Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

OpenBSD 4.8 Released

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the new-and-shiny dept.

Operating Systems 176

Mortimer.CA writes "The release of OpenBSD 4.8 has been announced. Highlights include ACPI suspend/resume, better hardware support, OpenBGPD/OpenOSPFD/routing daemon improvements, inclusion of OpenSSH 5.5, etc. Nothing revolutionary, just the usual steady improving of the system. A detailed ChangeLog is available, as usual. Work, of course, has already started on the next release, which should be ready in May, according to the steady six-month release cycle."

cancel ×

176 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Have they decided to implement security yet? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34097344)

OSNews? Thom Holwerda? Seriously? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34097452)

You're taking some random blog article linked to by Thom Holwerda at OSNews seriously? Those are your three strikes, and you're out, my friend.

Look, the OpenBSD team knows exactly what they're doing. They're some of the brightest minds in the field. They have many years of experience with real-world security. They've been around long enough to know that there are something things that sound totally fantastic in theory, but in practice they're a complete failure.

Many advanced security approaches fall directly into this theoretically-great-but-actually-quite-shitty category. They end up being difficult to implement, and end up being full of security flaws and other holes. They end up causing the very things they're supposed to avoid! Thankfully, the OpenBSD developers know this, and smartly stick with a model that's been proven successful over the couse of 40 years.

Re:OSNews? Thom Holwerda? Seriously? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34097478)

Sorry, but there continued rejection and misunderstanding of MAC destroys any security credibility they may have built up.

Not to mention they don't actually consider many exploitable bugs to be security bugs, and argue with researchers rather than fix things.

Sorry, but OpenBSD is not any more secure than say, Debian Stable. Except Debian comes with SELinux, and since it can actually protect against exploits, wins by a longshot.

Re:OSNews? Thom Holwerda? Seriously? (1)

cinderellamanson (1850702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097536)

I think i just died laughing. hoot!

Re:OSNews? Thom Holwerda? Seriously? (2, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34098396)

I have to admit I was surprised reading this report [coresecurity.com] and the attitude of the OpenBSD team to it, including trying to change the terms of what everyone considers a vulnerability. Since I'm not an OpenBSD guy and only know of them by their "secure by design" rep I gotta ask: Is this SOP with them? Is this their normal attitude? If so that is really not good and whether you hate OSNews or not I think their post deserves discussion. Because if it takes having a PoC attack in the wild before they'll do anything about a bug? I'm sorry but that is seriously not the attitude the team needs to have with so many devices in corporate settings running OpenBSD.

Re:OSNews? Thom Holwerda? Seriously? (2, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | more than 2 years ago | (#34098874)

If you take a wider view, what you're describing is typical of the worst of F/OSS development attitudes across all platforms - OpenBSD is by no means unique. Many projects have taken active steps to curb such responses (such as introducing codes of conduct on mailing lists), but many haven't.

What generally happens is:

  • Someone mentions on a developers' mailing list a perceived weakness of the product. They may word it perfectly politely, they may ask if there's a reason for this perceived weakness they may have missed - but ATEOTD they're still drawing that weakness to the developers' attention.
  • That person gets enough flaming to toast a small buffalo - regardless of how politely the thread started. If questioned, those doing the flaming justify it by saying things like "We believe in communicating in the quickest, most direct way possible. That means we have to tell the poster he's an ignorant f*ckwit who obviously doesn't realise that what he's asking for is totally unrealistic/unnecessary/both". (The fact that every other product already has this "unrealistic" feature is ignored)
  • The original poster gets the hint, and uses an alternative product. Who wants to deal with people like that if it should prove necessary further down the line? The thread eventually dies naturally and everyone forgets about it. This process may repeat itself a few times.
  • Some time later - maybe months or even years a new patch is introduced. This patch adds support for the feature which was originally discussed and led to the flamewar, and the feature will be trumpeted loudly from the rooftops in the next set of release notes.

Re:OSNews? Thom Holwerda? Seriously? (2, Interesting)

Sancho (17056) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097546)

Insightful? Really?

The point of the article is that while the base system may indeed be very secure, it is practically useless. When needing to perform real world functions, the ironclad security of the base install is not all that useful. It's true that providing a good base on which to build your platform is important, however it's not nearly as important as one might think.

For example, if you need to build a web server, you might pick OpenBSD because of its "secure-by-default" mantra. But what does that really buy you? You still need to run web server software, which is going to be the vector for any attack. Is lighttpd any more secure on OpenBSD than on Linux? No. All you get with OpenBSD is that it's far less likely that there will be a local security exploit to chain with the lighttpd remote exploit. But with SELinux, you can get an even higher level of security. With SELinux, you need not only a local privilege escalation, but a hole in SELinux as well.

I would argue that OpenBSD may be secure by design, but SELinux is, in practice, more secure.

I would be absolutely ecstatic if OpenBSD implemented something more like SELinux in terms of privilege separation.

Re:OSNews? Thom Holwerda? Seriously? (1, Funny)

cinderellamanson (1850702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097634)

Nah, if hacked root on slashdot.org, SELinux isn't going to give two bits of a flea's shit if I banned your account.

Re:OSNews? Thom Holwerda? Seriously? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34097666)

Oh really?

- AC

Re:OSNews? Thom Holwerda? Seriously? (5, Insightful)

machine321 (458769) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097740)

The point of the article is that while the base system may indeed be very secure, it is practically useless.

1998 called, they want their rationalization back. Besides, just about everyone turns off SELinux when they want to actually get work done.

Is lighttpd any more secure on OpenBSD than on Linux? No.

