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 Marches Toward 5.0 Release

Unknown Lamer posted more than 3 years ago | from the netcraft-confirms-openbsd-chugging-along-merrily dept.

Operating Systems 112

badger.foo writes "OpenBSD-current just turned 5.0-beta, providing us a preview of what the upcoming release (slated for November 1st) will look like. Peter Hansteen takes us through the main new features and explains the development process that has consistently turned out high-quality releases on time, every six months for more than a decade."

cancel ×

112 comments

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

BSD Isn't Relevant Anymore (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36815136)

It is official; Lennart Poettering now confirms: *BSD Isn't Relevant Anymore

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming close on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be Lennart Poettering to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD 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 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 OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a cockeyed miracle could save *BSD from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD Isn't Relevant Anymore

Now, With Extra Theo! (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36815244)

He's "De Raadtical"!

That's why I use it! No one can piss all over a party on the listserv like Theo!

Re:BSD Isn't Relevant Anymore (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 3 years ago | (#36815254)

And this is completely unconnected with the fact that security is a problem on the internet?

Disclaimer: I use OpenBSD for hosting mission critical financially sensitive servers.

Re:BSD Isn't Relevant Anymore (0, Troll)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#36815412)

Disclaimer: I use OpenBSD for hosting mission critical financially sensitive servers.

Really? I'd use something more secure.

Oh, I know Theo likes to keep telling everyone how secure OpenBSD is, but every time anyone does discover an exploit in it he's quick to point out some ingenious way in which it doesn't really count. He's like that one kid that everyone knew at school who would just not accept that he was "it" when you were playing tag - always some bullshit made-up-on-the-spot rule why tagging him didn't count.

Don't be that kid. That kid is a dick.

Re:BSD Isn't Relevant Anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36815480)

when did this happen?

Re:BSD Isn't Relevant Anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36817598)

2007-02-20: First notification sent by Core.
2007-02-20: Acknowledgement of first notification received from the OpenBSD team.
2007-02-21: Core sends draft advisory and proof of concept code that demonstrates remote kernel panic.
2007-02-26: OpenBSD team develops a fix and commits it to the HEAD branch of source tree.
2007-02-26: OpenBSD team communicates that the issue is specific to OpenBSD. OpenBSD no longer uses the term "vulnerability" when referring to bugs that lead to a remote denial of service attack, as opposed to bugs that lead to remote control of vulnerable systems to avoid oversimplifying ("pablumfication") the use of the term.
2007-02-26: Core email sent to OpenBSD team explaining that Core considers a remote denial of service a security issue and therefore does use the term "vulnerability" to refer to it and that although remote code execution could not be proved in this specific case, the possibility should not be discarded. Core requests details about the bug and if possible an analysis of why the OpenBSD team may or may not consider the bug exploitable for remote code execution.
2007-02-28: OpenBSD team indicates that the bug results in corruption of mbuf chains and that only IPv6 code uses that mbuf code, there is no user data in the mbuf header fields that become corrupted and it would be surprising to be able to run arbitrary code using a bug so deep in the mbuf code. The bug simply leads to corruption of the mbuf chain.
2007-03-05: Core develops proof of concept code that demonstrates remote code execution in the kernel context by exploiting the mbuf overflow.
2007-03-05: OpenBSD team notified of PoC availability.
2007-03-07: OpenBSD team commits fix to OpenBSD 4.0 and 3.9 source tree branches and releases a "reliability fix" notice on the project's website.
2007-03-08: Core sends final draft advisory to OpenBSD requesting comments and official vendor fix/patch information.
2007-03-09: OpenBSD team changes notice on the project's website to "security fix" and indicates that Core's advisory should reflect the requirement of IPv6 connectivity for a successful attack from outside of the local network.
2007-03-12: Advisory updates with fix and workaround information and with IPv6 connectivity comments from OpenBSD team. The "vendors contacted" section of the advisory is adjusted to reflect more accurately the nature of the communications with the OpenBSD team regarding this issue.
2007-03-12: Workaround recommendations revisited. It is not yet conclusive that the "scrub in inet6" directive will prevent exploitation. It effectively stops the bug from triggering according to Core's tests but OpenBSD's source code inspection does not provide a clear understanding of why that happens. It could just be that the attack traffic is malformed in some other way that is not meaningful for exploiting the vulnerability (an error in the exploit code rather than an effective workaround?). The "scrub" workaround recommendation is removed from the advisory as precaution.
2007-03-13: Core releases this advisory.

Only 17 days to admit that it was a security vulnerability. If their OS is as hard to penetrate as their egos, I'd bet that it would be the most secure OS.

Re:BSD Isn't Relevant Anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36815912)

Yes. I also reported a nice panic some years ago and it did not get mentioned anywhere. I did not get even "thanks" for investing time to find the critical bug. It was fixed silently. The "remote hole statistics" on the web site are shit. But you still cannot deny the fact that they actually pay attention to security problems. Who cares about this marketing stuff? Grow up.

Re:BSD Isn't Relevant Anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36815578)

Lennart Poettering is a completely delusional shithead by the way. You can watch this video [youtube.com] to get a taste. Yes, he's the loudmouth asshole in the crowd making ridiculous statements and begging for attention. He should probably have another drink.

Re:BSD Isn't Relevant Anymore (1)

allo (1728082) | more than 3 years ago | (#36815916)

erm, but he'r right. The speaker did not have real knowledge about the things he was speaking on.

