ca) wrote: The machine has a Motherboard that supports 2 double pentium III processors with 1GB of ram and a hard disk with 40GB. i'd go w/ 8.0 worse case scenario 7.2 and put more memory in that machine it's embarassing :) CPU: AMD Enhanced Am486DX4/Am5x86 Write-Back (486-class CPU) real memory = 67108864 (64 MB) soekrisgw uname -rms FreeBSD 8.0-STABLE i386 Soekris board running fine as a router and firewall. I'm not at all embarrassed. Ruben ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD Version recommend for OLD machine
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 5:09 AM, Ruben de Groot mai...@bzerk.org wrote: On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 03:25:56PM -0400, alexus typed: On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:21 PM, andrew clarke m...@ozzmosis.com wrote: On Fri 2010-03-12 00:16:35 UTC-0500, Steve Bertrand (st...@ibctech.ca) wrote: The machine has a Motherboard that supports 2 double pentium III processors with 1GB of ram and a hard disk with 40GB. i'd go w/ 8.0 worse case scenario 7.2 and put more memory in that machine it's embarassing :) CPU: AMD Enhanced Am486DX4/Am5x86 Write-Back (486-class CPU) real memory = 67108864 (64 MB) soekrisgw uname -rms FreeBSD 8.0-STABLE i386 Soekris board running fine as a router and firewall. I'm not at all embarrassed. Ruben ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org Mem: 51M Active, 11M Inact, 75M Wired, 4000K Cache, 24M Buf, 1492K Free Swap: 512M Total, 84M Used, 428M Free, 16% Inuse One of my servers, run Web,Mail,Torrent,MySQL,IRSSI and OpenVPN -- mmm, interesante. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD Version recommend for OLD machine
On Fri 2010-03-12 00:16:35 UTC-0500, Steve Bertrand (st...@ibctech.ca) wrote: The machine has a Motherboard that supports 2 double pentium III processors with 1GB of ram and a hard disk with 40GB. I run FreeBSD 7.2 on a headless 1 GHz Pentium III with 256 MB RAM. ... Again... so long as the system won't change its overall process objectives, go to the recent production release, but instead of assigning 256M for /, throw 2G at it to be safe. 2 GB for / seems excessive to me. 1 GB should be plenty. I have 500 MB allocated for FreeBSD 7.2: Filesystem SizeUsed Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/ad0s1a496M144M312M31%/ Although, with a cheap PCI SATA controller card you should be able to use current model terabyte-sized hard drives on a Pentium III, so hard drive space is a bit academic. Regards Andrew ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD Version recommend for OLD machine
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:21 PM, andrew clarke m...@ozzmosis.com wrote: On Fri 2010-03-12 00:16:35 UTC-0500, Steve Bertrand (st...@ibctech.ca) wrote: The machine has a Motherboard that supports 2 double pentium III processors with 1GB of ram and a hard disk with 40GB. I run FreeBSD 7.2 on a headless 1 GHz Pentium III with 256 MB RAM. ... Again... so long as the system won't change its overall process objectives, go to the recent production release, but instead of assigning 256M for /, throw 2G at it to be safe. 2 GB for / seems excessive to me. 1 GB should be plenty. I have 500 MB allocated for FreeBSD 7.2: Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/ad0s1a 496M 144M 312M 31% / Although, with a cheap PCI SATA controller card you should be able to use current model terabyte-sized hard drives on a Pentium III, so hard drive space is a bit academic. Regards Andrew ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org i'd go w/ 8.0 worse case scenario 7.2 and put more memory in that machine it's embarassing :) -- http://alexus.org/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD Version recommend for OLD machine
alexus wrote: On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:21 PM, andrew clarke m...@ozzmosis.com wrote: On Fri 2010-03-12 00:16:35 UTC-0500, Steve Bertrand (st...@ibctech.ca) wrote: The machine has a Motherboard that supports 2 double pentium III processors with 1GB of ram and a hard disk with 40GB. I run FreeBSD 7.2 on a headless 1 GHz Pentium III with 256 MB RAM. ... Again... so long as the system won't change its overall process objectives, go to the recent production release, but instead of assigning 256M for /, throw 2G at it to be safe. 2 GB for / seems excessive to me. 1 GB should be plenty. I have 500 MB allocated for FreeBSD 7.2: i'd go w/ 8.0 worse case scenario 7.2 and put more memory in that machine it's embarassing :) Bah, it's got more than an iPhone. :-D KDK ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD Version recommend for OLD machine