Good thing they have an audited, privsep, chrooted version of Apache, then.

With SELinux, you need not only a local privilege escalation, but a hole in SELinux as well.

Bullshit. [grok.org.uk]

I would argue that OpenBSD may be secure by design, but SELinux is, in practice, more secure.

Adding complexity rarely increases reliability.

I would be absolutely ecstatic if OpenBSD implemented something more like SELinux in terms of privilege separation.

The Stephanie project worked towards doing just that, but it appears the project died several years ago.

Re:OSNews? Thom Holwerda? Seriously? (0, Offtopic)

Sancho (17056) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097794)

You lost me at the highlighted "bullshit." If you want to have an intelligent conversation, try not being rude.

Re:OSNews? Thom Holwerda? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34097868)

Besides he highlighted a flaw in a policy that only shipped with RHEL, not a flaw in SELinux itself.

Re:OSNews? Thom Holwerda? Seriously? (1, Insightful)

DiegoBravo (324012) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097966)

I'm not trying to be rude, but you lost me at your first mention of SELinux.

Re:OSNews? Thom Holwerda? Seriously? (3, Informative)

Menkhaf (627996) | more than 3 years ago | (#34098470)

Sorry man, that's not a highlight. It's a link.
I, uhm.. think you may have missed out a bit on the Internet. Here, I'll give you a link to start with: http://www.bing.com/ [bing.com] -- happy binge!

Besides, the mentioned "bullshit" was half way into his post. If you just read the first few words, I think he's happy.

Re:OSNews? Thom Holwerda? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34098850)

You were the one spouting nonsense, someone calls you on that, and now you get all ad-hominemmy? Right...

Re:OSNews? Thom Holwerda? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34097820)

I would be absolutely ecstatic if OpenBSD implemented something more like SELinux in terms of privilege separation.

Do you mean something so poorly documented and implemented when it was first released that most admins would rather just disable it (even today) than deal with it? That's the current state of SELinux. No thanks. I remember fighting with it endlessly when it was first foisted on us.

Re:OSNews? Thom Holwerda? Seriously? (2, Interesting)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097960)

You're forgetting the difficulty of a successful exploit in the first place. OpenBSD was the first OS to implement ASLR, for example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASLR). Linux only has fairly weak ASLR built in. There are a few other differences. Yes, the value of things like SELinux or AppArmor is considerable, and it would be great if OpenBSD implemented such a sandboxing capability, but your argument that the security of the OS itself isn't also very important is incorrect.

Re:OSNews? Thom Holwerda? Seriously? (1)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 3 years ago | (#34098108)

But with SELinux, you can get an even higher level of security. With SELinux, you need not only a local privilege escalation, but a hole in SELinux as well.

It's not like a hole in SELinux is uncommon, unfortunately. Linux and GNU make for a very good base operating system, but so does BSD. Right off the bat, BSD has the advantage of being a coherent system with amazing documentation. Linux seems to be compatible with more hardware, and many people are more comfortable with the GNU userland. BSD arguably has better licensing terms (depending on your perspective). So each has its advantages and disadvantages, but SELinux I would not even bother listing as a significant advantage for Linux, especially when compared against OpenBSD.

Re:OSNews? Thom Holwerda? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34098170)

Why flamebait while trying to sound reasonable? Better licensing terms your ass.

Re:OSNews? Thom Holwerda? Seriously? (1)

metrix007 (200091) | more than 3 years ago | (#34098202)

Can you find me an example of a hole in SELinux? Even one? I don't mean a flaw in policy affecting some distros, but an actual flaw in the subsystem?

Re:OSNews? Thom Holwerda? Seriously? (1)

nocomment (239368) | more than 3 years ago | (#34098236)

Can you find me an example of a hole in SELinux? Even one? I don't mean a flaw in policy affecting some distros, but an actual flaw in the subsystem?

http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/09/20/0217204/Linux-Kernel-Exploit-Busily-Rooting-64-Bit-Machines?from=rss [slashdot.org]

Re:OSNews? Thom Holwerda? Seriously? (1)

metrix007 (200091) | more than 3 years ago | (#34098358)

Yeah, that's not a flaw in SELinux. Nice try though.

Re:OSNews? Thom Holwerda? Seriously? (1)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 3 years ago | (#34098430)

Can you find me an example of a hole in SELinux? Even one? I don't mean a flaw in policy affecting some distros, but an actual flaw in the subsystem?

Yes, I accept your challenge. Here is some light reading for you.

http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=selinux [mitre.org] - Obviously not all listed here are flaws in SELinux itself, but there are some.
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security-threats/2009/07/20/linux-exploit-gets-around-security-barrier-39688318/ [zdnet.co.uk]

So, while SELinux might be a good single layer of security (when it works), it certainly isn't impenetrable and should definitely not be viewed as the most important layer of any multi-layered security strategy. It is naive to assume that an OpenBSD system will necessarily be more or less secure without an SELinux equivalent.

Re:OSNews? Thom Holwerda? Seriously? (2, Insightful)

metrix007 (200091) | more than 3 years ago | (#34098578)

Thanks, I found the mitre one pretty useful.

Most look like early DoS attacks, I would hope they have sorted that out now, and there doesn't seem to have been one since 2006. As for the rest, well SELinux runs in the kernel, so with the right kernel vulnerability yeah it can be bypassed. Considering most vulnerabilities are not kernel level but userspace....I'll gladly take that extra protection, of which no equivalent is offered on OpenBSD.