Re:BSD Isn't Relevant Anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36816166)

erm, but he'r right. The speaker did not have real knowledge about the things he was speaking on.

I wouldn't know about the technical points. I'm talking about his cringeworthy attitude about himself and foss that is further revealed as the trainwreck of a talk continues. Lennart claims (paraphrasing):

1. "It's okay if free software is shit, because it's free! Stop complaining!" As if the quality of a program is somehow related to its monetary cost for a copy. Talk about an inferiority complex. You need developers and contributers with actual pride in their work and who care if this foss thing is going to get to the next level. A shitty program is a shitty program, regardless of how much money it did or didn't take to create. Criticism of LibreOffice usability is just as valid as criticism of MS Office usability unless you feel one is inherently inferior because of some external psychological issue you have (again, inferiority complex).

2. "It's totally unreasonable to expect information on project website's to be accurate, informative, helpful, or up to date! Users should have to go looking for developers and ask them their support/usage questions directly!" This is obviously just fucking stupid on a thousand different levels. No need to comment further.

Re:BSD Isn't Relevant Anymore (4, Informative)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816636)

Poettering:
"You're not welcome to complain if it's free"

On how the speaker got feedback from various mailing lists/communities:
Poettering: "You didn't ask the right people...next time just ask me, thank you very much."

Poettering:
"I'm sorry your mindset from the 1970s unix is not up-to-date anymore...*booos*...I see, lots of UNIX lovers here...*cheers*

Speaker:
(after talking about hald)
Poettering: "Ok, hald has been deprecated for 2 years, not my fault people still use it."
speaker: Yes, but it's got these limitations, we should get rid of it, do you agree
Poettering: No, when we designed it it was great, it did all these things that could never be done before
speaker: but it never worked
Poettering: you're doing it wrong, it worked great.

The guy interrupted the speaker for the entire talk and then got up and stage after him and took the mic. What an asshole. Completely regardless of whether or not you disagree with the speaker, it's just plain rude to interrupt a talk like that.

Re:BSD Isn't Relevant Anymore (1)

rlillard (571012) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816192)

What a stupid way to count users.

Not to be outdone... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36815186)

Not to be outdone by the big Linux 3.0 announcement, BSD races to announce a major version release of their own.

Re:Not to be outdone... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36815378)

OpenBSD 5.0 will be released in November.
Twice a year releases mean that we knew this back in 1996.
And 5.0 will be just as much a major release as 4.9 was.

I thought BSD was dead Netcraft confirmed it (-1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 3 years ago | (#36815188)

I thought BSD was dead Netcraft confirmed it.

Obligatory (0)

crow_t_robot (528562) | more than 3 years ago | (#36815192)

*Post that makes a joke about the Firefox release schedule*

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36815396)

I'll run down to Borders after work and pick up the book... "BSD made difficult, forward by Linus Torvalds"

Re:Obligatory (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816856)

Actually, if people think OpenBSD's release schedule is a good thing, then I have no idea why people would complain about Mozilla trying to mold their release cycle in a similair fashing.

Because OpenBSD has been doing what Chrome did from the start: a timed release cycle. Take the features that are done and only release those.

The Mozilla folks still need to learn a bit I'm sure. They'll probably get the hang of it soon.

OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (4, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36815228)

If it wasn't for the fact that most System Administrators are more comfortable with Linux or Windows (And many of the new ones are not too willing to expand that much on the command line). I would have all my servers running OpenBSD. You get it set it up to do the Job you want and let it work.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36815310)

How's the hardware support?

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36815334)

Oh snap.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36815502)

I wasn't going for an insult there. I was just curious how it compared to Linux :(

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (1)

Bottlemaster (449635) | more than 3 years ago | (#36819128)

It doesn't support as much hardware as Linux, of course, but it's still pretty good [openbsd.org] . Anecdotally, I personally haven't had a device supported by Linux but not OpenBSD, but I have run into devices supported by OpenBSD but not FreeBSD.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36815564)

On my severs?

The hardware support is FANTASTIC!

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (3, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36815484)

Not necessarily fun to shoehorn onto a laptop; but if the hardware comes with rack rails, generally just fine.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36815690)

I have OpenBSD 4.9 on both of my laptops. Only trouble I've had is with the graphics card running hot on one. It runs hot under Linux also.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36815876)

Hence my somewhat cowardly use of "necessarily". Given the fairly substantial standardization of core hardware in the x86 market(ie. either an Intel chip with an Intel chipset, or an AMD chip with either an AMD chipset or one of the remaining Nvidia ones, along with wired NIC by Intel or Broadcom and wireless by Intel, Broadcom, or a couple of others) it is hard to go too far wrong even with laptops; but laptops are the sorts of places were "realtek did something fucked up with the supposedly standardized 'HD Audio' subsystem, and now my speakers don't mute when I plug in headphones" or "the wlan device Just Doesn't Quite Wake Up Right about 10% of the time coming out of sleep" still tend to crop up with unpleasant regularity.

