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!

End Of OpenBSD 3.0-STABLE Branch - Upgrade To 3.2

Hemos posted more than 11 years ago | from the movin'-on-up dept.

BSD 72

jukal writes "From here: "Hello folks, Due to the upcoming release of OpenBSD 3.2, the 3.0-STABLE branch will be out of regular maintainance starting december 1st. There will be NO MORE fixes commited to this branch after this day. People relying on 3.0-STABLE (or older releases even) are strongly advised to upgrade to a more recent release (preferrably 3.2 as it becomes available) as soon as possible. Thanks for reading, Miod" Download from your preferred FTP mirror."

cancel ×

72 comments

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

Latest News (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4401848)

*BSD is dying

buy it (5, Insightful)

raffe (28595) | more than 11 years ago | (#4401858)

No, dont download it. Buy it! [openbsd.org] Support the brave people how work hard to get openbsd to work!

Re:buy it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4405291)

why would I want to support Theo de Raadt?

Re:buy it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4406740)

or his crack habit?

Re:buy it (1)

qnonsense (12235) | more than 11 years ago | (#4407056)

As far as I know, Theo doesn't do crack. Justin Frankel (of Winamp/Nullsoft fame) on the other hand...

*BSD is dying (SP) (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4401860)

It is official; Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dying

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

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] [amazingkreskin.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. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

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

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

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

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

Fragmented *Linux-Distro*.* (x 10,000) is dying (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4401933)

Linux faces a bleak future. In fact there may be no future at all for Linux because Linux is dying. Things are looking very bad for Linux. As many of us are already aware, Linux continues to lose market share; red ink flows like a river of blood. Slackware Linux is perhaps the most in endangered. Let's look at the numbers.

MandrakeSoft's CEO Henri Poole states that there are 70000 users of Linux-Mandrake. How many users of Debian GNU/Linux are there? Let's see. The number of Linux-Mandrake versus GNU/Linux posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. The refore there are about 70000/5 = 14000 GNU/Linux users. Slackware posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of GNU/Linux posts. Therefore there are about 7000 users of Slackware. A recent article put RedHat Linux at about 80 percent of the Linux market. Therefore there are (70000+14000+7000)*4 = 364000 RedHat Linux users. This is consistent with the number of RedHat Linux Usenet posts.

Now Linux companies are consolidating, overhauling their business plans, laying off staff, scaling back expansion plans and pushing back profitability schedules. "It would seem there are too many distributions for the market to bear," said Gartner analyst Tom Henkel. (http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,269 5638,00.html)

Red Hat, Inc., the leader in developing deploying and managing open source linux solutions, announced on a reported basis, a net loss of $24.2 million. (http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-0 3-22-010-20-PS)

Turbolinux, based in Brisbane, Calif., a Linux-based software provider has withdrawn a $60 million initial public offering "in light of current market conditions." (http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/010320/n20215287_2.html) (http://cnnfn.cnn.com/2001/03/20/deals/ipo/)

Clayton-based Linuxgruven.com, a Linux training and service company with 106 employees, laid off 100 employees (http://stlouis.bcentral.com/stlouis/stories/2001/ 03/05/daily41.html)

Lineo withdrew its initial public offering in January. Caldera Systems delayed the acquisition of Santa Cruz Operations' Unix software by a quarter. Linuxcare laid off dozens in February, with Linuxcare co-founders Dave Sifry and Dave LaDuke are among those departing. VA Linux Systems cut 114 people in February and delayed its expected profitability by nine months. (http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,269 5638,00.html)

Due to the troubles of Corel, abysmal sales and so on, Corel Linux is going out of business and was nearly taken over by Microsoft who sell another troubled OS. Owing to the GPL, SuSE is laying off almost all of its US staff. Major marketing surveys show that Linux has steadily declined in market share. Even LinuxWorld.com shut down "because of the economy and everything else" (http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/13/ 1720254&mode=nocomment)

TuxRacer going closed source and commerical shows how, when it comes down to money, Linux doesn't cut it.

Linux is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Linux is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyists (i.e. those who dabble with Minix, Xinu, etc). Linux continues to falter. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Linux is dead.

What World Do These People Live In? (3, Insightful)

disappear (21915) | more than 11 years ago | (#4402107)

They think that in two months I can take all of my production servers, build replacement boxes, test them, and put the new boxes into production? When the newest release of the OS isn't even available yet? (Why upgrade to the intermediate release when that'll be dropped as soon as the next one comes out...)