Re:OSNews? Thom Holwerda? Seriously? (2, Insightful)

yup2000 (182755) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097778)

I agree and that's why I use it for internet facing machines I don't want have to worry about!
Just look at the 4.7 release. There were 7 patches for the kernel & userland 2 of which were categorized as security. The best someone attacking the system could do is cause a daemon to crash or possibly cause a panic. During the same 6 month time frame linux quite a few more security issues crop up including one that could be used to get root on a box. ouch.

Re:OSNews? Thom Holwerda? Seriously? (1)

afabbro (33948) | more than 3 years ago | (#34098606)

Thankfully, the OpenBSD developers know this, and smartly stick with a model that's been proven successful over the couse of 40 years.

What model is this? Because 40 years = 1970.

I'm sure you're not talking about Unix because Unix was never designed with security in mind and it's ridiculous to think that security was even a consideration in 1970. Arguably, security has been well retrofitted, but not until much, much later.

Re:OSNews? Thom Holwerda? Seriously? (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 3 years ago | (#34098676)

Unix was designed with security in mind, maybe not to today's requirements, but in 1970, you knew damn well that machines were multi-user, and users tasks had to be protected agaist each other. Real world experience at the time was not of people deliberately hacking others' stuff, but of a large percentage of programs being written in assembler, and having the ability to trash things at low level in the event of fairly trivial typing errors. Hardware separation of users; activities, and management thereof were essential if any system was going to work at all.

Not long after 1970, and certainly before 1980, Unix was being used in a college envirnment, where students were known to try anything. (You did not get sent to Gitmo for making bombs in those days). It was soon discovered that grades were prone to vary if computer security was not good. (Not to mention private details of lecturers).

I first encountered Unix in 1978. Yes I do use OpenBSD for public facing internet machines handling financial transations at this very moment (not with this IP address though). No, I do not plan to switch to SE Linux any time soon.

This was writetn using Opera on Ubuntu.

Re:OSNews? Thom Holwerda? Seriously? (1, Interesting)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34098714)

I'm sure you're not talking about Unix because Unix was never designed with security in mind and it's ridiculous to think that security was even a consideration in 1970

Yeah it's kind of funny how people keep talking about how secure unix systems are and how superior they are when they aren't.

Unix was a watered down Multics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multics [wikipedia.org]

Security was a major consideration in Multics in 1970 and even earlier. Unix on the other hand had different objectives.

Re:Have they decided to implement security yet? (3, Interesting)

SoupIsGood Food (1179) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097896)

OpenBSD's claims are based on clean code, well-written documentation and sensible defaults, not a baked-in or bolt-on MAC system (which in this case stands for Mandatory Access Controls.)

Because it can be bolted-on, it's not really a criticism of the OS itself. To be fair, jails gets you 90% of the way there - MAC systems were hot stuff on multi-user systems, but most Unix installations these days are single-seat workstations or back-end servers in the new "appliance" model which don't have any human users at all apart from the admin. Applications can be effectively protected from each other with jails... so an elaborate MAC system is kind of a waste of time in most cases. Maybe in a few specialized file-server scenarios, it might come in handy... but it's pointless for a box running a LAMP stack.

Oh, wait, OpenBSD doesn't run jails, and the devs tell you to screw off and die whenever they're asked about it.

I suppose they still have clean code and sensible defaults. You just need to buy a new server every time you want to isolate applications from each other.

But this isn't actually a security issue, this is a developers-up-their-own-fundament issue.

Re:Have they decided to implement security yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34098510)

I haven't noticed that the system is very clean. It seems significantly more convoluted than the NetBSD design. The last time I needed a clean and simple BSD for an old 486, I tried OpenBSD first, and the installer was ugly as sin, crashed, and when I finally got it installed, it ran like a pig. A slow pig, that is, and not a quick and athletic one. Then I tried NetBSD and installed that instead, and it was very simple and fast, just a vanilla and traditional Unix system without bells and whistles. In modern performance benchmarks as well, Linux, FreeBSD, and NetBSD are at the top, while OpenBSD really does poorly.

Re:Have they decided to implement security yet? (4, Interesting)

metrix007 (200091) | more than 2 years ago | (#34098894)

I can't believe you got modded up. MAC is not bolted on at all, it is a kernel patch. This means you end up with a different kernel, where MAC is implemented from the ground up.

Equating MAC to jails also shows you simply don't understand what MAC is.

  • If your webserver is compromised in a jail, can the webpages still be defaced? Yep. Not with a proper MAC policy.
  • Running third party software that the OpenBSD team did not audit themselves which gets pwned? Far less likely with MAC. If the machine is exploited, minimal damage can be done.
  • Need to restrict access from root to satisfy legal or policy requirements? Not possible with the outdated root = god model. It is possible with MAC.
  • Want to restrict the permission a process has, instead of automatically granting it the same full permissions your user account has? Not possible on OpenBSD, possible with MAC. No, systrace doesn't cut it.

The industry is slowly heading in implementing MAC in some form, because DAC (Discretionary Access Control, the current standard) is simply inadequate. It's not all SELinux, Microsoft have Windows Integrity Levels where low privileged processes can't write to higher level processes, Ubuntu has AppArmor etc. The industry is heading in this direction because we realize that allowing all programs to have the full set of permissions equal to the user it is running as is not ideal.

The OpenBSD team stand out in their flat our rejection of the very idea, considering it to be too complex (does not have to bee, see SMACK, Tomoko or AppArmor), or horribly understanding it to the point they equate it with an ACL. IIRC Theo has said in several interviews it is basically security theater and not useful, which is just ignorant. Given they tend to actually ignore security vulnerabilities and argue rather than admit and fix them [coresecurity.com] , the project doesn't seem that security focused to me.