At least in my experience, OpenBSD's support for 'core' hardware tends to be about as good as Linux's(sometimes better, they've led the way on a few fully-open reverse engineering efforts, sometimes worse, they've axed support for a few mostly-working-but-not-quite things that linux hasn't, like the case with that one brand of RAID adapter); but definitely good enough on servers, workstations, and prosaic desktops. If, though, there is some dodgy ACPI issue or you want Nvidia binaries to work, or your specific model of laptop has a really weird audio output mapping, or something of that nature, Linux's larger userbase makes your odds of finding a solution somewhat better. Many laptops do work just fine; but if you had to do some serious googling and bodging to get a specific one to work under linux, you are likely to have a slightly worse time doing the same under BSD.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (1)

ulzeraj (1009869) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816360)

Running it as a home router on an Intel Atom mini-itx motherboard. It recognized a Tenda (forgot the real model) N-150 wireless device and I was able to quickly put it to use on WPA2 with just ifconfig and wpa-psk to convert the key to a hex. No need for cheesy software. Its also running its rootfs on a 2gb usb card (mutable stuff such as /var/log is running on mfs (memory file system). OpenBSD is fantastic for the job.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36821526)

In the spirit of curiosity, is your Atom board one of the early ones were Intel was pairing atoms with SiS chipsets, or one of the later with a 945, or one of the still later with the NM10, or whatever intel is calling their atom-specific chipset these days?

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (4, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36815544)

I used a PowerPC Mac Mini as a server for a few years, and had no problems with OpenBSD hardware support. Everything worked with the same interfaces as on x86. YellowDog Linux also kind-of supported the hardware, but things were strangely different from x86 (e.g. Linux puts CPU and power management stuff behind different interfaces on different architectures) and the admin interface was just different enough from RedHat to be irritating, while OpenBSD on PowerPC Mac worked just like OpenBSD everywhere else.

A sysadmin probably wouldn't have noticed that it wasn't x86. A developer would only have noticed if they did anything endian-specific, not if they stuck to public OS interfaces. While I had the machine, I wrote some software for showing the CPU and power status which ran on a variety of systems. It had a simple abstraction layer, where each target platform implemented a few functions for platform-specific stuff. For OpenBSD, each function was one sysctl() call. I wrote them on PowerPC, someone else tested them on SPARC, x86 and x86-64, and they worked everywhere. For Linux, I had to add a dependency on a 300KB library that abstracted the differences between the different versions of Linux on x86... and then was told by the first person that tested it on PowerPC Linux that it didn't work properly there.

So, I'd say hardware support is pretty good on OpenBSD. More importantly, the OS actually does its job and abstracts the hardware so developers don't have to pretend that they're writing DOS applications and ship a different code path for every possible combination of hardware on OpenBSD.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (1)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816730)

So, I'd say hardware support is pretty good on OpenBSD. More importantly, the OS actually does its job and abstracts the hardware so developers don't have to pretend that they're writing DOS applications and ship a different code path for every possible combination of hardware on OpenBSD.

I don't think you are wrong in your experience or conclusion but when people talk about "hardware support" they are not referring to whether it will run on older architectures (Apple hasn't sold a PPC in nearly half a decade). Rather, they are talking about drivers for all the random peripherals they've accumulated -- wireless mice, webcams, joysticks, scanners, wifi cards, bluetooth modules. The number of people frustrated by installing an OS and not having it support no-name bluetooth module XXX or Broadcom wifi module YYY dwarfs those frustrated by the differences in the architecture-abstraction-layer and those running on exotic (read: non-x86) hardware.

Lumping that all in "hardware support" is silly.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36820850)

they are not referring to whether it will run on older architectures (Apple hasn't sold a PPC in nearly half a decade)

Sorry, but the Mac Mini was brand new when I put OpenBSD on it. Apple stopped selling PowerPC machines during the time it was operational. Its sales accounted for something like 2% of total PC sales in that year, yet the only two operating systems that supported it well are OS X and OpenBSD.

awesome -the BSD are very incestuous (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816050)

for the last couple years, http://www.openbsd.org/i386.html#hardware [openbsd.org] very good, works with all the wireless and USB devices I've plugged into it including cameras, several types of wireless ethernet, usb to serial. Yes, it works on my Toshiba and Thinkpad laptops with all video and sound ok, admittedly as one of two alternate partitions for grand occassions with windows xp, and not my main Linux one.; A lot of the recent device additions of that is due to NetBSD and FreeBSD, the BSD license is great for spreading the device love around.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (0)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 3 years ago | (#36815430)

I would have all my servers running OpenBSD. You get it set it up to do the Job you want and let it work.

And this is different from Linux how exactly?

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36815520)

its not niggerish.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36815556)

OpenBSD has documentation.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (4, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36815622)

The other poster already pointed out that it's got documentation. The OpenBSD team will actually back out commits that don't come with updates to the relevant man pages. Try this on OpenBSD: go through /dev, and look up every device that's listed there. Then go through /etc/ and look up every file that's there. Now try it on Linux (or FreeBSD or OS X, for that matter). OpenBSD is the only system I've used where you will actually find documentation on every device and every config file that's part of the standard install.

More importantly, you only need to read the documentation once. Unlike Linux, OpenBSD does not replace admin tools with functionally equivalent ones with a new interface every six months. If you learn how to use OpenBSD, then you know how to use OpenBSD, on any architecture. If you learn how to use Linux, then you know how to use one version of one distribution of Linux, probably on one architecture.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36815948)

You are comparing a complete distribution to a kernel? Try comparing it (and it's pathetic application and arch support) to a decent one running the linux kernel.

There are reasons almost no one uses OpenBSD. If you can't see them, that's your problem.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (2)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816122)

What an ignorant set up statements, the application set is huge (over 6000 binary packages for amd/intel) and includes all the common apps for desktop, languages, web.

