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 5.3 Released

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the time-to-dump-core dept.

Operating Systems 109

An anonymous reader writes "Today, OpenBSD 5.3 has been released. It has many improvements, updates, and new stuff. Also, OpenSMTPD 5.3 is included. This is the first version of OpenSMTPD considered to be ready for production. Many pre-built packages are available for many architectures. OpenBSD 5.3 ships with various Desktop Environments, including Gnome 3.6, KDE 3.5, and XFCE 4.10." And don't forget the release song, "Blade Swimmer."

cancel ×

109 comments

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

BSD, ftw! (4, Insightful)

Leafwiz (1704388) | about a year ago | (#43600787)

:)

Re:BSD, ftw! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43601473)

I like how this is currently rated -1 offtopic....

BSD Released? (0)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#43602597)

Is it still required to visit a probation officer, and give notice on any change of residence?

http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43600851)

Dear Linux Advocate,

Money doesn't grow on trees. And, Linux Advocates is growing. Naturally, we anticipate operating costs and hope to be able to meet them.

But, any amount you feel you are able to donate in support of our ongoing work will be most surely appreciated and put to very good use. Your contributions keep Linux Advocates growing.

Show your support by making a donation today.

Thank you.

Dieter T. Schmitz
Linux Advocates, Owner

http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html [linuxadvocates.com]

Let us rejoice! (-1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#43600857)

Cultural learnings of OpenBSD for make benefit glorious projects of FOSSland.

Do you want to make GPLcrimes? High five!

Re:Let us rejoice! (3, Informative)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#43600941)

But seriously, it looks like a great set of improvements. It is also great to have a new stable choice for mail transfer.

Subject: Announce: OpenSMTPD 5.3.1 released [opensmtpd.org]

OpenSMTPD 5.3.1 has just been released and the archives are available at
our main site: www.OpenSMTPD.org

OpenSMTPD is a FREE implementation of the SMTP protocol with some common
extensions. It allows ordinary machines to exchange e-mails with systems
speaking the SMTP protocol. It implements a fairly large part of RFC5321
and can already cover a large range of use-cases.

It runs on OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD, DragonFlyBSD, MacOSX and Linux.

OpenSMTPD presentation is here [opensmtpd.org] .

Re:Let us rejoice! (0)

lorenlal (164133) | about a year ago | (#43601043)

Too bad NetCraft says it's dying :D

Re:Let us rejoice! (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#43601127)

I hear NetCraft has been wrong before. ;)

Re:Let us rejoice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43601301)

Too bad NetCraft says it's dying :D

NetCraft has no clue what OS my firewall runs. :p

Re:Let us rejoice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43601619)

Yeah, Netcraft doesn't keep track of infrastructure, just servers.

OpenBSD is very cool (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43600903)

OpenBSD is very cool. It's amazing what Theo and team have done over the years, and sadly, they don't get the cred they so richly deserve: OpenSSH, OpenBGP, pf, etc., and an awesome operating system that just works out of the box.

I'm very surprised more has not been done with OpenBSD. If I ran a company of any kind, it would be OpenBSD on the servers and Linux on the desktop. I would trust nothing else on my servers. I've worked with OpenBSD professionally and it's a joy to use an easy, well-documented system.

Kudos to you, Theo!

Re:OpenBSD is very cool (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43601031)

Yeah, very cool. NOT. I had one machine rooted in my whole life - it was the OpenSSH leak. OpenBSD code quality is massively over-hyped.

Claiming no remote exploits in a default installation that has no services open is ridiculous. It's like claiming no remote exploits in a machine that is not connected to a network. Just shows that these people are full of it.

Re:OpenBSD is very cool (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43604089)

You're right! Their code quality is over-hyped. OpenBSD code isn't appreciably better than experienced Linux and GNU developers, although they do favor portability more than most.

What sets OpenBSD apart is a reluctance to write a shit ton of new code, and to inflict it on the world. Great developers write buggy code on occasion; developers with an eye to security and reliability choose to write less code.

