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 3.0 Release, Interview with Theo

michael posted more than 12 years ago | from the wuftpd-not-installed-by-default dept.

BSD 307

mvw writes: "Here is an interview with OpenBSD's Theo de Raadt. Interesting is his comment on Soft Updates and the comparison to the rivaling Journaling file systems technology. Further he links to a very interesting paper by some Soft Updates researchers." And although OpenBSD 3.0 has an "official" release date of December 1 for whatever reason, it seems to be available by FTP or CD already. Lots of changes since 2.9.

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

One more first post for the Queen of Spain! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632087)

Man, I really hope she gets it this time. She'd be heartbroken if she didn't.

Re:One more first post for the Queen of Spain! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632156)

No. She wouldn't, punk.

John Ashcroft confirms.. *BSD is dying (-1, Troll)

BSD is dying (540007) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632486)

John Ashcroft now confirms: *BSD is dying

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when recently IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest 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 further exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] [amdest.com] 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.

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 hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dead

As much as I (1)

nll8802 (536577) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632097)

As much as I accidently hit the stupid reset button on the front of my computer a Journaling file system would be great. I dont have any exp. with Bsd and was wondering How is the selection of applications for BSD? I dont need alot, A console text editor (Preferably with syntax highlighting), a Graphical Web Browser, an Mp3 player. That is about all I really use on a regular basis.

Re:As much as I (2)

cmowire (254489) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632124)

Most things that compile for Linux will work under BSD.

So vim and emacs work, mozilla works, and whatever MP3 player you want will work.

Re:As much as I (-1)

Fecal Troll Matter (445929) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632143)

Linux sucks.
BSD blows.
Why not use Windows? It's industry standard, stable, and has superior solitaire functions.

Re:As much as I (-1)

cyborg_monkey (150790) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632221)

Werd, homeslice.

cyborg_monkey confirms.. *BSD is dying (-1, Troll)

BSD is dying (540007) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632543)

cybord_monkey now confirms: *BSD is dying

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when recently IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest 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 further exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] [amdest.com] 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.

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 hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dead

Re:As much as I (0, Offtopic)

gazbo (517111) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632230)

So who'd you choose? Brittney Cleary or the Mary-Kate/Ashley tag-team?

Re:As much as I (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632483)

Mary-Kate's ultraseksi, but Ashley looks like her face got kicked in by an elephant.

Re:As much as I (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632537)

come now, they both look the same. tell me you wouldn't want to doggystyle one of them while getting a 'job from the other.

mozilla not so happy at the moment (1)

jslag (21657) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632353)

mozilla works


Under OpenBSD, at least, mozilla doesn't work, and never really has. Somebody's working on it. Konqueror apparently works just fine.

Re:mozilla not so happy at the moment (2)

cmowire (254489) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632498)

Ooops.

If you check Mozilla Releases [mozilla.org] , you will find releases for Free and Net BSD builds, but no OpenBSD builds.

Re:As much as I (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632175)

I think you will find the FreeBSD ports collection far superior to any package management system used by Linux. Further, the FreeBSD filesystem with softupdates blows away both Linux's journaling filesystems and the unsafe ext2 in terms of performance, reliability, and safety.

Re:As much as I (1)

Arandir (19206) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632644)

But this topic is about *OpenBSD*.

Re:As much as I (5, Funny)

^chuck^ (131444) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632259)

sigh, its been well explained that you don't need a journaling filesystem to be safe with transfering data to the harddrive. In fact, if you're clever enough, you can even get away safely writing without having to hold the entire system up (hence, softupdates). If you actually look through the interview, you'll find Theo actually pointing you to resources that quite seriously make this point (journaling not needed).
take a look at this [theaimsgroup.com]
it can be frustrating being right, all journaling really seems to do is attempt to fix the problems ext2fs has by laying another piece of code on top of it, instead of fixing the primary problem, that is that ext2 is broken as far as the BSD hackers are concerned.
Is waiting for fsck to finish really that much of a problem for you?