I had my fileserver running on a P3-1Ghz with Freebsd-8 for a good long while. I eventually replaced it with a dual-socket opteron board I got on ebay for something like $50 after shipping (with processors, seller was getting rid of 600 or so blades). I'm pretty sure the auction is still up if anyone cares. The board runs great with FBSD 8.0-Release amd64 On 3/16/2010 5:46 PM, Kevin Kinsey wrote: alexus wrote: On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:21 PM, andrew clarke m...@ozzmosis.com wrote: On Fri 2010-03-12 00:16:35 UTC-0500, Steve Bertrand (st...@ibctech.ca) wrote: The machine has a Motherboard that supports 2 double pentium III processors with 1GB of ram and a hard disk with 40GB. I run FreeBSD 7.2 on a headless 1 GHz Pentium III with 256 MB RAM. ... Again... so long as the system won't change its overall process objectives, go to the recent production release, but instead of assigning 256M for /, throw 2G at it to be safe. 2 GB for / seems excessive to me. 1 GB should be plenty. I have 500 MB allocated for FreeBSD 7.2: i'd go w/ 8.0 worse case scenario 7.2 and put more memory in that machine it's embarassing :) Bah, it's got more than an iPhone. :-D KDK ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD Version recommend for OLD machine
On 2010.03.16 15:25, alexus wrote: On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:21 PM, andrew clarke m...@ozzmosis.com wrote: On Fri 2010-03-12 00:16:35 UTC-0500, Steve Bertrand (st...@ibctech.ca) wrote: The machine has a Motherboard that supports 2 double pentium III processors with 1GB of ram and a hard disk with 40GB. I run FreeBSD 7.2 on a headless 1 GHz Pentium III with 256 MB RAM. i'd go w/ 8.0 worse case scenario 7.2 and put more memory in that machine it's embarassing :) Hogwash. Embarrassment is an opinion that you either believe people hold against you, or you hold against others, in which you think they will think about you: 62 processes: 1 running, 61 sleeping CPU states: 5.5% user, 0.0% nice, 11.9% system, 0.6% interrupt, 82.0% idle Mem: 53M Active, 11M Inact, 20M Wired, 6556K Cache, 19M Buf, 448K Free I am not embarrassed. This server has +30 websites running, and it is dead reliable. You do what you know works. You do not do because you might be 'shamed'. Those who shame people in this industry don't last long ;) Steve ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD Version recommend for OLD machine
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:29:13 -0600, Jorge Biquez jbiq...@icsmx.com wrote: It won't do anything else but a dns slave for maybe 100 domains, mail and squirrel for 10 domain, not more than 100 users with very low volume. That's all. Can you give me your opinions on what would you? - To re-install the version that it used to has from zero and let it work again for some other years. - Try a new version (maybe it is more secure or faster) and if so. which one? (in all these years even when the machine is on the Internet and LOT of people has tried to hacked it daily, in all these years we have never had a problem.) Thanks in advance for your advice. You won't encounter problems running the latest FreeBSD. This OS, I may emphasize this, does run FASTER and BETTER with each release on the SAME hardware. Sadly, this doesn't always apply for application software, which tends to benefit from bloat. But as you said you don't want a workstation, but a server, you sould install FreeBSD 8 and incorporate the security updates, e. g. via freebsd-update. So you can be sure to have a secure system all the time. DNS and squirrel don't seem to bring in any problems, from my opinion. So, my advice would be: 1. Get all your data from the machine. 2. Install FreeBSD 8 from scratch. This gives you the chance to possible re-partition, if you need to. 3. Update to the latest security patchlevel. 4. Update your ports collection. 5. Install the programs you need, or use pkg_add -r, which may be the better solution if you have an old system; in this case, step 4 can be omitted. 6. Configure your services. 7. Re-import your data, configure everything properly. 8. Give it a test run. 9. Yay! You did it! =^_^= -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD Version recommend for OLD machine
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 5:29 AM, Jorge Biquez jbiq...@icsmx.com wrote: The machine has a Motherboard that supports 2 double pentium III processors with 1GB of ram and a hard disk with 40GB. It won't do anything else but a dns slave for maybe 100 domains, mail and squirrel for 10 domain, not more than 100 users with very low volume. That's all. Wow, that's a big and fast machine, compared to some of the really OLD boxes that run FreeBSD 8.0 just fine with a load similar to yours (some of them with 500 MHz CPUs, 128 MB RAM and 20 GB disks). For server needs, go for 8.0, you won't regret it. -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD Version recommend for OLD machine