Sorry, but I will take a fairly secure system that grants me the granularity to protect myself in the case of an attack, as opposed to a system which claims awesome security because it comes with almost no current software and nothing running by default.

Re:Have they decided to implement security yet? (3, Insightful)

DiegoBravo (324012) | more than 3 years ago | (#34098026)

From the article, about a "secure operating system":

> Generally, this would be taken to mean an operating system that was designed with security in mind, and provides various methods and tools to implement security polices and limits on the system.

Sadly most naive users still believe that security is about setting fine grained permissions, roles, resources and tagging system objects in general. In practice 1) security exploits simply bypass or reconfigure such validations or policies for their own purpose, and 2) getting a really good "fine grained" configuration and reconfiguration is pretty difficult, time consuming, and prone to error (i.e. to increase the vulnerability.)

Awesome. (1)

cinderellamanson (1850702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097348)

Kickass.

BSD Linux (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34097356)

BSD/MIT > GPL

BSD Troll-in-One (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34097360)

Can someone please repost the BSD troll-in-one? Or is it dead?

Re:BSD Troll-in-One (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34097488)

To spare this section of all the trolls (yeah right!), I have incorporated every *BSD troll into this one message. Thank you.

The *BSD Wailing Song

What's left for me to see
In my ship I sailed so far
What can the answer be
Don't know what the questions are.
And after all I've done
Still I cannot feel the sun
Tell me save me
In the end our lost souls must repent.
I must know it is for certain
Can it be the final curtain
As long as the wind will blow
I'll be searching high and low.
Who knows what's really true
They say the end is so near
Why are we all so cruel
We just fill ourselves with fear.
And heaven and hell will turn
All that we love shall burn
Hear me trust me
In the end our lost sould must repent.
I must know it is for certain
Can it be the final curtain
As long as the wind will blow
I'll be searching high and low
Final curtain
Final curtain

 

  • flask of ripe urine
    pressed to bsd lips
    bsd drink up

 

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you BSD fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a BSD box (a PIII 800 w/512 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this BSD box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even Emacs Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various BSD machines, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a BSD box that has run faster than its Windows counterpart, despite the BSD machines faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 800 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that BSD is a "superior" machine.

BSD addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a BSD over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

 

It is common knowledge that *BSD is dying. Almost everyone knows that ever hapless *BSD is mired in an irrecoverable and mortifying tangle of fatal trouble. It is perhaps anybody's guess as to which *BSD is the worst off of an admittedly suffering *BSD community. The numbers continue to decline for *BSD but FreeBSD may be hurting the most. Look at the numbers. The erosion of user base for FreeBSD continues in a head spinning downward spiral.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of BSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major marketing surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among hobbyist dilettante dabblers. In truth, for all practical purposes *BSD is already dead. It is a dead man walking.

Fact: *BSD is dying

 

It doesn't matter, no matter how many time you try to recesitate *BSD, it's just doesn't matter. It's a plain and simple truth, *BSD is dying.

 

Click here [planetquake.com] to see the most appropriate case mod for a *BSD system.

 

If you can also print out your word processor documents on mummy-wraps, you've got it made.

Start by calling HP and asking for the special *BSD-compatible inkjet printer that shoots out embalming fluid instead of ink.

 

I, for one, would like to welcome our dead operating system overlords.

 

1. You can not play games on it.
2. It cannot be used by my grandma.
3. It lacks a GUI of any note.
4. There is no support available for it.
5. It is an assortment of fragmented OSes.
6. It cannot be run on the x86 platform.
7. You have to compile everything and know C.
8. Support for the latest hardware is always poor.
9. It is incompatiable with GNU/Linux.
10.It is dying.

 

Sure, we all know that *BSD is a failure , but why? Why did *BSD fail? Once you get past the fact that *BSD is fragmented between a myriad of incompatible kernels, there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems. *BSD experienced moderate success about 15 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. We all know *BSD keeps losing market share but why? Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players? Or is it larger than their troubled personas?

The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.

 

Elegy For *BSD

  I am a *BSD user
and I try hard to be brave
That is a tall order
*BSD's foot is in the grave.

I tap at my toy keyboard
and whistle a happy tune
but keeping happy's so hard,
*BSD died so soon.

Each day I wake and softly sob
Nightfall finds me crying
Not only am I a zit faced slob
but *BSD is dying.

 

  • Gaping holes filled

  • Rotting corpse obsolete code
    BSD end near

 

Trolls, here is some inspiration for future BSD trolls [osnews.com]

P.S, I deleted my freebsd partition last night and installed Linux back on it!

 

Do people still actually USE FreeBSD? Wasn't it rendered obsolete by Linux YEARS ago?

 

BSD you grow in the ghetto, living second rate
And your eyes will sing a song of deep hate.
The places you play and where you stay
Looks like one great big alley way.
You'll admire all the numberbook takers,
Thugs, BSD pimps and pushers, and the big money makers.

 

Roy Horn of the famous "Siegfried and Roy" magic ensemble was interviewed today from his hospital bed. Mr. Horn is recovering from a life threatening tiger attack. When asked about his condition Roy had this to say,

Don't worry. I'm doing OK. I'll be fine. However, on the other hand, *BSD is dying .

Hang in there Roy. We're all pulling for you!