Do they assume I have only one box, or that I don't bother to test things, or that I don't lose any money if the upgrade is perfectly smooth? Do they assume that I won't switch to something with a better support policy (and more notice for dropping support) than what they do?

Do any of these people know anyone who manages systems for a living, or do they only talk to other developers?

Re:What World Do These People Live In? (3, Insightful)

almeida (98786) | more than 11 years ago | (#4402207)

More notice for dropping support? Isn't there stated policy that they support only the current release and the previous release? Look at the fancy ASCII map [openbsd.org] of their release schedule. It clearly shows that only two releases are maintained at one time. I've been using OpenBSD since 2.9, and I was always aware of their support scheme. Where have you been?

Do you assume that they have the resources to support older releases just because it is an inconvenience for your to upgrade? They are offering you a really great OS for free. They work really hard to make sure that it is the best it can be. And what I like most about the OpenBSD team is that they really take a stand for freedom issues in software (read Theo's stance on the Sun ECC code being included in OpenSSL in this message [theaimsgroup.com] , or check out the entire thread [theaimsgroup.com] ).

Give these guys a break. You had 6 months to test 3.1 and upgrade your boxes from 3.0. If you don't like their policy, use something else. As someone said over a deadly.org, if you want support for older releases, pay someone to provide patches for your system. Whatever you decide to do, stop complaining about something they give away for free.

Re:What World Do These People Live In? (3, Interesting)

disappear (21915) | more than 11 years ago | (#4402443)

Give these guys a break. You had 6 months to test 3.1 and upgrade your boxes from 3.0. If you don't like their policy, use something else. As someone said over a deadly.org, if you want support for older releases, pay someone to provide patches for your system. Whatever you decide to do, stop complaining about something they give away for free.

So I've had six months? Great --- that's about how much time it takes to do testing for a substantial site. Now I'm done and can work on other tasks? Nope, gotta do it again for the new release.

You're right: the problem isn't the amount of notice they give. I was off on that point. However, the amount of time you get isn't enough for me to use OpenBSD at a customer's site. Eighteen months as the lifespan of a product isn't substantial enough, in my opinion.

Re:What World Do These People Live In? (3, Insightful)

Rick the Red (307103) | more than 11 years ago | (#4403990)

the amount of time you get isn't enough for me to use OpenBSD at a customer's site. Eighteen months as the lifespan of a product isn't substantial enough, in my opinion.
Then, clearly, OpenBSD does not meet your requirements. Try another *BSD or switch to Linux or buy AIX or HP-UX or Solaris or something.

Re:What World Do These People Live In? (2)

disappear (21915) | more than 11 years ago | (#4404086)

Being a consultant, I run what the customers (already) run. Many of my customers do run Linux, and others run various BSD flavors and/or Solaris. I'll run HPUX or AIX when the customers demand it. :-)

But decisions like this do mean that I don't recommend OpenBSD to most customers. (Or Debian, for precisely the same reason.) Isn't it disappointing not to be able to run a technically superior product for reasons like this? I find it disappointing.

Re:What World Do These People Live In? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4404470)

With Debian should you be ok since the release cycle is once in every 20th year ;-).

Re:What World Do These People Live In? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4405709)

Nothing's perfect. Deal with it.

Re:What World Do These People Live In? (1)

kkenn (83190) | more than 11 years ago | (#4405947)

Your expectations are misguided and unfair. I don't know of ANY free software project that provides support for arbitrarily old releases -- unless you pay for it. Conversely, if you're willing to pay for support then you can surely find someone to support OpenBSD for you.

Disappointing? (1)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 11 years ago | (#4406362)

There is no reason they cannot continue to use 3.0 if it suits their needs. It's not like it's going to roll up and die in December.

And, ignoring the 'technically superior' issue, because that's a whole different argument, what issue is it that lets you not be able to run something?

What World Do You Live In? (2)

castlan (255560) | more than 11 years ago | (#4409099)

You don't recommend Debian because the OpenBSD project has a new major release every 6 months? Would you mind clarifying that?

As for OpenBSD, you only need to upgrade when there is a flaw in some part of the system that you use, or a security risk. That should take less than 6 months to test. Hell, if you can wait 6 months before rolling out a security fix, then what's the sudden rush? You don't need to install OpenBSD 3.1, by the time you are done evaluating each security fix, just install OpenBSD 3.3 or 3.4.