On 2010.03.11 23:29, Jorge Biquez wrote: Hello all. I have an old machine that has been running 4.11-Stable for some years. This week something weird happened when I tried to update to latest version on 4.x. Anyway, I thought that was a good idea to update to 5.x and after doing all the process finally I can not have it running corrcetly. Not a big problem since a secondary DNS an an email server for one domain. I am still trying to recover it downloading and installing the sae version it has but in case I can not fix I would like to install a mor erecent version. The machine has a Motherboard that supports 2 double pentium III processors with 1GB of ram and a hard disk with 40GB. It won't do anything else but a dns slave for maybe 100 domains, mail and squirrel for 10 domain, not more than 100 users with very low volume. That's all. Can you give me your opinions on what would you? Honestly, so long as there is no GUI running, the only real difference I currently observe on machines that have the requirement to stay at this: %uname -a FreeBSD x.x.x 4.3-RELEASE FreeBSD 4.3-RELEASE #0: Sat Apr 21 10:54:49 GMT 2001 j...@narf.osd.bsdi.com:/usr/src/sys/compile/GENERIC i386 ...and something more current is that the more recent versions require much more thought put into the original size of the root (/) partition, particularly when you are used to performing source upgrades. Earlier versions required *much* less space. The performance difference is negligible, so long as though you plan on running the same processes, and still perform proper diligence in trimming your kernel config file appropriately. With upgrading to a more recent version, you garner the benefits of security patches, code efficiencies, ability to follow current standards/practices etc. Again... so long as the system won't change its overall process objectives, go to the recent production release, but instead of assigning 256M for /, throw 2G at it to be safe. Steve ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD Version recommend for OLD machine
On 3/11/2010 11:29 PM, Jorge Biquez wrote: I have an old machine that has been running 4.11-Stable for some years. This week something weird happened when I tried to update to latest version on 4.x. Anyway, I thought that was a good idea to update to 5.x and after doing all the process finally I can not have it running corrcetly. Not a big problem since a secondary DNS an an email server for one domain. I am still trying to recover it downloading and installing the sae version it has but in case I can not fix I would like to install a mor erecent version. The machine has a Motherboard that supports 2 double pentium III processors with 1GB of ram and a hard disk with 40GB. It won't do anything else but a dns slave for maybe 100 domains, mail and squirrel for 10 domain, not more than 100 users with very low volume. That's all. Can you give me your opinions on what would you? If you're going to reinstall anyway, you might as well run the latest and greatest version. FreeBSD 8.0 will do just fine on this hardware. -- Mark Shroyer http://markshroyer.com/contact/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD Version recommend for OLD machine
On 12 March 2010 pm 12:29:13 Jorge Biquez wrote: Hello all. I have an old machine that has been running 4.11-Stable for some years. This week something weird happened when I tried to update to latest version on 4.x. Anyway, I thought that was a good idea to update to 5.x and after doing all the process finally I can not have it running corrcetly. Not a big problem since a secondary DNS an an email server for one domain. I am still trying to recover it downloading and installing the sae version it has but in case I can not fix I would like to install a mor erecent version. The machine has a Motherboard that supports 2 double pentium III processors with 1GB of ram and a hard disk with 40GB. It won't do anything else but a dns slave for maybe 100 domains, mail and squirrel for 10 domain, not more than 100 users with very low volume. That's all. Can you give me your opinions on what would you? - To re-install the version that it used to has from zero and let it work again for some other years. - Try a new version (maybe it is more secure or faster) and if so. which one? have a try with 8.0. If it does not work go back to 7.2. I have one machine on which 8.0 does not support USB at all. The scheduler on 8.0 is much better. You will be surprised when moving directly from 4.11 to 8.0 how fast the machine feels. Erich ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: freebsd version numbers
I upgraded to Freebsd systems from 7.0 to 7.2 on the first one, done May 25th, I use the generic kernel $ uname -a reports: 7.2-RELEASE #0 on the second one, done 3 days later (May 28th) on this system I also build and installed a custom kernel after upgrade. $ uname -a reports: 7.2-RELEASE #1 every time you do config and make depend;make it bumps that number by one ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: freebsd version numbers