Re:As much as I (4, Funny)

greygent (523713) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632514)

> Is waiting for fsck to finish really that much of a problem for you?

Yes, actually, when you're dealing with servers with 100's of gigs.

Re:As much as I (1)

^chuck^ (131444) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632564)

Once again, easily solvable. Partition. Partition well. No, I do not run servers of that magnitude, as you can probably tell perusing my own site [lemure.net] . But... I have crashed openbsd due to my own eniptude (would rather call it curiosity), and fsck will not spend time on partitions that are clean (ie partitions that were not having data being written to at the time of the crash).

Or at least thats how I remember it... Please correct me if im wrong (it was so long ago ;-) ).

Re:As much as I (2)

bluGill (862) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632277)

There is very little that linux runs that won't run on *BSD. Those that won't run are most likely baddly written programs that you don't want on your comptuer anyway, if you need those features write a new program without all the bugs. The exceptions are there might be a few closed soruce apps which don't work right in linux emulation (most of them work), programs which deal directly with the kernel on a low level (which should not be portable, though there should be an equivelent for your OS), and programs that reqire hardware or hardware access. (Wine for instance requires user access to LDT, whatever that is, which isn't enabled, in this case easy to enable, though there might be others)

By and large though a program that runs on linux that won't compile and run for *bsd is not a program you should allow on linux. Any programer who can't write portable code, has probably made a lot of other stupid errors what will bite you. Be careful to seperate unportable code from portable code that hasn't been ported yet. A program that only runs on one OS is likely the former and you shouldn't touch it, while a program that runs on several OSes but hasn't been ported to yours could be well written and just in need of minor adjustments to work right.

Re:As much as I (1)

ckuhtz (87644) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632345)

You might want to look into the /usr/ports tree for starters. It's all there. It's a no brainer. Start your reading at one of the BSD portals and you'll find all you're looking for.

It's really a non-issue.

PS: Plus, FreeBSD has a really decent Linux emulation which works around all cases where you can't find the native stuff for some reason (proprietary vendor binaries etc).

Re:As much as I (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632415)

Well I think filesystems are overrated. I have absolutely no need for 'em. Then again, I'm from an advanced civilization 300 light years from your planet. Eventually you'll understand why text editors, web browsers, mp3 players and, yes, filesystems are completely worthless.

Oh, and you'll love the optical nerve implants.

well duh! (0)

ozzmosis (99513) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632100)

Sure the CD's are ready!
They have to make them before they can ship them on December 1st.

First foot fetish post. (-1)

Fecal Troll Matter (445929) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632102)

What. The. Fuck. [tyflas.org]

Re:First foot fetish post. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632539)

Oh sure, and no password either, huh? You useless bastord.

bsd is dead (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632106)

first post biotch and bsd is more dead than my sex life

Re:bsd is dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632394)

bsd is more dead than my sex life

for something to be dead it must first have lived. since your sex life is undoubtedly non-existent, it never lived and therefore could not die, or be dead. therefore i would argue that your sex life is more dead than bsd.

This is a very good thing! (3, Informative)

InterruptDescriptorT (531083) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632107)

SECURITY FIX: fix buffer overflow reading queue file in lpd

For those running OpenBSD, especially as a gateway/firewall/NAT box, this is an important fix. I am running 2.9 with this patch added, and my snort [snort.org] logs tell me (judging from the number of attempts) that this exploit is a fairly commonly tried one. In November alone, there were at least 30 lpd overflow attempts on my machine. Granted, not most people have lpd open to the world, but I can imagine a few people might want to do remote printing from work, etc.

first post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632110)

yay! :-p

Re:first post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632133)

Ack guess not...need a faster internet connection DAMMIT! @home desrves to go out of business.

fuck first posts (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632114)

come on already. that shit is so lame!

E-N-O-U-G-H A-L-R-E-A-D-Y!

Re:fuck first posts (-1)

Fecal Troll Matter (445929) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632159)

First post.