The users number in the thousands at least, and moreover, unless your a windoze weenie, you are likely typing your troll into a machine with code on it from the OpenBSD team.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36817440)

and what's with that "architecture" crack? It runs on more architectures than most Linux multi-arch distros. For example, comparing it with Debian, it doesn't run on the S/390 or Itanium but all the others, but also supports four more Debian doesn't have.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (1)

Bottlemaster (449635) | more than 3 years ago | (#36819230)

You are comparing a complete distribution to a kernel? Try comparing it (and it's pathetic application and arch support) to a decent one running the linux kernel.

That's the problem: the Linux kernel is more capable (in terms of features, performance, and other areas I have not thought to list), but there is no decent Linux distribution. Userspace is what matters, and OpenBSD is simply the best Unix/Unix-like distribution out there. As a bonus, the kernel is good enough, clearly-written, and extremely well-documented.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (1)

tokul (682258) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816020)

The other poster already pointed out that it's got documentation. The OpenBSD team will actually back out commits that don't come with updates to the relevant man pages.

Oh really. check setlocale return values, BSD manuals and supported locales.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36823178)

Locale support is close to being backed out even before it was committed.
Apparently, it doesn't help that Theo doesn't speak any language that cannot be compiled and that many core developers got more than their fair share of Neanderthal genes from their European ancestors.
They still write great code and documentation.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36816196)

Good for Open BSD to require man pages.

But, you need to use Debian before condemning all Linux distros. The Debian project is probably responsible for the majority of (non-upstream) man pages on all linux distros. It is against Debian policy to not have a man page for every command.

OSX is the other end of the spectrum, it has man pages, but they are often just lifted from some other system, and not applicable, IN THE SLIGHTEST, to OSX.

  As for funky non-standard administration tools, I think that is a redhat specific gripe. They seem to have a horrible case of NIH, and usually come up with something inferior to all existing solutions.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (1)

CarsonChittom (2025388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36822150)

The Debian project is probably responsible for the majority of (non-upstream) man pages on all linux distros. It is against Debian policy to not have a man page for every command.

True. But when I used Debian (2.1, 2.2, 3.0), if I had a nickel for every "man page" that said nothing but something like "Policy requires us to have a manpage, so this is a placeholder," I could buy you lunch.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816364)

More importantly, you only need to read the documentation once. Unlike Linux, OpenBSD does not replace admin tools with functionally equivalent ones with a new interface every six months. If you learn how to use OpenBSD, then you know how to use OpenBSD, on any architecture. If you learn how to use Linux, then you know how to use one version of one distribution of Linux, probably on one architecture.

scrub in all reassemble tcp
nat pass on $ext_if from $home_network to $internet -> ($ext_if:0)

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 3 years ago | (#36817222)

Ugh. I went through the OpenBSD 4.7 upgrade torture test last weekend. For those who don't know what we're talking about, the firewall config file syntax change in a backward-incompatible way between OpenBSD 4.6 and 4.7. It wasn't possible to boot into the new system without largely rewriting the file, which is kinda inconvenient when the machine in question is your primary firewall.

It was a good upgrade and I like the new version better, but it wasn't exactly painless.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 3 years ago | (#36817962)

Ugh. I went through the OpenBSD 4.7 upgrade torture test last weekend. For those who don't know what we're talking about, the firewall config file syntax change in a backward-incompatible way between OpenBSD 4.6 and 4.7. It wasn't possible to boot into the new system without largely rewriting the file, which is kinda inconvenient when the machine in question is your primary firewall.

It was a good upgrade and I like the new version better, but it wasn't exactly painless.

I fortunately have been generating my pf.conf from an XSLT on an XML file for a few years now, so it was a relatively simple matter of changing a single line in the file that is generating the XSLT*, and then using make. So, it was relatively pain-free for me.

*: Why am I using a file to generate the XSLT? Have you SEEN the XSLT language? It's horrible and designed for machines. The file I'm using adds a layer of abstraction that makes XSLT a useable language for human beings.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 3 years ago | (#36819048)

Um, if pf.conf so bad? :-D Seriously, I just edit it with vim. It's the easiest firewall system I've dealt with.

Oh, I also got nailed by the old nat and rdr rules having an implicit "quick" and I had "block all" at the end of the file. The new syntax rules with pass aren't automatically quick, so I had to rearrange the rules a little.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 3 years ago | (#36820096)

Um, if pf.conf so bad? :-D Seriously, I just edit it with vim. It's the easiest firewall system I've dealt with.

No, pf.conf isn't bad at all. But the XML file holds more than just my firewall rules. It holds all the information necessary to produce my named lists (forward and reverse), as well as my dhcpd.conf. Oh yeah, as well, it produces an HTML "netinfo" file which has all the network information in pretty print format, with links and all.

Basically, the XML file describes my whole network, and keeps things consistent so I don't have to keep things consistent by hand.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 3 years ago | (#36822170)

I'm not sure whether to be impressed or horrified.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (2)

jgrahn (181062) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816418)

More importantly, you only need to read the documentation once. Unlike Linux, OpenBSD does not replace admin tools with functionally equivalent ones with a new interface every six months. If you learn how to use OpenBSD, then you know how to use OpenBSD, on any architecture. If you learn how to use Linux, then you know how to use one version of one distribution of Linux, probably on one architecture.

Version: is it unfair to expect things to actually *change* between versions? I don't think so.

Distribution: surely you cannot expect RedHat EL, Debian, Slackware etc to all be exactly identical!