Seriously, if you can't handle the 1 year (6 + 6 months) upgrade cycle, then just use Debian stable. You really need to explain that unfounded pot shot at Debian, which is very stable, and doesn't force you to reinstall at all... just keep up to date with the security patches, and you shouldn't have to upgrade in your hardware's lifetime.

Oh, and screw H-PU-X , Slowlaris or ACHES, your customers need to demand IRIX!

Re:What World Do You Live In? (2)

disappear (21915) | more than 11 years ago | (#4409122)

Seriously, if you can't handle the 1 year (6 + 6 months) upgrade cycle, then just use Debian stable. You really need to explain that unfounded pot shot at Debian, which is very stable, and doesn't force you to reinstall at all... just keep up to date with the security patches, and you shouldn't have to upgrade in your hardware's lifetime.

Remember when potato came out? Two weeks later (or was it three?) they gave four (or was it six) weeks notice that they were dropping support for the previous Debian stable.

Six weeks is enough for me to evaluate it for personal use, but not to upgrade and test stuff before real-world deployment.

That really pissed me off. I still have customers who use Debian, and I'm happy enough to support them, but I tend not to recommend it for new installations based on that experience.

Oh, and screw H-PU-X , Slowlaris or ACHES, your customers need to demand IRIX!

Gee, I thought you'd say PH-UX. And, actually, I've been on a team responsible for a number of large IRIX systems. The C compiler is really, really picky, but beside that the boxes were great. I hear that several OS revs further in the past there were stability problems, but by 1998 when I got to them, they were rock-solid.

And I understand SGI's supported release policy, too. ;-)

Re:What World Do You Live In? (1)

diamondc (241058) | more than 11 years ago | (#4409585)

ever tried out apt-get dist-upgrade ? I'm pretty sure Debian does tons more testing with major releases than you do.

Re:What World Do You Live In? (2)

disappear (21915) | more than 11 years ago | (#4409680)

ever tried out apt-get dist-upgrade ?

Er, yeah....

I'm pretty sure Debian does tons more testing with major releases than you do.

Er, no.

That is, not with in-house or third-party apps deployed on the server.

<VERYLITTLEWORDS>This may shock you, but sometimes people run software on computers. Sometimes even software that doesn't ship with the operating system.

If you upgrade from one Debian stable (Potato, say) to another (like Woody), many, many underyling software versions change.

These changes are necessary: after all, if the software versions didn't change, there wouldn't be a new release of the distribution, would there? But sometimes these changes break things. Changing from PHP 3 to PHP 4 sure breaks things. Upgrading from 4.0.6 to 4.1.x breaks things, too. Just ask the HORDE people.

Some people use many features of the operating system, and have a lot of custom code running on their servers. Often this is in addition to running a full compliment of basic services.

Testing the local code can take a long time, if there's a lot of it. Especially if it depends heavily on features (or even bugs!) of its development language. Perl tends not to break things, but even that happens sometimes.

The OS isn't the only piece that needs to be tested. Modern Linux works pretty much out-of-the-box in that regard. But that's hardly the only thing to test.</VERYLITTLEWORDS>

You've never worked in a large production environment, have you?

Re:What World Do You Live In? (1)

diamondc (241058) | more than 11 years ago | (#4410023)

Well then.. I guess it's your job to fix things. Isn't free software wonderful?

do what i do: make your own release (4, Informative)

honold (152273) | more than 11 years ago | (#4402935)

man release to get started

i have a single master system that builds a release distribution and publishes it to a private site. i run the following script to do an in-place binary upgrade of all my systems:

#!/bin/sh
rm -rf /usr/upgradetmp
mkdir -p /usr/upgradetmp
cd /usr/upgradetmp
ftp http://WEBSITE/3.1/i386/bsd
ftp http://WEBSITE/3.1/i386/base31.tgz
ftp http://WEBSITE/3.1/i386/comp31.tgz
ftp http://WEBSITE/3.1/i386/game31.tgz
ftp http://WEBSITE/3.1/i386/man31.tgz
ftp http://WEBSITE/3.1/i386/misc31.tgz
cp /bsd /bsd.old
cp bsd /bsd
tar xzvpf base31.tgz -C /
tar xzvpf comp31.tgz -C /
tar xzvpf game31.tgz -C /
tar xzvpf man31.tgz -C /
tar xzvpf misc31.tgz -C /
cd ..
rm -rf upgradetmp
reboot /etc changes have to be merged manually but i keep my global configs in private cvs. bsd tar unlinks everything before overwriting, so doing it multi-user isn't a problem.