Re:fuck first posts (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632164)

You're just upset because the foot fetish wasnt first

Re:fuck first posts (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632442)

how about: LAST POST BYTCH
suck me, ho.

w00t

-ac

FP in the name of THEO! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632115)

.....Woah, looky mah, IM ON SLASHDOT!

early post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632117)

I am so elite, thank you

Diapers rule!!!

/././././.Slashdot/./././././. (-1)

Fecal Troll Matter (445929) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632126)

I am homogenized, ultra-pasteurized, and calcium fortified. Drink me!

Fixes (3, Informative)

jeriqo (530691) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632138)

Actually, OpenBSD 3.0 was available for download since nov 25th, and a few patches (security fixes) are already available.
Here is the list: http://www.openbsd.org/errata.html [openbsd.org]

Don't forget to update to OpenSSH 3.0.1

-J

Release Date (3, Interesting)

Accipiter (8228) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632139)

And although OpenBSD 3.0 has an "official" release date of December 1 for whatever reason, it seems to be available by FTP or CD already.

Probably because they want to avoid a fiasco like the last tremendous release mess that michael caused [slashdot.org] .

It's not uncommon for "official" releases to be after the initial release. It's like when a large department store has a "GRAND OPENING". In many cases, the GRAND OPENING is about a week after the store actually opens. Or if the store opens during the week, the GRAND OPENING will be on that weekend.

Re:Release Date (1, Offtopic)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632311)

Does anyone have a mirror of the GET-A-CLUE-SLASHDOT.TXT?

And I see that yet again, criticism of slashdot is modded into oblivion.

GET_A_CLUE_SLASHDOT.TXT (2)

Accipiter (8228) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632446)

Here's the text from that file:

Slackware 7.2 is NOT released.

Is this in the slackware-current, or slackware-7.2 directory?

Looks like slackware-current to me.

Wake up, do some REAL reporting (like, ask someone on our team), and stop trying to get "fp!".

...should be about a month for the actual release.

- Pat

(I wish I could find the reply to michael's ascertation of it being a beta, aptly named "THIS_IS_NOT_A_BETA_EITHER.TXT, but that seems to have been lost in the sands of time.)

The origin of OpenBSD (5, Informative)

Gopher (24294) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632153)

As I sit here waiting for my copy of OpenBSD 3.0 to arrive, I've been reading the exchange of emails between Theo and the NetBSD core team, which is a history of how OpenBSD came to be.

If you haven't read them before, it's quite a read, and a good lesson of how personal politics can fragment a collaborative project.

Here's the link: http://zeus.theos.com/deraadt/coremail [theos.com]

Re:The origin of OpenBSD (4, Insightful)

Syberghost (10557) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632322)

What was amazing to me about them is the fact that Theo proudly links to them as proof that he was being entirely reasonable and they were being discriminatory, but the emails show quite clearly that he was completely unwilling to make a simple promise not to be an asshole after having demonstrated a history of pissing people off.

He's got a right to be an asshole, and god knows I'm the pot calling the kettle black, but to link to those emails and think they provide vindication is heavily disconnected from reality.

Re:The origin of OpenBSD (3)

rho (6063) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632477)

I think Theo's abrasive nature is just that--his nature. He isn't willing to change his way of dealing with people.

Often I'll wish people would just simply way what they think, with no prevarication; and when somebody (like Theo) does exactly that, I get squeamish all of a sudden. "Ooh, I can't believe he said that..."

Theo has a habit of speaking his mind. Dealing with him is probably a chore, but a worthwhile one.

Re:The origin of OpenBSD (2)

Oztun (111934) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632520)

Well I guess it's lucky for him he came up with OpenBSD. Otherwise it sounds like he would just be another asshole to hate.

I run OpenBSD and I'm not trying to put Theo down in any way. I'm only making an observation off of what I have been reading.

WOW the Ego has landed.... (2)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632365)


Pretty impressive reading. It reads as a bunch of guys on the NetBSD front being pretty reasonable and just wanting him to stop behaving like a prat. His response is to throw his toys out the pram and storm off in a huff.