Just about _any_ Linux box could be easily rooted from the shell because there's so much code churn in the kernel and elsewhere. Linux security is no better than Windows at this point (and all the policy won't save you when the kernel is buggy). However, I would be cautiously optimistic that a stock OpenBSD box could resist being rooted from the shell.

Re:OpenBSD is very cool (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605455)

There is some truth to what you say. However, as an experienced IT security guy, one thing that makes OpenBSD "better" than Linux out of the box is its simplicity. Complexity is the enemy of security. And, more importantly, you did allude to the fact that security is a process, not a product. If I get root on anything, I own the box. Secret is to not allow this remotely. Use SSH keys, not SSH passwords for access. Use Radius, Kerberos, and others as a defense-in-depth measure, not just SSH. SSH alone might be fine for an at-home server, but in the real world, it's not.

OpenBSD has better than Linux security out of the box because they do keep it simple. Theo and team understand that complexity is the enemy of security, and the tenets of UNIX also dictate that things be kept simple, that a program should do one thing and one thing well. Pipes exist to make complex commands and shell scripts to automate.

OpenBSD is still a breath of fresh air in regard to code audits. While their code may not be the best, it's the most audited of any OS I'm familiar with, and it generally just works with little trouble.

OpenBSD: not for everyone, but for those discriminating enough to want a very solid base from which to build certain services-based servers and gateways/firewalls.

Re:OpenBSD is very cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605737)

"Most audited"?

OpenBSD use this term "audit" like it actually means something. All major development projects go through development, reviews, and re-reviews. There is nothing special about their "audits". There is no documented process behind them, and no independent party doing the audit, and no results available.

Re:OpenBSD is very cool (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43603227)

Don't forget CARP! [openbsd.org]

Re:OpenBSD is very cool (2)

ThePhilips (752041) | about a year ago | (#43607923)

And another little gem - OpenNTPD [openntpd.org] . Used on several embedded systems. Works like a charm, unlike the whimsical ntpd, which often simply refuses to do its job.

PCC (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#43610941)

How is PCC coming along? Has the project made much headway in making its break from GCC?

Re:PCC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43612343)

pcc was pulled from openbsd code tree ~1.5 years ago

not sure what the plan is now - possibly clang/llvm eventually

Re:PCC (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#43612399)

There's been a fork of OBSD called Bitrig partly due to LLVM/Clang not being a part of it. So I doubt that LLVM/Clang is in their plans the way it is for FBSD. But I would be interested in knowing if it were.

Re:OpenBSD is very cool (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#43612125)

I'm very surprised more has not been done with OpenBSD. If I ran a company of any kind, it would be OpenBSD on the servers and Linux on the desktop. I would trust nothing else on my servers. I've worked with OpenBSD professionally and it's a joy to use an easy, well-documented system.

Why Linux on your desktop if you have OBSD on your servers? You could just as easily go w/ PC-BSD on your desktop/laptops, which would give you a complete BSD environment to work in. But yeah, I'd like to see OBSD be the basis of a firewall/routing OS like pFsense, but w/ IPv6 rather than IPv4 being the focus of expertize.

KDE 3.5????????? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43600985)

Maybe 2007 really will be the year of the Linux desktop!

Re:KDE 3.5????????? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43601083)

Work is being done on importing KDE 4 into the ports tree [marc.info] . Besides that, the Gnome and Xfce ports are quite up to date and work pretty well.

Re:KDE 3.5????????? (1)

armanox (826486) | about a year ago | (#43601195)

Hey - I really liked KDE 3.5. Although I'm surprised to see GNOME 3.6 in there.

Re:KDE 3.5????????? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43604595)

KDE 3.5 was as close to perfect as anything I've ever used. If only the excellently integrated Konqueror rendered pages a bit better so you wouldn't have to use the not so integrated Firefox ... Other than that KDE 3.5 was really good!