this makes managing 10+ openbsd servers a breeze.

almost forgot (2, Informative)

honold (152273) | more than 11 years ago | (#4403285)

i do 'lynx -dump http://WEBSITE/upgrade.sh|sh' to upgrade so i don't have to keep local copies of the script incase it changes

Re:almost forgot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4441986)

$ lynx http://www.openbsd.org/upgrade.sh

The requested URL /upgrade.sh was not found on this server.

Were you generalising or did you actually mean OpenBSD has such an upgrade mechanism as i've not seen one.

Re:What World Do These People Live In? (1)

jolan (187075) | more than 11 years ago | (#4406349)

Then don't use OpenBSD.

Re:What World Do These People Live In? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4406544)

Gladly!

Re:What World Do These People Live In? (1)

Triumph The Insult C (586706) | more than 11 years ago | (#4407086)

any reason why you *have* to upgrade? i have a number of systems which have been running 2.4 since early '99. i have never had to *have* to upgrade. connected to the internet, no ipmasq/nat biz going on either. if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Re:What World Do These People Live In? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4408787)

Can I have your IP address, please. :-)

Re:What World Do These People Live In? (2)

friscolr (124774) | more than 11 years ago | (#4445577)

you dont really use openbsd, do you? if did, you'd know how to work within the release cycle. i really dont see what's wrong with a consistent release cycle. you always know when the release is coming, no one is springing it on you, it is never late. sure it forces you to know your machines - as in whether they even need upgraded or whether you can still be running 2.7 w/o problem - but that sounds like a good thing, and w/ organization (and less /. reading) it is possible to handle even for large installations.

Developer reveals: What Killed FreeBSD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4402692)

The End of FreeBSD

[ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]

When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.

Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.

FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.

It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.

So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.

Discussion

I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.

From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.

There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.

Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.

Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?

Shouts

To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.

To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. It's when you get distracted by the politickers that they sideline you. The tireless work that you perform keeping the system clean and building is what provides the platform for the obsessives and the prima donnas to have their moments in the sun. In the end, we need you all; in order to go forwards we must first avoid going backwards.

To the paranoid conspiracy theorists - yes, I work for Apple too. No, my resignation wasn't on Steve's direct orders, or in any way related to work I'm doing, may do, may not do, or indeed what was in the tea I had at lunchtime today. It's about real problems that the project faces, real problems that the project has brought upon itself. You can't escape them by inventing excuses about outside influence, the problem stems from within.

To the politically obsessed - give it a break, if you can. No, the project isn't a lemonade stand anymore, but it's not a world-spanning corporate juggernaut either and some of the more grandiose visions going around are in need of a solid dose of reality. Keep it simple, stupid.

To the grandstanders, the prima donnas, and anyone that thinks that they can hold the project to ransom for their own agenda - give it a break, if you can. When the current core were elected, we took a conscious stand against vigorous sanctions, and some of you have exploited that. A new core is going to have to decide whether to repeat this mistake or get tough. I hope they learn from our errors.

Future

I started work on FreeBSD because it was fun. If I'm going to continue, it has to be fun again. There are things I still feel obligated to do, and with any luck I'll find the time to meet those obligations.

However I don't feel an obligation to get involved in the political mess the project is in right now. I tried, I burnt out. I don't feel that my efforts were worthwhile. So I won't be standing for election, I won't be shouting from the sidelines, and I probably won't vote in the next round of ballots.

You could say I'm packing up my toys. I'm not going home just yet, but I'm not going to play unless you can work out how to make the project somewhere fun to be again.

= Mike

--

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -- Theodore Roosevelt

What We Can Learn From BSD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4402757)

What We Can Learn From BSD
By Chinese Karma Whore [slashdot.org] , Version 1.0

Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. As we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.

Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.

These early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of internal conflicts that would mar BSD's progress. In 1992, AT&T filed suit against Berkeley Software, claiming that proprietary code agreements had been haphazardly violated. In the same year, BSD filed countersuit, reciprocating bad intentions and fueling internal rivalry. While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents [theos.com] on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.