Pieter Donche wrote: I upgraded to Freebsd systems from 7.0 to 7.2 on the first one, done May 25th, I use the generic kernel $ uname -a reports: 7.2-RELEASE #0 on the second one, done 3 days later (May 28th) on this system I also build and installed a custom kernel after upgrade. $ uname -a reports: 7.2-RELEASE #1 Why is this different? (#0 versus #1) What does #Number actually mean: is this the same as -pNumber used in the mails from @daily rootfreebsd-update cron The following files will be updated as part of updating to X.Y-RELEASE-pNumber No, it's nothing like that. It's a count of the number of times a kernel has been built from a particular source tree. Unless you're doing active kernel development it doesn't mean anything much. If not, what is the difference ? what's the difference between version, level, patchlevel, 'release level', 'version level of a release' (any others ?), ... See http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/current-stable.html which explains quite a lot of that sort of thing. Effectively there are releases made at approximately regular intervals of about 4 months. These have names like '7.2-RELEASE'. When significant problems or security holes are discovered, patches will be produced for any supported releases. These have names like '7.1-RELEASE-p5' where the p-number is just a counter showing how many patches there have been since the actual release. There may be several major versions with releases being made from them -- e.g. 6.4-RELEASE and 7.1-RELEASE came out pretty much simultaneously. The next release due is 8.0-RELEASE, but there will be 7.3-RELEASE sometime after that. There's a new major version approximately every 18 months, from which there will typically be 4 or 5 minor version releases). In addition to the releases there are two types of development streams that you can track: at the moment that's 8.0-CURRENT also known as HEAD (the bleeding edge which is not at all suitable for beginners, nor would any sensible person run anything important on it) and then the various STABLE streams such as 7.2-STABLE a.k.a RELENG_7 (STABLE here is a comment on the runtime characteristics of the OS, not on the rate of change of the code base -- these are active development branches). Around the time a release is made, the STABLE streams change name to eg. 7.3-PRERELEASE and possibly a few others, but it's all from the same CVS branch. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. Flat 3 7 Priory Courtyard PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate Kent, CT11 9PW, UK signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: freebsd version of 'data' for getting epoch time ... ?
In the last episode (Jun 20), Gore Jarold said: If I have a arbitrary date/time and I want to convert that to epoch time, I do this with GNU date: date --date='1970-01-01 00:02:00 +' +%s Easy. Can someone tell me what the syntax is for FreeBSD date command ? date -j -f '%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S %Z' '1970-01-01 00:02:00 GMT' +%s Adjust the -f argument to match whatever format your input string has (the date manpage has an example that parses date's default output back into itself). Unfortunately, it looks like strptime doesn't handle the %z flag, which is why I changed your + to GMT and used %Z instead. %z is actually easier to parse, so I'm not sure why it's not handled. -- Dan Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Version 5.3
On Mar 12, 2007, at 3:17 PM, Dominic Tampone wrote: The last Patch we can find for this Version is 2005. Are there subsequent Patches available to update and bring current? Security updates to FreeBSD 5.3 were published through the end of 2006, something along the lines of 5.3-RELEASE-p37, but I don't expect that patches are going to continue to be produced for 5.3 in 2007. (I may be wrong; perhaps you should ask the security team for the real scoop. :-) Update to FreeBSD 5.5, or possibly 6.2 -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: freebsd version?
2006/9/26, Jerry McAllister [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 04:35:07PM +0900, azhar freebsd wrote: hi can anybody tell me what is 6.2 preerelease. Just what it says. It is a FreeBSD 6.2 that has not been officially released yet. The present official release is 6.1. The 6.2 release is coming soon and is being worked on actively. You can install it for testing or development or somewhat risky production use. It is sort of a beta release. jerry uname -a FreeBSD belagelo.com 6.2-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-PRERELEASE #0: Sun Sep 24 16:53:30 UTC 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/i386/compile/GENERIC i386 [EMAIL PROTECTED] azhar ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] thank u for your reply . is there any way to get back the normal freebsd version . i am facing a lot of problems that i think its because of this version .like i cant install any package by sysinstall through ftp . azhar ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: freebsd version?