Re:KDE 3.5????????? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#43610929)

If they want to use KDE 3.5, they're better off adapting Trinity

Re:KDE 3.5????????? (1)

laffer1 (701823) | about a year ago | (#43604921)

I don't know about OpenBSD, but I can say that it's been much easier to port KDE 3 than KDE 4.x on MidnightBSD. QT4 isn't bad, but a few of the KDE bits are a real hassle. They may have to port a lot of support code first to get it running. I don't think people realize the amount of work it takes to port KDE and GNOME. They are huge.

Re:KDE 3.5????????? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#43610917)

Maybe 2007 really will be the year of the Linux desktop!

This struck me as well. If they can be current w/ GNOME 3.6, why can't they have KDE 4.9, for example?

MP Performance? (2)

inglorion_on_the_net (1965514) | about a year ago | (#43601019)

Glad to see OpenBSD is continuing to push for better security.

Has anybody been keeping tabs on performance, particularly on multicore systems? I'm curious what gains have been made there over recent years. I know that Linux and NetBSD have improved a lot, but what about OpenBSD?

Re:MP Performance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43601223)

Glad to see OpenBSD is continuing to push for better security.

Has anybody been keeping tabs on performance, particularly on multicore systems? I'm curious what gains have been made there over recent years. I know that Linux and NetBSD have improved a lot, but what about OpenBSD?

When I virtualized a multi-core kernel, OpenBSD 5.2 had an upset with X11 but that's all I noticed thus far.

my favorites (5, Informative)

anarcat (306985) | about a year ago | (#43601033)

My favorite improvements:

* OpenSMTPd - can't have too many solid mail servers out there
* OpenSSH 6.2 - new crypto algorithms and other goodies
* pf improvements - sloppy state tracking for ICMP
* relayd and OpenBGPd improvements

now the question is: how long until those trickle down to sister projects like FreeBSD or Debian/kFreeBSD?

Re:my favorites (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43601135)

...
* pf improvements - sloppy state tracking for ICMP ...
how long until those trickle down to sister projects like FreeBSD or Debian/kFreeBSD?

Lol, never I guess:

http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=592

Better coddle those sysadmins when they are doing major version upgrades...

Re:my favorites (2)

Onymous Coward (97719) | about a year ago | (#43604189)

pfSense is a distribution whose whole purpose is simplifying the administration of pf? With another major goal of reliability? What would you expect, then?

Re:my favorites (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a year ago | (#43602209)

Some of this suffers from Good Enough syndrome. Do you really need 5 different mail servers? Is the crypto algorithm underneath SSH the problem with people using SSH?

Great stuff, and I'm sure its technically slick, but its (potentially) a lot of work to migrate this stuff to another platform, so why do it when there are reasonable alternatives?

Re:my favorites (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43602833)

simplicity.

have you ever tried to configure sendmail? try configging opensmtp and see

Re:my favorites (1)

Onymous Coward (97719) | about a year ago | (#43604133)

I should point out that SMTP transport is by nature complicated.

And that's only item #4 out of their goals [opensmtpd.org] . Everything else is pretty much covered.

And what the hell are people doing using Sendmail? Use Postfix or qmail.

Re:my favorites (1)

Lennie (16154) | about a year ago | (#43604851)

They want to replace sendmail in the OpenBSD base install. Complexity of configuration and probably code for auditing is probably the reason.

Thus I think the biggest reason that OpenSMTPd exists is because Postfix doesn't have licence that is compatible with inclusion in the OpenBSD-base install.

Probably OpenSMTPd will be awesome and having more choice might be useful too.

Mail recall capabilities (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#43612231)

I have one question about these alternate e-mail servers. Do any of them come w/ the ability to recall mail? As one might know, in an MS Exchange/Outlook environment, if one has sent an e-mail on Outlook and regrets it after the fact for any reason, be it a typo or whatever, one can try to recall it. If the message has not been opened at the other end, Exchange allows the message to be recalled. Such a feature is sometimes a lifesaver, but I doubt that Sendmail has it. Does anyone know whether any of these alternatives - Postfix, Qmail or OpenSMTPd have it? (Incidentally, how is SMTP a mail server - that's just one part to the e-mail, the other being IMAP/POP)

Re:Mail recall capabilities (1)

dodobh (65811) | about a year ago | (#43618697)

No. They default to the assumption that they may append to mailboxes or send mail to the world, but never delete from it. Deletion is a function of the POP/IMAP server.