 

That BSD daemon is so hot, I just want to suck his dick while jerking myself off and then bend him over and stick my dick in his tight red asshole. The fact that I'm an excellent artist only makes matters worse, since I tend to draw him during my Math class in sexually explicit positions instead of taking notes like I should, and I think people are noticing because they give me odd looks and this one guy even asked me if I was gay. Can somebody help me get rid of these urges? I'm sure they're perfectly healthy (hey, what slashdotter *hasn't* had a crush on another guy) but it's starting to intrude on my social life and I'd rather it not. Thanxz, AC

 

Why you'd want to run an OS designed and coded by niggers is beyond me.

 

What's left for me to see
In my ship I sailed so far
What can the answer be
Don't know what the questions are.
And after all I've done
Still I cannot feel the sun
Tell me save me
In the end our lost souls must repent.
I must know it is for certain
Can it be the final curtain
As long as the wind will blow
I'll be searching high and low.
Who knows what's really true
They say the end is so near
Why are we all so cruel
We just fill ourselves with fear.
And heaven and hell will turn
All that we love shall burn
Hear me trust me
In the end our lost sould must repent.
I must know it is for certain
Can it be the final curtain
As long as the wind will blow
I'll be searching high and low
Final curtain
Final curtain

 

Although it is true that BSD is dying, there are some helpful steps you can take ease your sorrow:

 

  • deal with the inevitable.
  • grieve for your loss.
  • move on.

Never let your emotions get mixed up with something as silly as a computer operating system. It isn't healthy. So BSD fails. Big whoop. Deal with it and move on.

Hope this helps.

 

Four new security advisories about *BSD:

1) If something dead bites you, you will turn into a zombie yourself (see "Dawn of the Dead")

2) Children should not play with dead things.

3) Storing your *BSD distro install CD in formaldehyde will preserve the necrotic tissues from further rot.

4) Funerals can cost $4000. Don't forget to factor this in if you decide to go with *BSD.
 

tl;dr (0, Offtopic)

Nimey (114278) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097576)

too long; didn't read.

Re:tl;dr (1)

gratuitous_arp (1650741) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097756)

It was funny =p

Re:BSD Troll-in-One (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34098156)

1 word. Troll.

Re:BSD Troll-in-One (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34098438)

As a FreeBSD fanboi I just wanted to say...

3) Storing your *BSD distro install CD in formaldehyde will preserve the necrotic tissues from further rot.

...that made me laugh.

fdisk (1)

tenco (773732) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097366)

Does their installation fdisk still suck?

Re:fdisk (1, Flamebait)

cinderellamanson (1850702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097388)

lol, how's that?

Re:fdisk (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34097434)

lol, how's that?

lol, how's that?

your a fuckhead

Re:fdisk (1, Funny)

cinderellamanson (1850702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097482)

lol, how's that?

lol, how's that?

your a fuckhead

lol, how's that?

lol, how's that?

your a fuckhead

I thought it was funny, unny, ny.

Re:fdisk (4, Insightful)

ashkar (319969) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097404)

Their targeted users have no problem with the installation. If you aren't comfortable with the installation tools, you probably wouldn't be comfortable with OpenBSD. A pretty installation method is looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Re:fdisk (1)

Narcocide (102829) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097426)

Oh, the problem exists, I can assure you of that. The problem however lies between the keyboard and the chair.

Re:fdisk (4, Funny)

contra_mundi (1362297) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097468)

Oh, the problem exists, I can assure you of that. The problem however lies between the keyboard and the chair.

That's not a very ergonomic position to use a computer in.

Re:fdisk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34097718)

Couldn't decide if I wanted to rate Funny or Insightful =/

Re:fdisk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34097528)

Are you trying to say my zipper is down? Cause I checked like 10 minutes ago and It's all good.

Re:fdisk (1)

cinderellamanson (1850702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097542)

I'm not exactly sure if I'm offended by this or not.

Re:fdisk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34098842)

between the keyboard and chair?

Chairs, you say. 'Developers, developers, developers' comes to mind. So in your view, the problem lies with the developers?

contribute code (1)

sparetiredesire (465731) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097660)

It is good to call attention to features that need work.

It is better to contribute code towards the solution.

Re:fdisk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34098002)

How the frak is this insightful? -5 arrogant. Having to type in exact byte offsets for every partition to fix a STUPID default partition suggestion IS a problem.

Re:fdisk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34098078)

Once again, no one who uses the OS finds the installation a problem. It's not for you, that's cool.

Re:fdisk (1)

rastilin (752802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34098360)

Is that because people who find it a problem end up using something else?

Re:fdisk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34098386)

Yes.

Re:fdisk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34098656)

Yes. For very related reasons it's one of the most secure O/Ses.

By the time your grandma has figured out how to install it, she's not going to be clicking OK on just anything.

For one, she still might not have managed to get a GUI up yet ;).

p.s. MSDOS has zero remote roots in the default install, most of the world has moved away from using it.

Re:fdisk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34098538)

Go grab PC-BSD [pcbsd.org] then. It's very simple to setup and probably just as secure if you spend the time to lock it down.

Re:fdisk (2, Interesting)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 3 years ago | (#34098752)

I think having to mess around with cylinders and whatnot is a bit silly these days, when we have "disks" which don't have anything resembling cylinders internally starting to become mainstream. It's a bit dated to say the least

You can say "the targeted users have no problem with it", and that's fine, but that pool of targeted users is bound to shrink over time (again that's fine, but many would see that as a bad thing, worth some compromises to avoid)

Re:fdisk (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#34098802)

Disks always did have cylinders, it's just that they don't mean cylinder in the sense of "a whole bunch of toilet roll tubes taped together".