2006/9/25, Andrew Pantyukhin [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 9/25/06, azhar freebsd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi can anybody tell me what is 6.2 preerelease. uname -a FreeBSD belagelo.com 6.2-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-PRERELEASE #0: Sun Sep 24 16:53:30 UTC 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/i386/compile/GENERIC i386 [EMAIL PROTECTED] When X-STABLE between X.Y and X.(Y+1) gets close to X.(Y+1), we call it X.(Y+1)-PRERELEASE instead of X.Y-STABLE. We're expecting 6.2 this November. thank u for your reply . is there any way to get back the normal freebsd version . i am facing a lot of problems that i think its because of this version .like i cant install any package by sysinstall through ftp . azhar ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: freebsd version?
azhar freebsd wrote: uname -a FreeBSD belagelo.com 6.2-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-PRERELEASE #0: Sun Sep 24 16:53:30 UTC 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/i386/compile/GENERIC i386 [EMAIL PROTECTED] thank u for your reply . is there any way to get back the normal freebsd version . i am facing a lot of problems that i think its because of this version .like i cant install any package by sysinstall through ftp . If you are experiencing a lot of problems, then consider reporting them, the 6.2 version will be the next STABLE release. Reverting back to the exact snapshot of your previous system is imposible unless you know the date of that snapshot. If you have been tracking RELENG_6 you have gradually been updating your system to present which will soon become 6.2. You can get the 6.1 RELEASE with security patches by changing the tag in the supfile to RELENG_6_1. Without further details on the problems you experience, I doubt your problems relate to the version - I experience no problems at all. They may relate to errors occurred during the update of your system or the source. Did you rebuild/install both kernel and world? Did you follow the instructions running mergemaster? Try updating your sources and rebuild again. Cheers, Erik -- Ph: +34.666334818 web: http://www.locolomo.org X.509 Certificate: http://www.locolomo.org/crt/8D03551FFCE04F0C.crt Key ID: 69:79:B8:2C:E3:8F:E7:BE:5D:C3:C3:B1:74:62:B8:3F:9F:1F:69:B9 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: freebsd version?
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 07:04:53PM +0900, azhar freebsd wrote: 2006/9/26, Jerry McAllister [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 04:35:07PM +0900, azhar freebsd wrote: hi can anybody tell me what is 6.2 preerelease. Just what it says. It is a FreeBSD 6.2 that has not been officially released yet. The present official release is 6.1. The 6.2 release is coming soon and is being worked on actively. You can install it for testing or development or somewhat risky production use. It is sort of a beta release. jerry uname -a FreeBSD belagelo.com 6.2-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-PRERELEASE #0: Sun Sep 24 16:53:30 UTC 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/i386/compile/GENERIC i386 [EMAIL PROTECTED] azhar ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] thank u for your reply . is there any way to get back the normal freebsd version . i am facing a lot of problems that i think its because of this version .like i cant install any package by sysinstall through ftp . If it is really a problem with version 6.2, you might have to do a fresh install of 6.1 and then cvsup to RELENG_6.1 rather than STABLE or CURRENT. So far as I know, though, 6.2 is very reliable now. So, maybe it might help to pursue the actual problems you are having more. It may be that you would have the same problems in 6.1 or even 5.5. So, you might want to ask questions about the specific problems you are having in 6.2. jerry azhar ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: freebsd version?
On 9/25/06, azhar freebsd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi can anybody tell me what is 6.2 preerelease. uname -a FreeBSD belagelo.com 6.2-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-PRERELEASE #0: Sun Sep 24 16:53:30 UTC 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/i386/compile/GENERIC i386 [EMAIL PROTECTED] When X-STABLE between X.Y and X.(Y+1) gets close to X.(Y+1), we call it X.(Y+1)-PRERELEASE instead of X.Y-STABLE. We're expecting 6.2 this November. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: freebsd version?
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 04:35:07PM +0900, azhar freebsd wrote: hi can anybody tell me what is 6.2 preerelease. Just what it says. It is a FreeBSD 6.2 that has not been officially released yet. The present official release is 6.1. The 6.2 release is coming soon and is being worked on actively. You can install it for testing or development or somewhat risky production use. It is sort of a beta release. jerry uname -a FreeBSD belagelo.com 6.2-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-PRERELEASE #0: Sun Sep 24 16:53:30 UTC 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/i386/compile/GENERIC i386 [EMAIL PROTECTED] azhar ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FreeBSD Version...