Re:my favorites (1)

Lennie (16154) | about a year ago | (#43604775)

pf improvements ? The last import of pf in OpenBSD was years ago.

OpenBGPd has a really, really old port and depends on certain kernel interfaces currently only available on OpenBSD (although they could be ported to FreeBSD).

It will take a long time, I'm afraid. :-(

Production-ready at version 5.3? (1)

reSonans (732669) | about a year ago | (#43601063)

I know software versioning schemes aren't exactly consistent, but isn't 1.0 a tacit milestone for production-ready?

Re:Production-ready at version 5.3? (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#43601099)

It all depends on the versioning scheme.

Re:Production-ready at version 5.3? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43601151)

My guess is that they want to keep the version number identical/similar to the OpenBSD version number.

Re:Production-ready at version 5.3? (1)

WD (96061) | about a year ago | (#43601175)

OpenSMTPD was first introduced for testing with OpenBSD 4.6. OpenSMTPD version 5.3 was released with OpenBSD 5.3. Seems reasonable to me.

Re:Production-ready at version 5.3? (1)

olsmeister (1488789) | about a year ago | (#43601293)

Yes, but the version numbers are actually logarithmic. Thus, version 1.0 is actually released as version 0 and by the time version 5.3 is released, well, you do the math ... it's completely stable.

v1.0 not production ready ... (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about a year ago | (#43601843)

I know software versioning schemes aren't exactly consistent, but isn't 1.0 a tacit milestone for production-ready?

Many of us do not consider v1.0 to be production ready, more often really a public beta. :-)

Re:v1.0 not production ready ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43603541)

If the openbsd team really thought opensmtp was production ready it would be the default in a fresh install

Re:v1.0 not production ready ... (3, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year ago | (#43604321)

OpenBSD is not Ubuntu. Changes are not made because they feel like it.

Re:v1.0 not production ready ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605757)

Err... yes they are. Imbecile.

and they said GNU was communist (2)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#43601079)

Released on May Day, eh? I see what you're up to, OpenBSD. That's a pretty red logo, too.

Re:and they said GNU was communist (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43601113)

That is actually not the logo of OpenBSD but FreeBSD. I don't know why that logo is put there. The OpenBSD logo is more like this [openbsd.org] .

Re:and they said GNU was communist (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#43601219)

Re:and they said GNU was communist (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43602337)

Motherfucker.. will they never relent? Giving us a solid, trustworthy, secure operating system? Getting their DARPA funding cut? Having a record number of moose per square mile?

To hell with Soviet Canuckistan! Bastards.

Pardon me... I'm just going to load up Windows 8 and install Banzai Buddy.

Re:and they said GNU was communist (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43601417)

If you've ever worked with DeRaat, you known why it's mayday...

The earplugs, they do nothing! (1)

RDW (41497) | about a year ago | (#43601129)

And don't forget the release song, "Blade Swimmer."

You know that Voight-Kampf test of yours? Did you ever take that test yourself? Theo?

Re:The earplugs, they do nothing! (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year ago | (#43601515)

Hahahaha, this was great, I didn't know BSD did these little diddies =)

Where is the OpenBSD online community? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43601183)

I was looking into OpenBSD but I couldn't find any online community. Where is it? I was afraid it was a product in serious decline.

(I realize OpenBSD may not be welcoming to noob questions, but there must be someplace it is discussed, hopefully with an archive ...)

Re:Where is the OpenBSD online community? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43601239)

undeadly.org

Re:Where is the OpenBSD online community? (2)

buttfuckinpimpnugget (662332) | about a year ago | (#43601309)

The mailing lists. misc@ tech@ for starters. Go to openbsd.org and sign up, or browse them on http://marc.info/ [marc.info]

Re:Where is the OpenBSD online community? (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#43601341)

You can find links to OpenBSD mail archives at the bottom of this page [openbsd.org] .