Full credit to him for getting this sort of stuff done, but I hope he has grown up since then.

Re:WOW the Ego has landed.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632503)

Ted the Rat will never grow up.

Sounds like Linux (1)

Zog (12506) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632190)

Poof! the old vm disappears

Why 1st December ... (1)

makapuf (412290) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632208)

I think it is an established habits that releases happen on 1st Dec and 1 June every year.

On the plus side, you don't have to answer to the question "when will be the next release" ...

Re:Why 1st December ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632388)

You don't work with same people I work with! You could send e-mails and post banners until the cows came home ("Releases on June 1 and Dec 1"). And there would still be a flock of idiot developers that would be confused.

Honestly, don't they teach these kids anything in college these days? They all seem to think that the IDE is supposed to do all the thinking for them.

MandrakeBSD? (5, Insightful)

timothy (36799) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632253)

a) Theo and company (good company) don't need or seek new users just to be popular. They like doing what they do -- I know that. Don't take what I'm about to say as marketing advice to them, so much as a pleasant wish. It doesn't impose an obligation or demand on the OpenBSD guys, and I know it. Still ...

b) I'm surprised (not to say hurt, disappointed and disconsolate) that no one (am I wrong?) has come out with the equivalent of Mandrake to at least one of the BSDs -- and by equivalent I mean in a certain superficial but important way: user-friendly, pretty install, emphasis on user experience, intelligibility.

c) Really, I'm just talking about the install. Something with some graphical flair, built-in help system for new users, and a game or two, or a little slideshow, or some interesting history text files, *something* built in to play while slow parts of the install proceed. No accounting for taste, but I think there are a lot of good graphic artists (all the Ximian stuff, for instance, and many great KDE examples) working in the world of free software. (Hey, I also like the BSD art, so obviously I am open for attack by the art critics;)).

I name Mandrake as my prototype here, just because I happen to like their stuff -- RH also makes a pretty install, not quite as cute, and so do several other distros. But Mandrake is in Walmart, which suits my example ("Walmart: making things accessable to the masses")

Cheers,

Tim

Re:MandrakeBSD? (1)

FatRatBastard (7583) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632300)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

I think if the unix trend continues and Microsoft (/.'s favorite punchingbag) wants to dip their toe into the market they may do exactly as you say.

They have a BSD licenced code base to build off, can claim it's "Linux compatible" and would be able to say its one of the safest OS cores around. Make it a little pretty, make some changes to intergrate their products and they're in business.

Pie in the sky thinking of course, but I wouldn't doubt if there's a skunkworks somewhere in Redmond playing around with one of the BSDs in such a fashion, just in (the one in a billion) case.

Re:MandrakeBSD? (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632349)

But Windows NT is *kinda* that deal. Granted it is not OpenBSD based, but the NT kinda rose from the ashes of VMS. Not linux compatible, but still a sort of *nix aimed directly at competitors.

ms bsd skunkworks (1)

timothy (36799) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632402)

I think you have a good point on that -- BSD License (I'm not about to argue what form of license is the One True Sense of Freedom) would allow just that. I think it would be great if MS came out with an OBSD based OS -- good competition for other OSes ;) And if, as you say, they tout it also as Linux Compatible, then the embrace phase of the dance at least would be good for nearly any *nixish OS. (Then comes extend, extinguish, etc, but ... that's another issue.)

If they make good, high-quality software, that part is good. Bad, intrusive, petty licensing issues are still annoying and a good reason to avoid MS software, but any good stuff they make is still good stuff.

timothy

Re:MandrakeBSD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632327)

I'm surprised (not to say hurt, disappointed and disconsolate) that no one (am I wrong?) has come out with the equivalent of Mandrake to at least one of the BSDs

What about Apple's Mac OS X?

Re:MandrakeBSD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632522)

That only runs on Apple's branded hardware.

I hope I answered the questions sufficently.