Having said that, it hasn't been necessary to describe disks in C/H/S parlance in years.

Re:fdisk (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34097492)

I've only installed OpenBSD twice, both successfully, but their fdsik version was very nice.

Different from Microsoft and Linux fdisk programs? Yes! Because you're not running/installing neither Windows nor Linux. Neither of these are identical systems.

The OpenBSD fdisk is quite possibly better, and without a doubt far better documented, and not just in the excellent up to date man pages but also in official faq's and installation procedures available on the OpenBSD webpages. Stuff one should read.

Who would read/read on Microsoft information when installing Linux?
Who would read/rely on Solaris information when installing Windows?
Who would read/rely on Linux information when installing OpenBSD?

If you're having trouble with OpenBSD fdisk or more likely OpenBSD installation peculiarities and requirements that other operating systems either don't have or gloss over then I would recommend reading the OpenBSD documentation, it's all there, yes the issues that can trap someone entirely new too, usually even emphasized.

A Windows poweruser or superuser can be and often is a total newbie on Linux.
A Linux poweruser or superuser can be and often is a total newbie on OpenBSD.

Don't assume different things to be the same.

Re:fdisk (1, Insightful)

tenco (773732) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097520)

I just think it's ridicolous that I have to compute partition/disklabel sizes in sectors myself while sitting at a computer. I own a computer because it can compute for me not because I want to compute for it.

Re:fdisk (4, Informative)

Ex Machina (10710) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097588)

IIRC you can suffix a quantity with M or G to specify size in megabytes or gigabytes.

Re:fdisk (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097592)

THIS. A thousand times this. Linux cfdisk from 1999 was friendlier than that, without holding your hand overmuch.

Re:fdisk (1)

cinderellamanson (1850702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097612)

In 4.6 you can autopartition the disk. I'm not sure about before that.

Try htttp://www.openbsd101.com/ [htttp]

Re:fdisk (1)

contra_mundi (1362297) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097628)

In 4.6 you can autopartition the disk. I'm not sure about before that.

Try htttp://www.openbsd101.com/ [htttp]

Is that the bleeding-edge Hyper Turbo Text Transfer Protocol?

Re:fdisk (2, Funny)

cinderellamanson (1850702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097744)

indeed. that's just how badass openbsd is. you guys don't even get to see the htttps protocol in action for another 5 years.

Re:fdisk (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34097800)

because it only works with IPV16

Re:fdisk (2, Informative)

the_brobdingnagian (917699) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097638)

The OpenBSD installer can auto-partition your disk for you. No calculations needed if you don't want to.

Re:fdisk (2, Informative)

101percent (589072) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097706)

You don't. I've had my 4.8 CD set for a week now. It auto-partitioned everything fully utilizing my entire disk space, / /home /tmp /var /usr and various /usr/*

Re:fdisk (0)

bm_luethke (253362) | more than 3 years ago | (#34098196)

Nor does an OpenBSD user excel on either Linux or Windows - they are three different worlds. You do not state, but imply, that someone that knows BSD knows those other systems. You either do so through intention (dishonesty) or through lack of thinking your argument out (ignorance), either one isn't particularly good.

The problem that the *BSD versions have for large acceptance is why? The big draw of it - security from the ground up - isn't really useful in most places. You need that at your firewall and router (usually one in the same for small to medium companies or a home network) and those are better handled by a hardware/software stack that is specifically designed for that. I've always been somewhat surprised at how few use this over other solutions, but as long as they work and are cheaper than rolling my own - I guess I do not care. My guess is that the savings from using a truly secure OS would not be passed on but would ends up with corp X getting a larger profit and that is their business, not mine.

For larger companies - again why? Cisco solutions are a better combination of performance and costs. The OpenBSD box is never going to perform as well as the Cisco 28xx series and is no more secure so why go that way? You aren't going to be able to pull from a cheaper OpenBSD admin group and save costs there - chances are they wil cost more than a Cisco Certified engineer.

The draw is going to be towards equipment manufacturers - I've never understood why some use Linux over one of the *BSD groups - or for those few that really need the flexibility that a custom configured gateway device in a secure environment is important. Performance blows for general purpose hardware compared to specialized ones today. Ten years ago they rocked, routers and firewalls on general purpose hardware was the the higher end of the market - today purchase a solution from Cisco if you really need it.

The other end is if some OEM picks it up and runs with it as a base system - that is following the Apple Mac-OS model. I would *love* to see a truly secure kernel and basic system available on the desktop for most personal use. Indeed Apple could have been that in a general sense, but they have their own issues regarding walled gardens and control of the "user experience". Nothing wrong with those, but also not my choice as I do not like their idea of a "user experience". The market is still ripe for a truly secure and open platform that is fairly simply to use. No reason we can't have all of those, just as we currently stand pick any two.

Re:fdisk (2, Interesting)

kiddygrinder (605598) | more than 3 years ago | (#34098494)

i'd disagree that there's no reason why we can't have a system that's truly open, secure and easy to use because people can't even agree what those words mean.

Re:fdisk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34098554)

Uhh, I run a BSD box AS a firewall, router and server.

Re:fdisk (2, Informative)

Noryungi (70322) | more than 3 years ago | (#34098650)

Nice Troll. I'll bite.

Nor does an OpenBSD user excel on either Linux or Windows - they are three different worlds. You do not state, but imply, that someone that knows BSD knows those other systems. You either do so through intention (dishonesty) or through lack of thinking your argument out (ignorance), either one isn't particularly good.