Re:Where is the OpenBSD online community? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43601387)

http://www.openbsd.org/mail.html

Re:Where is the OpenBSD online community? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43603899)

OpenBSD is not for noobies or the lazy.

If you have to ask, OpenBSD is not for you. That is by design, the project lead wants it that way. If you can't use Google to answer the questions you have asked, then OpenBSD is not for you. Let me take it one step further than that, if you DIDN'T GOOGLE IT FIRST, then OpenBSD is not for you in any way.

It is not intended for people who expect ANY hand holding as you WILL NOT GET ANY.

Re:Where is the OpenBSD online community? (1)

eudaemon (320983) | about a year ago | (#43604115)

OpenBSD is PVP unix. External attackers or your fellow players can kill you any time. As long as you understand that, it's fine.

Re:Where is the OpenBSD online community? (1)

eudaemon (320983) | about a year ago | (#43604171)

This is why I call OpenBSD PVP UNIX. If you failed to armor up, you will be flamed to death by fellow players. :-)

Re:Where is the OpenBSD online community? (1)

Onymous Coward (97719) | about a year ago | (#43604349)

I can appreciate trying to raise the floor with a dress code or basic code of conduct, but a culture of contempt is actually counterproductive. It results in a "blame culture", which is inherently less secure. And both these negative qualities reduce the viability of the community and stunt its growth and progress. There are other ways to raise the floor.

Re:Where is the OpenBSD online community? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43612393)

Show me the contempt and 'blame culture' on the mailing lists *between* the people that actually *did* google the issue first,
and I might buy in.

But actually the behavior is:

- flame the lazy who are clearly and obviously being lazy
- talk rationally and camly to the rest

you know - that think they used to call 'netiquette'

Re:Where is the OpenBSD online community? (1)

Onymous Coward (97719) | about a year ago | (#43613313)

I don't think it's hard to find examples of Theo being contemptuous outside of handling an indolent noob.

Since both emacs and gcc contain code inside them which permit them to
compile and run on commercial operating systems which are non-free,
you are a slimy hypocrite.

Stallman isn't a noob. He has a different perspective from Theo, obviously. Any reason not to be a gentleman about it?

And, contempt for indolent noobs, as it turns out, is still counterproductive. Because contempt by itself is counterproductive.

Re:Where is the OpenBSD online community? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#43619533)

I do agree that Theo could use some manners, but his content is right - on one hand, RMS doesn't tire of preaching his 'free' ideology, and yet, he doesn't put any restriction on emacs or gcc running on something like Windows or MacOS. If he were consistent, he'd deprive those non-free operating systems of the treasures of gcc and emacs, so that they can run only on 'free' systems

Re:Where is the OpenBSD online community? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#43620107)

I meant contempt, not content. But I do agree w/ Onymous' main assertion - that contempt is counterproductive, and only serves to alienate people who might otherwise be willing to give OBSD a try, if not more

Re:Where is the OpenBSD online community? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605087)

OpenBSD is not for noobies or the lazy.

If you have to ask, OpenBSD is not for you. That is by design, the project lead wants it that way. If you can't use Google to answer the questions you have asked, then OpenBSD is not for you. Let me take it one step further than that, if you DIDN'T GOOGLE IT FIRST, then OpenBSD is not for you in any way.

It is not intended for people who expect ANY hand holding as you WILL NOT GET ANY.

OP here. I did Google it (actually, I duckduckgo'd it) and spent some time looking for resources. I did check out the mailing lists, undeadly.org, openbsdsupport.org. I don't remember what I saw at each, but I remember concluding there wasn't a place with a lot of traffic.

Re:Where is the OpenBSD online community? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605491)

The thing is, the OpenBSD folks have put a huge emphasis on writing good documentation for everything. Something not documented clearly/fully is considered a BUG by the developers.

Because of the work they put into it. They expect you to have read the documentation before coming to them with a question. Not just googling for answers, but reading the actual documentation that comes with the OS. If you can't be bothered to put in enough effort to RTFM, they don't want to deal with you. Seems reasonable.