Re:MandrakeBSD? (1)

dragonfly_blue (101697) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632362)

"Something with some graphical flair, built-in help system for new users, and a game or two, or a little slideshow, or some interesting history text files, *something* built in to play while slow parts of the install proceed. "


Maybe that's the problem; it takes less than ten minutes to install OpenBSD on a new system off CD-ROM. Not even enough time for a quick game of Tetris, a la certain versions of Linux *cough caldera *. Or did you mean during an ftp install?


Honestly, if you think that BSD's biggest "problem" is a lack of fancy graphics during the installation, well... er, all right; I can't argue a matter of taste I guess. :-)

Re:MandrakeBSD? (3, Insightful)

wiredog (43288) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632380)

Why? Mandrake is aimed straight at the Desktop. RedHat aims at Windows NT users. The BSD's aim at unix sysadmins who Know What They Are Doing. Open/Free/Net don't need a User Friendly graphical install interface because their current interface is friendly to the users they aim at.

Re:MandrakeBSD? (2)

Syberghost (10557) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632460)

Open/Free/Net don't need a User Friendly graphical install interface because their current interface is friendly to the users they aim at.

And yet, the other OSes that aim at those same users, such as Solaris, AIX, and HP/UX, do have GUI installs.

because things change :) (1)

timothy (36799) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632571)

wiredog wrote: " Why? Mandrake is aimed straight at the Desktop. RedHat aims at Windows NT users. The BSD's aim at unix sysadmins who Know What They Are Doing. Open/Free/Net don't need a User Friendly graphical install interface because their current interface is friendly to the users they aim at."

OK. You're right, and that's what I tried to say in the first place -- they don't *need* to do anything, really, this is just an idea I've been wondering about for a while. Then again, no one needs to eat anything besides what they've eaten before. To me, that's an unconvincing argument against not trying new things ... conservativism has its merits, but there are drawbacks, too. "As it was, so shall it ever be"?

Needs are relative and context-dependent. Someone who wanted to use an ultra-secure OS as the basis of a turn-key retail or data-entry system, for instance, might want the good things about OpenBSD, but not the learning curve. "Take it or leave it" is one answer to this, but I see no reason for it to be the only answer.

Sure, the BSDs are (currently) well suited only for people who are used to UNIX, know their way around shells, etc (though there are some good intro books, which would probably turn anyone who's pretty computer literate into a moderate user in not too long a time) -- but there's really nothing inherent that says they have to be. (And a nice counterexample in the case of OS X, too.)

The reason I would like to see this is because I think it's good to have a crowded, robust OS marketplace. Like my comment said, my wish isn't a demand on BSD developers or anyone else; I'm surprised, though, that an ultra-friendly version of at least one of the BSDs hasn't already emerged, but it takes some lucky intersections of interest, ability, time and money which aren't inevitable, only possible.

cheers,

timothy

Re:MandrakeBSD? (2)

DrXym (126579) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632608)

That's a funny attitude to take. An install with an graphics mode would do much to dispell the image of BSD as a niche OS. And seeing as both FreeBSD and OpenBSD are commercial products, one would think that their repective owners would be keen to broaden their appeal.


Besides, adding GUI doesn't necessarily represent a "dumbing down" of the product. The installer can still ask the same questions, but in a more user friendly manner.

Status of the pf packet filter? (1)

Rushuru (135939) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632262)

What is the status of pf as of now?

Is it stable, secure, and feature complete or is it recommended to install ipf from other sources?

Re:Status of the pf packet filter? (2)

Zach Garner (74342) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632559)

Read the interview. PF has everything IPF (plus more) has already.

This whole article is moot. (-1, Troll)

Exmet Paff Daxx (535601) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632264)

*BSD is dying.

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when last month IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest 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 further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin 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.

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 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 hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Re:This whole article is moot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632324)

For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

This is going to come as quite a shock to my laptop, which runs FreeBSD 4.2 with Gnome and Enlightenment just peachily (peachily? there I said it twice). It will also astound all those people in the security community who would never think of running a firewall other than OpenBSD. Dying? Dead? If *BSD is dead, surely IRIX is next. Then Solaris. In fact, if it requires more than three clicks and a ctrl-alt-del to install, we just may as well bag it because competent administrators just don't exist for it. Wait - maybe that was just flamebait and I bit. Oh well.