Hardware: you described upthread your problems with Yellowdog Linux on x86 and PPC. I cannot explain that experience. Yellowdog Linux must suck, because I'm using Debian on x86 and PPC, and there are *no* unreasonable differences. The only ones I can think of is the bootloader and the disk partitioning scheme, and both are genuine platform differences.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36819422)

If you learn how to use OpenBSD, then you know how to use OpenBSD, on any architecture. If you learn how to use Linux, then you know how to use one version of one distribution of Linux, probably on one architecture.

This is a nonsense argument, because OpenBSD is only one of several BSD distributions. You could apply the same argument in reverse. There are well-documented multi-architecture versions of Linux as well - Debian comes to mind.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 3 years ago | (#36815654)

And this is different from Linux how exactly?

With Linux, you know there will be a totally new gui config utility that you have to use with each major release. And the userland will shift around, depending on the mood of the aggregator who puts together whichever 'distro' you happen to use.

With a BSD, you set it up to do the job you want and with a few minor tweaks of /etc files for major updates you just keep on keeping on.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (2)

patrikas (1704126) | more than 3 years ago | (#36815700)

OpenBSD is the operating system, Linux is kernel.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (1)

gabereiser (1662967) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816142)

+1 on this, but most people have associated Linux with the entire operating system including such and such distro's user space tools and programs....

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36818878)

OpenBSD (the OS) uses the OpenBSD kernel and the OpenBSD userland. No linux.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36821068)

Whoa! Really?

Somebody better tell de Raadt.

  (for patrikas sake)

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (3, Interesting)

SirCyn (694031) | more than 3 years ago | (#36815822)

OpenBSD: Two remote vulnerabilities in the default install in ~12 years. None in the last 2 years.
Running a 2 year old copy of OpenBSD still safe (unless you make it otherwise). Your Linux ISO from 2 weeks ago is already vulnerable.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (1)

khoonirobo (1316521) | more than 3 years ago | (#36815998)

True:

But then this is usually what happens : http://xkcd.com/349/ [xkcd.com] [XKCD post, obligatory]

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816178)

It is funny that there was nothing in -current serious enough to be a security/errata patch yet with 4.9; with most releases there would be a few by now. Maybe it'll be known as the "golden release" if that turns out to be true for another couple months.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36816694)

I run OpenBSD and I appreciate how (relatively) maintenance free it is, but that claim has *always* bugged me.

Two remote vulnerabilities in an install that leaves no services running in ~12 years, huh. Fascinating. Nevermind that almost nobody actually runs a system without services, or that a glance at the errata page shows that basically any non-root bug on OpenBSD can be escalated to give root privs. I dunno where you've been, but Linux distros stopped shipping with every service under the sun running a long time ago, and I can't remember the last time there was a remote root in a stock FreeBSD install either. Enlighten me as to the remote exploit I'm vulnerable to in my CentOS CD from 2 weeks ago, or my Debian disc, or is that just hyperbole?

To be fair, OpenBSD devs put effort into finding and eliminating common classes of vulnerabilities, but they fuck up (and succumb to the "I can't see it so it isn't there" mentality that most devs do) just like everyone else. I've always loved the timeline in the remote root advisory for OpenBSD's IPv6 code [coresecurity.com] .

I'm not claiming Linux, FreeBSD, or anything else in particular is any better. Just that OpenBSD's security record no longer makes it unique or special. Y'all can stop now.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36817412)

Re: Important OpenBSD errata
by Theo de Raadt Mar 16, 2007; 05:40am :: Rate this Message: - Use ratings to moderate (?)
Reply | Print | View Threaded | Show Only this Message
> This is idiotic, a big hole was found and the devs pissed about
> because they didn't want to admit it.

Noone in OpenBSD is pissed off about this. We posted the bug fix as
soon as we became aware of the problem. The timeline goes like this:

1) We were told there was a mbuf crash, which could remotely CRASH
      the machine. There was no proof that more could be done, not even
      a whiff.

2) We commited the fix, about 24 hours later. It took a few days to
      get the errata up because the people who do that were at a conference.
      It was labelled as a RELIABILITY FIX because everyone felt it was just
      a CRASH. I then entered into a long conversation with Core explaining
      why we label crash fixes (even remote) as RELIABILITY FIXES.

3) Core felt maybe something more could be done and continued working,
      and ONE WEEK LATER later, finally managed to show us brand new code
      which showed that intrusion was possible. Before that moment, it
      was still just confirmed to be a CRASH.

4) A few hours after we become aware that it was more than a CRASH, we
      changed the advisory to say it was a real security risk. We first had
      to get the patch into -stable,

      I changed index.html to talk about there being TWO remote holes in
      more than 10 years, without even discussing this with any other
      developer, because I knew it was true. Other developers in the group
      were stunned to see me change it.

5) Core decided that their advisory should include their interpretation
      of our discussion as to why OpenBSD labels crash fixes as RELIABILITY
      FIXES. Three times I told them that I thought that was a mistake,
      and that the public would not understand the reasoning as they wrote
      it.

That is what happened. If you don't believe me, mail Ivan Arce at
Core and ask him if any of the 5 points above are wrong. Come on, go
ask him if I am a liar... go ahead.

Yes, some of the press got it wrong too, and part of that I feel is
Ivan Arce's fault. He should have been more cautious at explaining
the complex discussion OpenBSD had with Core, where we explained why
we label errata for remote crashes a Reliability Fix. Or he should
have skipped it altogether.

He even went around telling the press that this shows that IPV6 is a
risky new technology, when the fact is that this was a mbuf corruption
bug, in code that all parts of the network stack could potentially use
in the same way. He's got his layers wrong. But finding bugs in
other people's software lets companies like Core sell themselves as
experts. They are experts, but the good press they get should not
cost us in this way.