As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became worse and worse. As we all know, incompatibilities between each BSD distribution make code sharing an arduous task. Research conducted at MIT [mit.edu] found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study [rice.edu] .

Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar [tuxedo.org] , rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones in software development. BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.

The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become bureaucratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.

End Of OpenBSD? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4402990)

oh no, this is the end of openbsd! I guess *BSD really is dieing!

Re:End Of OpenBSD? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4405945)

Shows you don't know how to read. LOL poor soul. You should try grade skho0lll some time!

Release Cycles are Open Source's major flaw (4, Insightful)

lamontg (121211) | more than 11 years ago | (#4403940)

I admin 850 linux boxes, and as far as I am concerned "release early, release often (and provide no support for older versions)" is open source's major flaw. Developers doing it for fun don't want to support old versions. They're lazy. This laziness has been turned around into some kind of virtue by the open source movement.

What open source needs is a company which provides an 18 month upgrade cycle and supports three concurrent versions. This is exactly what Sun provides with Solaris, and is something that system admins really badly need. And its not just the upgrading issue. You also lose time on the front end of this release cycle because it takes a long time for vendors to certify their software for the new release of the operating system. RedHat is starting to ge some kind of clue about this and is switching to an 18 month release cycle with their advanced server product. They still put on this godawfully stupid dog and pony show though about they'll come in and (for a price) help to upgrade all you machines every time they release a new version. This is entirely unacceptable and waste of resource and a waste of money spent on RedHat. It is basically RedHat trying to turn their laziness into a business model.

And please don't talk about how you've got a couple of scripts whipped together to make it easy to manage 10 openbsd boxes. I'm on a team that manages *850* open source boxes. Whatever you suggest doing simply doesn't scale well enough to deal with doing 850 upgrades every 6-12 months. An upgrade will take everyone on my team offline for at least a month, and we can't afford to be doing that all the time. Also, the next upgrade we're doing is from RH6.2 to RH7.2. We haven't had the time yet to certify all our software for RH7.3 or RH8.0 so we're actually going to be starting out behind once again... This is how system management works at very large sites though.

Re:Release Cycles are Open Source's major flaw (3, Interesting)

Rick the Red (307103) | more than 11 years ago | (#4404093)

Guess what? This problem isn't restricted to Open Source. At most Fortune 500 companies the Microsoft release cycle is problematic. Many companies are just now wrapping up their migration from Windows 95/98 to Windows 2000, and they have no plans to migrate to XP anytime soon -- especially since it seems the easiest way to switch to XP is to simply buy new computers. Word 97 does memos on a PII 233 just as well today as it did in 1997; "upgrading" to Windows/Office XP on a 1.2GHz box buys them nothing but "support" from Microsoft.

They could support OpenBSD releases for five years and it wouldn't be long enough for some folks.

Re:Release Cycles are Open Source's major flaw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4409543)

Us too... we are still rolling out Win2K as we replace machines. Older systems (P3/500 and below) are still on NT4. We have an XP box to play around with, and at some point we may upgrade *our* desktop machines to play, but the user community probably won't have it for a while. But, of course, due to MS's new licensing policy, we can install XP whenever we want. And all new machines are ordered with XP, we just nuke it and install Win2K.

Re:Release Cycles are Open Source's major flaw (2)

danheskett (178529) | more than 11 years ago | (#4501404)

Except that Win2k is going to be supported by MS for a long, long time to come. Hotfixes are scheduled through March 31, 2007. Pay-per-incident support is available 2005. Hourly support is available through 2007.

Thats a long way from now. Five years. If you migrated at the beginning of the process its a SEVEN year lifecycle for Win2k.

Seriously, thats not to bad.

Re:Release Cycles are Open Source's major flaw (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4405080)

Sure just assume they are all lazy... thats the *obvious* conclusion.... or could it be because SUPPORTING OLDER RELEASES IS TIME CONSUMING AND SUCKS FROM ALREADY LIMITED RESOURCES... perhaps? Are you paying their rent every month? If so then I believe you have every right to demand such a thing... if not, then who are you to make such grand claims? Oh you admin N amount of open source boxes.... and you bitch about support for software you didn't pay for? See the problem here? You want support, pay for it. If you ain't paying for it you have no reason to make any such demands.