Re:This whole article is moot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632545)

It will also astound all those people in the security community who would never think of running a firewall other than OpenBSD.

We need more than rumors and hearsay. Who is this 'security community.'

If it's just a bunch of guys who hang out on Usenet don't bother replying.

SLACKERS! (1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632361)

You trolls are slacking off! It took you almost 30 minutes to post the *BSD is dead troll on a blatantly obvious BSD article!

Better start beefing your trolls up. You're gonna get overrun by a buncha girly geeks!

-DFW : Jamie banned.

Re:This whole article is moot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632425)

You dum. I admin over 500 *bsd boxes myself. Mostly FreeBSD and firewalls as OpenBSD. We've done in house speed tests and linux just blows for us. I'm not in development but FreeBSD just hauls, we had over 200 linux boxes but so many headaches I refuse to allow it back into the office (cept for user computers).

I bet you tell people to use MS products also ;-)

Re:This whole article is moot. (0, Offtopic)

bitty (91794) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632549)

Okay troll, I'll bite.

Try pulling your head out of your ass before spouting off next time. Usenet posts don't prove squat. Have you ever even thought to look at the archives of the various *non-usenet* mailing lists?

And Netcraft, they only talk about servers running web sites. My firewalls don't run websites, my email server doesn't run a web site, my print server doesn't run a web site, my home computer doesn't run a web site...

Yes, by all means, let's keep to the facts.

Re:This whole article is moot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632584)

you fscking moron! it is a trooll full of b.s. facts. it's not supposed to make sense or be true. it's just supposed to piss you off! you fell for it

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA HA

don't give in to your hate. fear leads to anger anger leads to hate and hate leads to frist prost!

w00t

-ac

Where was that again? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632281)

Jeremy Andrews lives in South Florida, in the US.

You sure? Florida in the United States? Well I'll be damned. South Florida too? Get outta here.

Re:Where was that again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632319)

It's nice to see a writer not automatically assuming people know where Florida is -- not all his readers will be in the United States. But I guess you're just being a typical ignorant American?

Re:Where was that again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632421)

>But I guess you're just being a typical ignorant American?

Not like you're stereotyping or anything. Wouldn't want to generalize, seeing as how enlightend you are.

Re:Where was that again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632428)

if you knew thing one about geography you would know where florida is. and south florida in particular is quite an international place - people from all countries live here. yes - i am in s florida. no i have not met jeremy. ask your average afghan where disney world is - you think they won't know? moron

Re:Where was that again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632534)

America needs to be emasculated. Cut off the Florida penis!

3.0 already? (1)

Andreas(R) (448328) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632303)

I though they had just released 2.5 ?
Code at the speed of light!

Re:3.0 already? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632456)

2.5 was released in May '99. Missed a couple releases over the last 3 1/2 years.

Interested... (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632309)

I'm interested in running OpenBSD for my NAT gateway, though I'm left with a lingering issue..
Does OpenBSD include any support for decent irc connection tracking like what is available in iptables for linux? I have people behind the gateway that use DCC within IRC, and without good connection tracking, I'm not sure how to go about securely allowing one or more people to use IRC and have DCC work.
Everything else I plan on using this system for (software RAID, NIS+, samba PDC and fileserver, NFS) seems to be fine, but this one little nitpick of mine may keep me off of OpenBSD.
Also, how is the raid implementation as far as moving the array from one openbsd install to another, and is there any semblance of lvm there? The volume management stuff w/ resizable partitions would be nice, but by no means necessary..

it works great (-1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632445)

well at least version 2.9 did, dcc transfers worked both ways through NAT. 3.0 should no problems either. Personally I think ipptables/ipfwadm/ipmasq or whatever they call it this week is a piece of shit compared to IPF.

softupdates new? (1)

ckuhtz (87644) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632328)

The blurb on /. home makes it sound like SoftUpdates are something new, which is just being introduced. That stuff's been around for a bunch of years now.