Let's see... the fsck_ffs fix pedro commited a few hours ago. That
fixes a serious problem where fsck fails to spot filesystem
corruption. Should we spend time fully assessing how rare or common
this situation is, and then errata it up the stream as fast as
possible, maybe even consider if there are security risks from such
filesystem corruption? Come on. Yet that is what some non-experts
moan for. They want projects with only a few people (who are doing
this for a hobby) to struggle down these well-defined paths that their
little brains can understand. They don't understand all the other
things that developers do, so they wish to cubby-hole us into these
procedures. In the last 10 years they have not gotten us to behave
so, and in the next 10 years it won't happen either.

The reality is that people don't hold their own mothers as accountable
as they are trying to do here with us, yelling "conspiracy", "downplay",
etc.

The minute someone moans for a posting to the security-announce list
they have removed any desire from me to do so. And the same comes for
any other errata.

If people on our mailing list are going to be such jerks about patches
which we do make available, then maybe we'll spend a whole lot less
effort making errata and updating -stable. The whole concept of being
subserviant towards a community of jerks is not realistitic.

> Move on and end this.
>
> Theo, chill out.

I've been chill the entire time. If I have not been around much on
the lists, it is because I'm getting 4.1 out the door.

I really don't understand why a few people have to be assholes about
this. Go fix the problems in your own lives first...

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36817502)

I don't dispute any of that which may be because 95% of that email is irrelevant to the point I was making, and the rest confirms the timeline. I don't care how quickly they got a patch out*, nor do I care whether they consider crashes to be security issues** ... but memory corruption bugs are often security issues, and there was certainly the potential for exploitation. I'd expect a security-centric OS to get that. It shouldn't have been "if you think it's exploitable, prove us wrong", the default position should have been to label it a security fix.

* well I do, but that part of the timeline is reasonable.
** lemme know if your opinion changes when it's a logging, IDS or MTA that crashes. That's outside Theo's scope, but reliability can have security implications...

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36817340)

Running a 2 year old copy of OpenBSD still safe (unless you make it otherwise).

Of course, to be fair, it's not as if the default install contains anything useful at all. Yes, that's a feature (no unneeded services installed by default - that's good!), but if you actually USE an OpenBSD system as e.g. a server, you'll have to install additional stuff beyond the default, and the "no hole in the last 2 years, you're safe" thing is not necessarily valid anymore.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (1)

arose (644256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36818514)

And how many people use just the stock install? How many use it for a workstation?

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36819524)

BSD is dead. 'Nuff said.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 3 years ago | (#36815440)

I find that the problem is with going from windows to anything else. If you know one flavor of Unix the others aren't fairly easy to pick up. On any given day I may work on Linux, AIX, Solaris, OpenBSD, HP-UX, or windows. I prefer any of the others to windows even with their own idiosyncrasies and I was a windows user for a long time. I got my feet wet on *nix with X and now prefer the good old command line for a lot of what I do.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36815492)

But with theo. Is it really worth it...?

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36815848)

What roles are you using? Standard Web? Application Servers? Database? Is performance important? What storage systems do you use? High availability a concern?

There are just too many variables when talking about servers. Open BSD excells on some levels, but not on all. Advocating a one size fits all is ok, as long as you explain the trade offs of the approach.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (5, Interesting)

david.given (6740) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816044)

The OpenBSD technology is amazing; I'd recommend that any Linux user gives it a try to see how a Unix is supposed to work. Simple, flexible, consistent, robust, and superbly documented (there are man pages for everything, including the internal kernel APIs needed to write device drivers!). I just wish it had apt, that's all. (And better non-PC support. My main server's an ARM.)

It's even more amazing if you've ever interacted with the OpenBSD community, who are basically dickheads. Admittedly, it's been a while since I gave up on the -misc, but the last time I was there there was some poor guy trying to discuss virtualisation and the lead developers (including Theo) were simply hurling childish abuse at him rather than, say, actually trying to communicate. And of course all their groupies were joining in. It was incredibly unpleasant.

I suppose it's possible that they've grown up since then. I really wish they would; OpenBSD deserves a lot more attention and use. But I was so turned off by the total lack of anything resembling professionalism in the community (which is weird, because the actual docs are brilliant) that I haven't felt like going back.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36816128)

"I suppose it's possible that they've grown up since then. I really wish they would; OpenBSD deserves a lot more attention and use. But I was so turned off by the total lack of anything resembling professionalism in the community "

Could you link to it? It sounds like intresting drama. However there are many people who try to seem smarter than they're, and they might deserve to be made fun of.

what's the objective? (2)

Onymous Coward (97719) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816426)

However there are many people who try to seem smarter than they're, and they might deserve to be made fun of.

Leaving aside the moral debate of when a person deserves mistreatment, what is the value of abusively mocking someone in a public forum? It does not raise the level of discourse to something productive. At the least it's a kind of friction and so energy goes out the window as a kind of heat loss. Maybe it's a kind of turbulence that amplifies the original wobble of stupidity rather than smoothing things back into a laminar flow. Maybe it promotes a culture of antagonism, resulting in rampant friction and turbulence throughout, even in areas where there's small and meaningful/useful disagreement.

From what I can tell, it's an emotionally underdeveloped way of giving in to one's anger urges rather than a well-considered method for advancing discussion and making progress. You could say it retards progress. There are other, more sophisticated, and actually beneficial ways for handling disagreement and coping with people who are patently wrong.