Hi, I am wondering why there was 4.9 release if the newest one it 5.1. Whick is better I am currently on 5.1. It's a little confusing. Well there be a 4.10 and 5.2 release at the same time? A lot of people are going to give you an RTFM style response back to the install instructions on www.freebsd.org to this question but to be a little more helpful: FreeBSD is released with two trains of code. STABLE and CURRENT. CURRENT as the name suggests has cutting edge code and aspects of it will be untested in the wider user community. 5.1 is the latest release in the CURRENT train. STABLE as the name suggests is stable code that has been widely used and should be bug free (as far as this is possible with software). 4.9 is the latest release in the STABLE train. If you want cutting edge, install current and be aware of the caveats of using it. If you have a production server install stable. At some point in the future I'm assuming there will be a 5.X release as part of the STABLE train. Me personally, I've always stuck with stable and appreciate it for that. The only time I've had a stability problem with the stable code is when using the NVIDIA driver, which naturally can't be attributed to the BSD code itself. PS: Great name Ta, Phil Payne. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Version...
I am wondering why there was 4.9 release if the newest one it 5.1. Whick is better I am currently on 5.1. It's a little confusing. Well there be a 4.10 and 5.2 release at the same time? 4.9 is the stable production release, while 5.1 (and in a few weeks, 5.2) is the development release that will eventually become the stable release. FreeBSD 4 will be developed (well, maintained, since few new features are added to it at this time, mostly driver updates from what I've seen) until the development team thinks FreeBSD 5 at least as fast and rock solid as FreeBSD 4. This is planned to happen when FreeBSD 5.3 released; at that point, active development for FreeBSD 4 will halt. FreeBSD 5.1 is a development release. While it runs OK for most people, some architectural things are going to change with 5.2 and 5.3, and you're advised not to rely on it with your critical stuff, but use 4.9 instead. Hope this clears things up. Greetings Benjamin pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD version of Linux's passwd -l
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 08:17:53AM -0700, Bsd Neophyte wrote: i'm following a pretty decent IBM tutorial on how to setup a samba PDC. in the tutorial the following command is mentioned: passwd -l pw lock [user] Check the pw manpage. Ceri -- you can't see when light's so strong you can't see when light is gone To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD version of Linux's passwd -l
this is what i pulled from the 'pw' man page about the 'lock' option. to me, it doesn't seem as if they do the same thing. - DESCRIPTION The lock utility requests a password from the user, reads it again for verification and then will normally not relinquish the terminal until the password is repeated. There are two other conditions under which it will terminate: it will timeout after some interval of time and it may be killed by someone with the appropriate permission. -- whereas the linux version states that it makes the account available for root only. -- -l This option is used to lock the specified account and it is available to root only. The locking is performed by rendering the encrypted password into an invalid string (by prefixing the encrypted string with an !). -- --- Ceri Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 08:17:53AM -0700, Bsd Neophyte wrote: i'm following a pretty decent IBM tutorial on how to setup a samba PDC. in the tutorial the following command is mentioned: passwd -l pw lock [user] Check the pw manpage. Ceri -- you can't see when light's so strong you can't see when light is gone __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes http://autos.yahoo.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD version of Linux's passwd -l
That's from the lock(1) man page, not the pw(8) man page. the relevant section from the pw man page is as follows: USER LOCKING Pw supports a simple password locking mechanism for users; it works by prepending the string `*LOCKED*' to the beginning of the password field in master.passwd to prevent successful authentication. The lock and unlock commands take a user name or uid of the account to lock or unlock, respectively. The -V, -C, and -q options as described above are accepted by these commands. On Sat, 2002-10-19 at 21:01, Bsd Neophyte wrote: this is what i pulled from the 'pw' man page about the 'lock' option. to me, it doesn't seem as if they do the same thing. - DESCRIPTION The lock utility requests a password from the user, reads it again for verification and then will normally not relinquish the terminal until the password is repeated. There are two other conditions under which it will terminate: it will timeout after some interval of time and it may be killed by someone with the appropriate permission. -- whereas the linux version states that it makes the account available for root only. -- -l This option is used to lock the specified account and it is available to root only. The locking is performed by rendering the encrypted password into an invalid string (by prefixing the encrypted string with an !). -- --- Ceri Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 08:17:53AM -0700, Bsd Neophyte wrote: i'm following a pretty decent IBM tutorial on how to setup a samba PDC. in the tutorial the following command is mentioned: passwd -l pw lock [user] Check the pw manpage. Ceri -- you can't see when light's so strong you can't see when light is gone __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes http://autos.yahoo.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