I have three Linux machines (Slackware/Ubuntu) and one OpenBSD machine at home, all of them work very well. I also have two additional Windows machines at home, and I use one at work (sigh). I know all three systems pretty well. What's your point?

And, just to add an important precision: I administer Linux (Red Hat/SuSE), Solaris, AIX and HPUX machines at work. I know all of these systems pretty well.

The problem that the *BSD versions have for large acceptance is why? The big draw of it - security from the ground up - isn't really useful in most places.

Go ahead and tell that to the security engineers that audit the servers on a regular basis at work. Go ahead, I dare you. This is the best way to be out of a job pretty fscking quickly. OpenBSD is not perfect, but, when it comes to security, any serious person is going to consider it.

You need that at your firewall and router (usually one in the same for small to medium companies or a home network) and those are better handled by a hardware/software stack that is specifically designed for that.

In other words: trust us, we are from ______________ [insert big company name here]. No, thank you. I have been burned by vendors too many times.

Cisco solutions are a better combination of performance and costs. The OpenBSD box is never going to perform as well as the Cisco 28xx series and is no more secure so why go that way?

Mwa ha ha ha ha ha! Thanks, I needed the laugh.

Performance blows for general purpose hardware compared to specialized ones today.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. None.

Ten years ago they rocked, routers and firewalls on general purpose hardware was the the higher end of the market - today purchase a solution from Cisco if you really need it.

[More drivel follows]

A few points:
A) If you are trying to worship at the altar of Cisco, please find some other place for it. Cisco's hardware is uninteresting and overly expensive for what it does.
B) Even Cisco uses OpenSSH - which comes from OpenBSD. I really wonder why?
C) Why buy an overpriced Cisco XXXX, when a simple PC with 4 network cards and OpenBSD can do the job for half the price and three times the performance?

Crawl back under your bridge, little troll, and try to learn a bit about the real world before tooting your Cisco horn.

Re:fdisk (1)

badran (973386) | more than 2 years ago | (#34099038)

Agreed. It looks like GP was comparing a current Cisco XXXX with a PII (Pentium 2) with 64MB or ram in closet.

Re:fdisk (1)

ph0enix (87965) | more than 3 years ago | (#34098558)

It's very simple: when it asks you "Use (W)hole disk or (E)dit the MBR? [whole]", just hit to get the default, and you'll never have to use the fdisk tool at all.

Disklabel layout of the various filesystems is now auto-configured by default to a generic layout suitable for the size of disk you're installing on.

Re:fdisk (1)

badger.foo (447981) | more than 2 years ago | (#34098856)

There's a series of pictures at http://bsdly.blogspot.com/2010/01/goodness-of-men-and-machinery.html [blogspot.com] that tell you what the installer looked like in January. IIRC no huge changes have happened to it since then. But do try 4.8 or a recent snapshot (they come with installNN.iso files these days)

Don't forget the Release Song! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34097474)

Someone forgot the infamous song release for 4.8 to be included in article details: El Puffiachi [openbsd.org]

Re:Don't forget the Release Song! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34098888)

Good tune

song (3, Informative)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097476)

The release song [openbsd.org] doesn't even have lyrics :-(
How good can the release be then, I ask!

Re:song (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097900)

The release song [openbsd.org] doesn't even have lyrics :-(
How good can the release be then, I ask!

Better than Kenny G, but a little worse than anti-lock brakes.

How are upgrades handled? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34097514)

I'm curious. Having never used a BSD-based system, how are upgrades managed? I understand that instead of installing packages, one uses ports. My impression of that is that you run a file in a ports directory and it compiles the software and installs it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

But how does one upgrade from, say, OpenBSD 4.7 to 4.8? Is there a script that is run that downloads and installs the appropriate files, or do you have to backup and install the new version on your system?

Re:How are upgrades handled? (3, Informative)

the_brobdingnagian (917699) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097560)

I'm curious. Having never used a BSD-based system, how are upgrades managed? I understand that instead of installing packages, one uses ports. My impression of that is that you run a file in a ports directory and it compiles the software and installs it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Ports are meant for building packages. Users should only use packages normally. You can update your packages after you upgraded your base system with "pkg_add -ui -D update -D updatedepends"

But how does one upgrade from, say, OpenBSD 4.7 to 4.8?

OpenBSD has excellent docs and FAQ's: http://openbsd.org/faq/upgrade48.html [openbsd.org]

Re:How are upgrades handled? (2, Informative)

resfilter (960880) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097596)

ports are just a way to build packages for 3rd party (i.e. not in the base system) software.

unlike a lot of operating systems, openbsd includes apache, bind, and other common network servers in the base install.

there's no automated upgrade procedure that works well for the openbsd base system at all; but there's a manual procedure, which is well documented, for upgrading between major versions

as someone has tried to upgrade many major linux distributions in various environments, i can tell you that manually is the ONLY way to do a proper system upgrade on a critical system; and many complex package management systems can hinder such an effort

openbsd people seem to shy away from binary packages for the most part, and most people that upgrade end up using a full source tree of the system to do so. in fact, openbsd is a bit unique in that they don't have an official binary patch mechanism. security patches to the base system are also generally intended to be done on a virgin openbsd source tree.

it's a weird way of doing things, for the average administrator, but it's a niche operating system, so if you don't like doing things the slow (but reliable) way, openbsd is not for you.

Re:How are upgrades handled? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34097736)

It's a pain in the ass is what it is. Actually for all BSD systems it is. Recompiling everything that is upgraded etc, uses lots of unnecessary disk space and CPU. Makes it all but impossible to do on low-end systems (basically you have to compile on another machine and then transfer crap over, PITA).