Re:what's the objective? (1)

arose (644256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36818552)

Leaving aside the moral debate of when a person deserves mistreatment, what is the value of abusively mocking someone in a public forum?

You should ask Theo...

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (1)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816180)

Well, as much as I love OpenBSD, not much has changed on the mailing list. The misc@ list has a very low tolerance of people whom they percieve as stupid or even newbies. Remember, we were all newbies once.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (1)

rlillard (571012) | more than 3 years ago | (#36817944)

... low tolerance for stupidity -- absolutely. ... newbies, you need to be more specific. It's lazy newbies who don't RTFM (that's F as in fine) or provide appropriate information in a problem report that get roasted.

Sorry to hear that..... (2)

mevets (322601) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816446)

but did you ever figure out why virtualization is a bad hack to prop up crappy software?

Re:Sorry to hear that..... (1)

g8oz (144003) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816584)

Theo?

Re:Sorry to hear that..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36817468)

but did you ever figure out why virtualization is a bad hack to prop up crappy software?

Yes, it is. But virtualization is a better solution than the "one app one box" mentality that many IT people have.

Since so many applications don't play well together with other applications, it's nice to have complete separation.

As a dumb example, you can't have multiple versions of outlook on the same computer. So for testing, validation, etc, you need two computers. Or just set up another virtual machine.

Re:Sorry to hear that..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36822448)

hack to prop up crappy software

can't have multiple versions of outlook on the same computer

Re:Sorry to hear that..... (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 3 years ago | (#36824178)

Because implementing failover and live-migration into every piece of software is a great idea? Just do it at the OS level. Applications shouldn't have to worry about hardware, SANs, etc.

Test environments are greatly simplified.

Soon you'll be telling us how protected memory is bad, we need to do away with operating systems, and the internet is a failed concept.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36817000)

(And better non-PC support. My main server's an ARM.)

It's even more amazing if you've ever interacted with the OpenBSD community, who are basically dickheads. Admittedly, it's been a while since I gave up on the -misc, but the last time I was there there was some poor guy trying to discuss virtualisation and the lead developers (including Theo) were simply hurling childish abuse at him rather than, say, actually trying to communicate. And of course all their groupies were joining in. It was incredibly unpleasant.

My experience has been exactly the opposite. I was trying to hack a new device driver on a Zaurus (ultimately unseccessfully, but so it goes) which required a custom kernel. I got many helpful emails, including from Theo himself. They could see that I did my due dilligence and wasn't wasting their time (despite being a n00b) and offered construtive help.

Perhaps it's because I'm also the maintainer of a open software package that I treat other's mailing lists as I wish my users would treat mine.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36817406)

It's even more amazing if you've ever interacted with the OpenBSD community, who are basically dickheads. Admittedly, it's been a while since I gave up on the -misc, but the last time I was there there was some poor guy trying to discuss virtualisation and the lead developers (including Theo) were simply hurling childish abuse at him rather than, say, actually trying to communicate. And of course all their groupies were joining in. It was incredibly unpleasant.

I suppose it's possible that they've grown up since then.

Actually, they have. Drivers for VMware virtual hardware are enabled in the default 4.9 reactiveOpenBSD kernel:

http://www.openbsd.org/49.html#new [openbsd.org]

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 3 years ago | (#36818072)

Ooooo! Nifty cool, thanks for pointing that out!

Professionalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36817996)

technical skill != social skill

The lack of professionalism you percieve is a lack of social skills. By some definitions profesionalism combines both social and technical skills. But technical brilliance and the ability to write good documentation can exist without interacting with people in a pleasant way. What they apparently lack in one aspect of professionalism they have in abundance in another aspect.

I've never used OpenBSD and haven't had first-hand experience with that community. But the "I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid" mentality (this is supposedly something Theo de Raadt said) was prevalent among IBM mainframe systems programmers when I started working in that environment in the 1980's: very good on a technical level, but rude and difficult to work with unless you had proven that you think for yourself in a way they can appreciate. And once they accepted you they actually were much easier to get along with, but you really had to prove yourself first.

Having no patience with people who distract you from the things you want to put your energy in is functional. It enables you to focus. Not putting too much energy in social skills may be a way to achieve brilliance on a technical level. While that may result in not so nice behaviour on a social level, I have difficulty thinking of that als unprofessional. It can be professional for a technical specialist whose main focus is on making a good product. It would be unprofessional for a salesperson.

It's not how I approach things, but I think it has its place.

OpenBSD = Fight Club (1)

raised_by_wolves (1899038) | more than 3 years ago | (#36819856)

Jack: What if the applicant wants to discuss virtualization?

Theo: Hurl abuses at him, hit him with the broom, and then threaten to get a shovel.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36821474)

But I was so turned off by the total lack of anything resembling professionalism in the community (which is weird, because the actual docs are brilliant) that I haven't felt like going back.

So you choose a tool not because it is a good tool but because a nice person "sold" it to you?

Personally I've learned to accept the rigidness of some of the top developers. Mainly because it is this very nature that ensures the quality and consistency of the project. Developers do not submit crap because they know they will not be hand held and told "gee thanks for the effort". People have to earn a respect for doing a good job.

Re:OpenBSD Rock Solid OS without fluf. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36818616)

If the software would compile, or run, on OpenBSD. The out of date tar command alone breaks numerous tools, and the refusal to update to Apache 2 and stay with Apache 1.3 for licensing reasons makes it completely unusable for basic web service. The gcc is version 2.95 with patches, as opposed to the modern gcc 4.x, again due to licensing reasons. Amd the Broadcom drivers would run, because Theo de Raadt acted like a dick and kicked them out rather than negotiate a license when he and his group violated the GPL on them.