Re:Where is the OpenBSD online community? (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year ago | (#43605683)

actually, the real request is to read the excellent documentation (compared to say GNU/Linux) first before asking questions in forums.

Re:Where is the OpenBSD online community? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#43612559)

There is an opportunity here. Like Red Hat, the OBSD guys too could work on their own certification course, and have a legion of educators for people who have question. Would probably be a good way to grow.

Otherwise, having a hostile attitude towards people who don't fit their regimented notions of what a perfect learner should be is just going to ensure that OBSD, no matter how good, would continue to languish in the doldrums. Heck, even NetBSD could then overtake them in terms of popularity.

Re:Where is the OpenBSD online community? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43619245)

It's always helpful to get suggestions from people who obviously have spent all of minutes reading the mailing list.

Excellent news. (2)

grub (11606) | about a year ago | (#43601235)

I'm especially happy for npppd and OpenSMTPD. I have them both on running and find them simply excellent. Now that they are 'production worthy', more people can use them without jumping through a few minor hoops.

npppd works very well for getting a VPN working with a stock iOS device.

Protocol correctness? (2)

klapaucjusz (1167407) | about a year ago | (#43601401)

Has anyone checked how correctly OpenSMTPd implements the SMTP protocol? The OpenBSD project has an unfortunate history of caring more about simplicity of implementation than correctness [debian.org] (see also this discussion [slashdot.org] ).

Re:Protocol correctness? (1)

Freedent (84485) | about a year ago | (#43619297)

Your patches gratefully accepted. (But sweet fruitless grudge-holding in the meantime)

Dead Horse! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43601605)

We will keep beating you! Don't worry that all the value left in your carcas has been stolen without compensation by the soulless cult of Apple - just keep plodding on and trying to convince maulnourished college math majors that using you makes them cool. And be sure to mention to everyone you're the one who they develop Apache on! Forget the fact all the cool kids have moved on to nginx or self contained web application servers, of course.

But honestly, I'd pick OpenBSD over a lot of alternatives and it's still a nice toy if not for anythign other than its obscurity wrapped in familiarity. OpenBSD is the Alfa Romeo of the OS world - irregular but well performing, bizzare but attractive, works fantastically when well tuned by a master but otherwise is likely to break very very quickly, and will soak up every spare minute of your weekend in the infinite pursuit of trying to make it work "well" or "better".

Re:Dead Horse! (1)

eudaemon (320983) | about a year ago | (#43601953)

I suppose that depends on what you consider mastery. My home firewall runs BSD. I usually just grab a new disk and do a clean install, and mount the old disk to copy over whatever config files I need. With that approach instead of sysmerge which would actually be faster, I'm back up and on the internet in 1/2 an hour or less. After that I start with packages and again copy over config files, reviewing the files and release notes in case I have to make changes. And frankly to find any languishing TODOs I have forgotten. By this point 99% of my system functionality is restored and I've spent maybe another hour to one and a half hours. Finally I recompile and reinstall whatever is needed from ports. I don't really count that so much against upgrade time, because it's easily scripted and some builds can take a while. After all my machine is just a firewall, it's old and slow and there's no reason to put in a large machine that compiles quickly when I do that maybe once every 6 months. Nothing I described is particularly difficult or even requires more than an average SA's skillset. From my perspective it takes less time to do what I just described than the last time I installed Windows 7 and Office 2010 on a friend's laptop. Actually Windows 7 took no time at all. It was the security patching that took forever.

Re:Dead Horse! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43619179)

You've described my experiences with various Linux distributions very well. Kudos.

I always forget... (1)

Paperweight (865007) | about a year ago | (#43601753)

Can someone remind me which is the good one? OpenBSD or FreeBSD?

Re:I always forget... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43601969)

Both are good. OpenBSD for security, FreeBSD for performance, NetBSD for toasters.

Re:I always forget... (1)

Mike Frett (2811077) | about a year ago | (#43602235)

And PC-BSD for the Desktop. People seem to forget about that one, you know, the one with easy to install Packages (PBIs).