Ignorance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632454)

From the USENIX article:

[24] McKusick, M.K., Ganger, G., "Soft Updates: A Technique for Eliminating Most Synchronous Writes in the Fast Filesystem," Proceedings of the 1999 Freenix track of the USENIX Technical Conference, pp. 1-17. Jun. 1999.

This publication is from mid 1999. If my memory serves right, SUN paid McKusick for part of the work. (Anyone knows if Soft Updates went into Solaris?)

In the interview Theo complains about ignorance from the Linux camp regarding Soft Updates. Indeed we rather read about ReiserFS vs. extfs3 battles there. It would be insightful, if one of the Linux fs experts could give his opinion on the issue.

*BSD is dead (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632341)

Netcrft now confirms: *BSD is dying

Yet another crppling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when recently IDC confrmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest 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 further exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in th recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] 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.

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 hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dead

Re:*BSD is dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632382)

You are wrong!

I have 34 friends who use BSD on a regular basis. I am not a popular man. So there.

Re:*BSD is dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632650)

Are you a popular woman?

pf : an excellent packet filter (5, Informative)

chrysalis (50680) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632383)

The big new feature in OpenBSD 3.0 is pf.
  • Interesting stuff in pf over ipf : the configuration file accepts a very similar syntax, but with very handy shortcuts, especially expansion. For instance you can write { pop,smtp,imap } in a rule to specify a list of ports, instead of creating multiple rules. It also accepts macro substitutions. You can easily write very clean configuration files.
  • Interesting stuff in pf over ipfw/ipfiler/iptables :
    • scrub : just give an interface name, and pf will "normalize" everything coming to this interface. Packets will get cleaned up and reconstructed : your local network will only see clean packets, nothing that could be dangerous for badly written IP stacks.
    • tcp state modulation : this feature dynamically remaps tcp sequence numbers, to give the excellent entropy of OpenBSD stack to all your traffic. It means that servers running Windows, badly configured Solaris or older FreeBSD versions can be protected from session hijacking, even through their stack has weak sequence randomization.

pf seems to be very stable so far. Just don't forget to apply the related errata if you're planning to use IPv6.
Another great feature of OpenBSD 3.0 regarding network filtering/routing is the integration of AltQ, that brings quality of service to your IP traffic. It basically has the same (but very flexible and efficient) algorithms and class system that Linux has. But it's very nice to see it in OpenBSD.

The failure of *BSD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632387)

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

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

file systems (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632413)

could somebody explain, or point me to a site that explains, diferent filesystems. perferable at a 5,000 foot perspective. I want to know about them, and there advantages/disadvantages but I own't be coding them. I would like to make a informed decsion in this matter.
Thank you.

"Don't like my spelling? blame a teacher"

Re:file systems (5, Informative)

mvw (2916) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632589)

Some links:

OpenBSD leader Theo admits... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632432)

*BSD is dying

(rimshot)

Goatse man confirms.. *BSD is dying (-1, Troll)

BSD is dying (540007) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632529)

Goatse man [goatse.cx] now confirms: *BSD is dying

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when recently IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest 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 further exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] [amdest.com] 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.

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 hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dead

ISO download (5, Informative)

Syberghost (10557) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632436)

As Theo says himself in his interview, people who don't like his model of selling the ISOs are free to make their own. This will hopefully quiet the stupidity that usually follows this announcement:

As usual, ISO images here [zedz.net] .

Re:ISO download (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632555)

Can't we just download images of the 'official' ISOs off Freenet?

Rob Malda Confirms.. *BSD is dying (-1, Flamebait)

BSD is dying (540007) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632466)

Rob Malda now confirms: *BSD is dying

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when recently IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest 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 further exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] [amdest.com] 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.