The insistence on BSD style licensing is killing OpenBSD, and it most eager users in military or government use take the OpenBSD work and give *nothing* back, so it's drying up on the vine. The only significant thing from OpenBSD or OpenSSH in the last 5 years has been SFTP, which has turned out to be completely useless crap stapled on top of SCP with all the same limitations and flaws.

5.0 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36815914)

That'll be 5 then. Wow, 5 users already. Good job Theo!

Safer on old systems (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36815988)

If your hardware is older, OpenBSD is a safer environment - if your CPU does not implement the NX bit, OpenBSD manages the same functionality with W^X. Many other memory-handling features make the system safer (malloc with mmap, rather than sbrk, for example), although there can be a performance penalty.

OpenBSD implements privilege separation in many of the daemons of the base system (ftpd, dhcpd, ntpd, sshd), so you can trust them more.

OpenBSD's alternate daemons for well-known protocols (ntpd, smtpd) give you some "security through obscurity," and you also gain flexibility.

There are also custom patches for well-known servers to improve security (apache chroot).

In a number of ways, OpenBSD is the "Reference UNIX Security implementation." Come see why.

Audio (2)

pr0nbot (313417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816090)

Sweet! Does it ship with Pulse Audio?

Re:Audio (1)

gabereiser (1662967) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816200)

screw Pulse Audio... I want my Dr. Dre Beats software preinstalled and unable to be uninstalled. Cause he's so gangsta...

tried openbsd before (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36816092)

Some things that annoyed the hell out of me:

1. First install it wouldn't boot. Seems it didn't save the partitions correctly, so tried again. This time it booted.
2. Home and end keys don't send you to the end or beginning of the command line you're on. Mac also does this. It annoys the hell out of me. One thing windows and linux got right.
3. It comes with vi by default but trying to install vim was a hassle. And once you get it installed, it's not used by default. Instead you gotta create an alias on your shell login script. But even then I could not get that working. On linux, when you install vim, it replaces vi. If I use the command vi after I install vim, it'll use vim. On bsd it keeps both, leading to frustrations.
4. You need to install openssh server after and then go through hoops to allow users to login.

This really did remind me of linux back in 1995. It's archaic and you must remember work arounds. How hard is it to make these modifications be part of the standard install? Why weren't they done a long time ago? I'm sure if you started making stuff as "easy" as linux, you'll attract more users. But from trying it myself, I can see why it's used by so many few people.

Re:tried openbsd before (1)

ulzeraj (1009869) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816522)

It uses ksh, not bash. Alternatively, if you like shell functionality "set -o vi" it will blow your mind.

Re:tried openbsd before (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36816582)

1: Can't help ignorance, you probably forgot to set something as bootable. I've done it myself.
2: I agree, but OpenBSD supports so many different architectures that it makes sense that they do nothing out of the box.
3: vi is not vim. Of course installing vim doesn't replace vi.The vi included with OBSD is OBSD's vi.
4: You also have to install openssh server on any linux before people can log in. You don't have to jump through hoops to let people log in, you do however need to make sure people are in the right groups before they can su or whatever. Nothing new there.

Your entire post reminds me of what GNU/Linux should be, but isn't and likely never will be. I do like the GNU toolset though.

Re:tried openbsd before (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36816602)

Some things that annoyed the hell out of me:

1. First install it wouldn't boot. Seems it didn't save the partitions correctly, so tried again. This time it booted.

2. Home and end keys don't send you to the end or beginning of the command line you're on. Mac also does this. It annoys the hell out of me. One thing windows and linux got right.

3. It comes with vi by default but trying to install vim was a hassle. And once you get it installed, it's not used by default. Instead you gotta create an alias on your shell login script. But even then I could not get that working. On linux, when you install vim, it replaces vi. If I use the command vi after I install vim, it'll use vim. On bsd it keeps both, leading to frustrations.

4. You need to install openssh server after and then go through hoops to allow users to login.

This really did remind me of linux back in 1995. It's archaic and you must remember work arounds. How hard is it to make these modifications be part of the standard install? Why weren't they done a long time ago? I'm sure if you started making stuff as "easy" as linux, you'll attract more users. But from trying it myself, I can see why it's used by so many few people.

Whine #1 You screwed it up. Don't blame OBSD. You could have read the install documentation prior to attempting an installation. They are on the web site.

Whine #2 If this makes your top 5 pet peeves, OBSD must be really great. You could fix the keyboard issue if you were to read the manuals. Is that a problem for you?

Whine #3 Have you considered that OBSD is multiuser? Maybe others will want to use original vi. You consider yourself competent to critique a Unix based OS and yet you are unable to manage something as simple as your login environment.

Whine #4 Your statement is factually wrong. OpenSSH is part of the base install and has been so for 10 years I know of. Have you ever actually used OBSD?

If not, please don't start now.

Re:tried openbsd before (1)

Noitatsidem (1701520) | more than 3 years ago | (#36819320)

If not, please don't start now.

Exactly what OpenBSD needs, less users!

Re:tried openbsd before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36822258)

>4. You need to install openssh server after and then go through hoops to allow users to login.
Openssh is in the base, which means it's installed by default. And the installer asks if you want it to be started. So, you're basically lying and spreading shit.

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>