Re:I always forget... (1)

Cherubim1 (2501030) | about a year ago | (#43603147)

If a PBI is not available in AppCafe one can always use ports w/EasyPBI

Re:I always forget... (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43603935)

You think this is unique to PC-BSD? Have you used the others because the summary tells you there are prebuilt binaries for OpenBSD and FreeBSD has packages as well ... As does NetBSD.

I don't use NetBSD, and I don't use OpenBSD packages, but FreeBSD has had packages for at least 10 years, so since before PC-BSD forked ...

Why do people bring up this kind of shit as if its not common to all BSDs?

Re:I always forget... (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#43612619)

PC-BSD ain't a fork of FBSD in the way, that say DragonFly BSD is. It's something that's developed in parallel by a team that's very much a part of the overall FBSD team, except that they are targetted towards desktop usage. So they've focussed on a few things not so important for FBSD, such as the PBI interface. I'd imagine that the next thing they should be working on is Wayland, which is not important for FBSD, but which would be very useful for PC-BSD.

yes! (1)

borkie (2253444) | about a year ago | (#43601861)

This is a truly fabulous operating system. And for the ones wondering about version numbers, OpenBSD increases it by 0.1 for every release. And a new version is released every 6 months. Also, besides the mailing lists, there is a small but pretty capable community at www.daemonforums.org.

The sure seem mad... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43602053)

so far all I see is a bunch of catchy tunes, and there butthurt jealousy of Linux's popularity, meanwhile complaining about how some distros have non-free firmware, and how unfree the GPL, along with some prophesizing about how OpenBSD is going to take over the world. Then some bashing of RMS as a hypocrit.

What they miss is the only reason that either RedHat, or IBM, or SuSE call what they sell "linux" and various distros are vaugely compatible with each other is because of the GPL.

There are plenty of proprietary BSD-based OSs with their code. Mabey if the GPL'd back in the 1990s, people would using "MacBSD" instead of OSX or iOS. I am sorry but the BSD license is self-defeating, and they worked their way to oblivion, despite putting in undeniable hard work.

In the linux sphere, we made the corporations who enter give back. So yes, Linux go the devs and is now the most advanced Free UNIX clone, in part because we have 100x the devs working on it, and more people basing their projects on Linux, because of this.

So cry me a river, you didn't protect what you had, and you lost it.

Re:The sure seem mad... (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43602309)

Or I guess we would have seen MacLinux.

No, GPL does not force companies to use your code. It may only restrict them from using it.

Re:The sure seem mad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43602551)

Or I guess we would have seen MacLinux.

No, GPL does not force companies to use your code. It may only restrict them from using it.

Yup, this is because the GPL is designed to be more open to some than others.

Re:The sure seem mad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43602335)

What do you mean with 'lost it'? OpenBSD has not lost anything.

Re:The sure seem mad... (1, Flamebait)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43604129)

so far all I see is a bunch of catchy tunes, and there butthurt jealousy of Linux's popularity, meanwhile complaining about how some distros have non-free firmware, and how unfree the GPL, along with some prophesizing about how OpenBSD is going to take over the world. Then some bashing of RMS as a hypocrit.

Show me where Theo tells about OBSD taking over the world, I'm fairly positive thats exactly the opposite of his goals. Otherwise, it seems more like your statement is you projecting your own feelings on openbsd. RMS is not a hypocrite, just a fucking douche you're too stupid to recognize as using you to further his own political agenda.

What they miss is the only reason that either RedHat, or IBM, or SuSE call what they sell "linux" and various distros are vaugely compatible with each other is because of the GPL.

What you call 'vaguely' compatible, the rest of us call a joke. Its why no commercial vendors put real effort into targeting Linux, because what you call compatible, real developers call 'a fucking mess with no organization'. Distros BARELY remain compatible with the 'standard linux base', all of them come with random versions of libraries and different sets, in different places, effectively making the only common aspect amoung them to be names like Linux and GPL.