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 hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dead

Theo is... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632468)

an ass. Hate to say it, but from the inception of the project, he has been an ass. And read the interview, he is so cocky and obviously harbors animosity toward the NetBSD project. When asked if anything major changed, he talked about how they only looked at NetBSDs sparc64 code, integrated it, and now support more models than them, and while that may be *huge* for other projects, to them it's just minor tweaks...
I'm sorry, OpenBSD is cool and well done, but Theo has one of the *worst* attitudes out there... But at least he is honest and straightforward... Kinda like Jesse Hemls in that sense..

I'm waitting on our 3 OpenBSD CDs (3)

alexhmit01 (104757) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632487)

We use OpenBSD exclusively for our web servers. We moved our database servers from OpenBSD to Linux. I look foward to migrating our systems (some 2.8, some 2.9, one that I broke trying to do a fancy 2.8->2.9 upgrade...) when our CDs arrived. We figured that we use OpenBSD a lot, owning a bunch of CDs was worth it. Alas, it is is still cheaper than the copies of RedHat that we pick up.

OpenBSD has a real problem that I was never able to resolve, this makes it worthless for a database server. The machine is quite "efficient" with memory, which let it run with very little memory. However, with a lot of memory (our db servers normally have 1.5GB -> 2GB, I LIKE giving PostgreSQL lots of buffers and sortmem) there is little documentation on tweaking the system. I even contacted the developers in charge of the SysV memory support, etc., and they thought I hit the crack rock a little to hard.

For web servers, however, I'm quite comfortable with our OpenBSD servers sitting open on the Internet. I'm terrified of a RedHat box not being hidden. As a result, I keep the database nice and hidden.

Linux blows OpenBSD's performance away. This is a matter of Linux focusing on performance. However, for web servers (that for us just run PHP, mod_rewrite, and some other toys) I don't care... When I need more web serving power, I buy another web server for $2K. Having SSL built in to Apache is nice, and the ports is too fucking slick.

BTW: OpenBSD seems to run quite nicely on my Penguin Computing 1U servers... :)

Alex

I expect to keep our production servers on 2.9 for 2-3 months, but move development to 3.0.

Re:I'm waitting on our 3 OpenBSD CDs (1)

jslag (21657) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632562)

there is little documentation on tweaking the system.


Did you try the postgresql docs [postgresql.org] ?

FreeBSD, OpenBSD


The options SYSVSHM and SYSVSEM need to be enabled when the kernel is compiled. (They are by default.) The maximum size of shared memory is determined by the option SHMMAXPGS (in pages). The following shows an example of how to set the various parameters:

options SYSVSHM
options SHMMAXPGS=4096
options SHMSEG=256
options SYSVSEM
options SEMMNI=256
options SEMMNS=512
options SEMMNU=256
options SEMMAP=256



Linux blows OpenBSD's performance away.
When you're done reading the postgresql docs, try the openbsd faq [openbsd.org]

When I installed... (0)

andersbd (530590) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632500)

OpenBSD last (&first) time, the group "wheel" was created (for those users who are to be allowed to su to root).

I've been wondering since: what's the meaning and origin of the use of the word "wheel" here (there?) ?

Looking to get into using BSD (1, Offtopic)

browser_war_pow (100778) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632501)

I'm interested in getting started with a BSD, but which one I should use I don't know. I'm not that afraid of having to configure hardware myself, but I'd prefer something that makes a reasonable attempt to do that for me.

So.....
1. Which is the easiest/best to get started with?
2. Which has the best documentation
3. Do any of them have compatability with Linux configuration tools like Kudzu and HardDrake?
4. Which one supports the most x86 hardware

VA Software confirms.. *BSD is dying (-1, Flamebait)

BSD is dying (540007) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632509)

VA Software now confirms: *BSD is dying

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when recently IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest 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 further exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] [amdest.com] 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.

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 hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dead

*BSD is dying (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2632557)

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld confirms: the *BSD are dying

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when recently IDC confrmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest 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 further exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in th recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] 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.

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 hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dead

Changelog /.ed (0, Troll)

necrognome (236545) | more than 12 years ago | (#2632640)

"This page cannot be displayed." BSD must be dead.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?