Re:How are upgrades handled? (1)

dhickman (958529) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097808)

It's a pain in the ass is what it is. Actually for all BSD systems it is. Recompiling everything that is upgraded etc, uses lots of unnecessary disk space and CPU. Makes it all but impossible to do on low-end systems (basically you have to compile on another machine and then transfer crap over, PITA).

Yes, it is a pain, but honestly, unless you are one of my friends ( one of the openbsd guys,) who maintains a working example of every machine that can run openbsd, why would you install the new version, instead of just keeping your working version patched?

I run openbsd on firewalls/vpns/etc. The only time I ever put a new os on them is when I am replacing them.

One of the best things about openbsd is that it is simple to install, simple to configure, and simple to maintain a production level system that is unsecured by your own stupidity.

Re:How are upgrades handled? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34097930)

You know how I upgraded BSD? I installed Windows.

Re:How are upgrades handled? (2, Informative)

Noryungi (70322) | more than 3 years ago | (#34098670)

Upgrade to OpenBSD 4.7 to 4.8 is as simple as booting the machine on the CD, and selecting (U)pgrade instead of (I)nstall.

Make sure you make a backup of your /etc/ directory beforehand and you are good to go. The upgrade process should keep your configuration intact, but it never hurts to be a bit cautious.

I'll note that i have been upgrading the same machine from OpenBSD 3.9 all the way to 4.8 without major problems.

Unless you have a very good reason to, do not use ports: use (pre-compiled) packages. Upgrading packages is as simple as typing: 'pkg_add' with the correct options. See here for more details: http://openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#PkgUpdate [openbsd.org]

That's all there is to it. OpenBSD is a very simple operating system to use, and one that is a pleasure to upgrade and maintain.

Re:How are upgrades handled? (2, Informative)

badger.foo (447981) | more than 2 years ago | (#34098892)

Make sure you make a backup of your /etc/ directory beforehand and you are good to go. The upgrade process should keep your configuration intact, but it never hurts to be a bit cautious.

For /etc upgrades, there's sysmerge.

In fact, you can run sysmerge -x xetcNN.tgz -s etcNN.tgz and answer the friendly prompts before booting into the installer for the upgrade. Then after you've done the base system upgrade, set your PKG_PATH to something sensible and run pkg_add -u to upgrade your packages. Time needed is mainly a function of how good your connectivity to the packages mirror is.

Suspend/Resume? (4, Funny)

angus77 (1520151) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097532)

They have suspend/resume now?

I guess this will be the Year of the OpenBSD Netbook!!

Re:Suspend/Resume? (4, Informative)

the_brobdingnagian (917699) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097618)

Suspend/resume support has been improved enormously. I have been using it without problems on my Asus Eee PC 1000H for a while now.

Re:Suspend/Resume? (2, Funny)

101percent (589072) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097730)

A super secure OS running on the most easily stolen machine.

ACPI features? Best of luck then (2, Interesting)

sosaited (1925622) | more than 3 years ago | (#34097662)

I hope they didn't break something when adding the ACPI features. From my experience, it is one devil of a specification. Just half an hour ago, I couldn't browse anything on my Ubuntu Lucid because I had changed one ACPI related setting in Bios, and XP failed to boot at all. I wonder how far-reaching and bizarre effects it has on other OSs, and in other scenarios.

Re:ACPI features? Best of luck then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34097848)

Not intended as a flame, but OpenBSD devs strive not to break functionality that already works when adding new functionality. This is not always the case on Linux, and adversely, Ubuntu. Your experience with Ubuntu does not hold water when talking specifically about ACPI on OpenBSD.

RE: BSD: OpenBSD 4.8 Released (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34097748)

Spelended!

Love is love and OpenBSD is Love.

With kind regards.

Audio on BSD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34098088)

How is BSD for Audio, I'm looking for a stable netbook audio workstation [Eee PC 701, 2 Gig] and all the small Linux distros I've tried have issues, and the tech help community's I've requested polite help through all seem to have an "attitude" of "do-it-yourself-lazyboy", is BSD a possible alternative?

I'd like to use it, not tinker with it all the time in an attempt to make it work, I'm looking for a Tool distro.

I come from the windows world as a super user, but Linux gives me a difficult time due to memory issues due to a brain injury, and so I need help when I can't find my own answer, and I do my best to look first, but I get either silence or hostility because I didn't find some obscure reference somewhere.

Re:Audio on BSD? (1)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 3 years ago | (#34098130)

If it's any indication, I met a BSD user at a 1998 LUG meeting, he had a full-on desktop with all the effects and audio going on a Dell laptop. So I imagine that if your hardware is supported (most likely) it should work fine. BSD has extensive documentation and lists of supported stuff. I'm a linux guy, so I really don't know more than that. Best bet is to just try it, IMHO.

Detailed "Changelog" is worthless... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34098216)

A couple of entries from this "detailed changelog":
# Fixed a bug in pkg_add(1).
# Improved acpibtn(4).

and so on. Are entries like this worth including? They're definitely not worth my time to read.

Is there nobody with the "release manager" hat at OpenBSD who cleans that up to remove useless entries like the two above?

Hrmm (1)

n3v (412497) | more than 3 years ago | (#34098408)

www.openbsd.org slashdotted?

Re:Hrmm (1)

courcoul (801052) | more than 3 years ago | (#34098696)

Yes, cute, we've slashdotted the OpenBSD foundation.... Well... at least they're getting the attention they so justly deserve after the unwavering effort!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>