7.2 RELEASE ? Buggy as hell

Polytropon freebsd at edvax.de
Fri Jul 31 10:22:33 UTC 2009

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:19:14 -0800, Mel Flynn <mel.flynn+fbsd.questions at mailing.thruhere.net> wrote:
> That is very weird, since most of the community regards the 5.x series as the 
> worst in FreeBSD's history.

Until it completely destroyed itself, I had a 5.4-p? running
at my home machine without any problems. Please let me emphasize
this statement: WITHOUT. ANY. PROBLEMS. I have more trouble with

I still have a 300 MHz P2 with FreeBSD 5.4-p12 that runs faster
than my 2 GHz P4 with 7-STABLE which wonÄ't run mplayer correctly,
games don't work, and much more. I feel that I have spent more time
getting 7 to run halfway as good as 5 was.

> I've personally seen significant improvements in both reliability and 
> performance since 5.x, with respect to kernel and base.

System performance has gotten much better. I've experienced FreeBSD 6
only for server use, and tested it with PC-BSD on the desktop, so I
don't have a usable opinion there.

> As far as I'm concerned, 7.2 is the best release so far.

I'll make a copy of this statement and check if it's still true after
I performed the update. :-)

> I do share the Xorg frustration, 
> primarily because there is no alternative and has degraded into a "linux X11 
> server, with some considerations for other operating systems, without any form 
> of release engineering or regression testing".

Allthough you can still get rid of some "builtin problems", either by
changing your configuration files or recompiling X with some compile
time options, there's still the (important) first impression that some
developers artificially made things harder to get X running, with no
understandable reason. After some reading, I found out that HAL and
DBUS, for example, are important and useful for getting Gnome's auto
mounting facilities working, and that's good. But if you don't run
Gnome and don't want any automounting stuff (maybe intendedly due to
security reasons), you still sit there with this stuff required.

> While XFree86 was harder to 
> configure, it's stability was far less of an issue.

Depends on your hardware. XFree86 always configured fast, fine and
correct on my systems. And it could run with 1400x1050 which X.org
can't do anymore, surprisingly.

>From Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list