There are plenty of proprietary BSD-based OSs with their code. Mabey if the GPL'd back in the 1990s, people would using "MacBSD" instead of OSX or iOS. I am sorry but the BSD license is self-defeating, and they worked their way to oblivion, despite putting in undeniable hard work.

No, we wouldn't have MacBSD if it was GPL, we'd have something else not compatible at all. BSD did EXACTLY WHAT WAS INTENDED here, it allowed a commercial OS to use a common code base. THIS MEANS COMPATIBILITY. You don't get any more compatible than actually running the exact same code. This is why your shitty little fanboy OS actually can talk to a windows box, because ... everyone ... used .... BSD code ... for networking.

What we have now is ... Mac(h)/BSD ... so basically, we got what you said we would have got with GPL ... without GPL ... BSD also got a metric fuckton of code in return. You pretty much picked 'the example' that is used to disprove your retarded 'BSD doesnt' get contributions back' argument as Apple has given back arguably more than they took in the first place.

The Internet as you know it would not exist if it weren't for BSD. We would most likely still be arguing over which network vendor was the mostest awesomest and still not have systems that talk to each other in a common way. At best there would be the half implemented GPL version that everyone says is fucking awesomer than awesome ... but no one uses but a handful of geeks because some moron thinks that using vi to edit config files is acceptable, and god forbid how evil it is for a company to use your code without you immediately getting access to all of their work as well. Thats pretty fucking hypocritical. You call it 'free', you wouldn't knwo free if it hit you in the ass.

In the linux sphere, we made the corporations who enter give back. So yes, Linux go the devs and is now the most advanced Free UNIX clone, in part because we have 100x the devs working on it, and more people basing their projects on Linux, because of this.

No, you didn't. You don't even realize it. Its not the most advanced on several levels, ZFS being a prime example but certainly not the only example. How advanced can you be when you have a political ideology making decisions which should be based on technical merit? It IS NOT a 'free' UNIX clone, you don't even know what the word means. UNIX is a specification that Linux does not meet. It is not a clone. It doesn't work that way. You do not get to pretend to be UNIX, you are not UNIX. If you want your OS to pretend to be UNIX than it needs to act like it. Windows is literally more complaint with the UNIX specification than Linux so just fucking stop.

I don't care if you run Linux or prefer the GPL, everyone is entitled to their beliefs and opinions and the world is a better place because we all have different ideas, but lets base those ideas on facts and actual data, not just some random shit that someone made up and than told you so you keep repeating it because you're too fucking lazy to actually have any idea what you're spewing.

If you don't know, thats fine, just keep your fucking mouth shut about it.

Re:The sure seem mad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605449)

i think i'll log in to mod this guy up

Unix certifications of Linux, BSD (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#43612989)

I largely agree w/ the rest of what you wrote, but to claim that Linux does not meet the Unix specification begs for citations. It's true that Linux has never been lab tested to see whether it does or not, and for that matter, neither have the BSDs. OS-X has been tested and found to pass, so it's a good supposition that FBSD would pass as well. But to claim that Linux would fail begs for evidence. Chances are that Linux has not been put thru those tests b'cos it costs money - money that nobody would be willing to cough up - not Red Hat, not Canonical, not Linux Foundation... After all, if they did meet it, what would it get them?

Re:The sure seem mad... (1)

Lennie (16154) | about a year ago | (#43604895)

Apple actually does give back.

Have a look at their work on WebKit and LLVM.

Warning re samba (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43604131)

I can't fucking install samba on 5.3. It moans about not having a bunch of X (yes, X for some bizarre reason) junk installed. What a nuisance.

Re:Warning re samba (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43607291)

You might want to read this [openbsd.org] .

Install xbase53.tgz (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43607951)

Samba requires xbase53.tgz (not sure why but yeah). Go to your root directory, and, as root, retrieve xbase53.tgz (you don't need the other X packages, just xbase) from your friendly local mirror. Then tar fzx xbase53.tgz to install.

Then pkg_add samba as normal. That should fix it.

Re:Warning re samba (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43619209)

Way to read the documentation, retard.

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>