Hey you want your software certified on new versions of redhat? I'm sure they'd be glad to do it for you... PAY THEM. Quit bitching about how "you don't have enough time", developers are not going to put security and reliability patches on hold so you can make sure everything works just spiffy for you. Hire some people who can do their job faster.

And it seems like you don't like even redhat...fine go elsewhere.... if you hate their release cycle so much who the fuck is holding your head to the chopping block that is preventing you from switching to something else?

Re:Release Cycles are Open Source's major flaw (2)

lamontg (121211) | more than 11 years ago | (#4405151)

The company that I work for has a business relationship with RedHat and pays RedHat an extremely large flat-fee every year (take the average IT salary and multiply by approximately a factor of 10). So yes, I'm bitching about software that we pay for, not software which is free. And in the open source model we were *supposed* to be able to get all the features and service that we got out of commerical Unixes, particularly if we paid for the service. That doesn't seem to be happening.

And there's no where else to go to get a decent release cycle other than Sun or another commercial unix vendor. If open source wants that to be the answer that they give, that's fine for me, I'll start trying to set management expectations to avoid open source.

Re:Release Cycles are Open Source's major flaw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4405365)

Then your problem is with Red Hat, not with open source developers in general. Please don't confuse them with people who, as you say, are writing it for fun, and call them lazy just because you don't like Red Hat.

Re:Release Cycles are Open Source's major flaw (2)

castlan (255560) | more than 11 years ago | (#4409173)

If your problem with Open Source software is the brief support and releace cycles, then you don't want Red Hat, you want Debian.

If you want to pay somebody to support it, I suggest you look at Progeny, who are very experienced with Debian, and used to support their own distribution... unless you prefer LibraNet's customized Debian distribution. Either way, I believe that Progeny will support any Debian derived OS, and they have much experience and history with the Debian Project.

If you aren't looking for flashiness, but for solid performance and reliability, then go with standard Debian Stable - their release cycle is paced much better, they really are Stable, and they support their releases much longer than other Open Source OSes. Either look into Progeny [progeny.com] or find something else here. [debian.org]

Re:Release Cycles are Open Source's major flaw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4415131)

We have a support contract with Redhat where I work, and we still get security and critical bug (not that we've hit many of those) patches for 6.2.

We probably won't upgrade those boxes (web servers) until 8.1 or 8.2.

They won't do new features or minor bug fixes, but they'll support an OS thats got to be over 2 years old at this point.

that's not the major flaw (1)

honold (152273) | more than 11 years ago | (#4405416)

if there were sufficient demand for COMMERCIAL ENTITIES (e.g. red hat) to support 5 versions, they would do it. that's because they have the money to throw resources at it.

openbsd could offer to support 5 versions too, and that would place forward development at a virtual stand-still because of the overhead required.

when the world needs that level of support from red hat, they will have it. that level of support from totally volunteer-based projects will show up WAY later.

as an aside to all this, openbsd simply isn't the kind of os people put on 850 machines. if there's a single grouping of 500 somewhere i'd still eat my hat. it's not a performance/clustering os, it's an edge/internet server os. even if it had exponentially greater development resources, the focus would likely still be on the future as opposed to the past because farms of it simply don't exist.

You're doing it wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4405970)

If you can't make it work, you're doing it wrong. I've got about 120 FreeBSD boxes here, I can upgrade them all in about 2.5 days assuming there are no serious issues (and it is just me). If you can't do something similar, your doing it wrong. The biggest problem I have is accidently forgetting a box.And what the fuck do you care if the OBSD people aren't maintaining the release anymore.. you have the source code!

Re:Release Cycles are Open Source's major flaw (2)

Bartab (233395) | more than 11 years ago | (#4406127)

What open source needs is a company which provides an 18 month upgrade cycle and supports three concurrent versions

When Debian did that, it got nothing but flak.

Re:Release Cycles are Open Source's major flaw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4407590)

"Developers doing it for fun don't want to support old versions. They're lazy. This laziness has been turned around into some kind of virtue by the open source movement."

THEY'RE LAZY?!?!?!?! YOU'RE FUCKING LAZY!!!!! You're living off of the fruits of their labor. They provide this to you for FREE and you're so damn lazy you complain about the fact that they won't hand-hold you. The source codes out there, whenever you decide to get off YOUR LAZY ASS you can start your own linux distro which provides support for 18 months. But you won't do it, you want to bitch and moan and have everything spoon fed to you. BTW, 850 linux boxes, I'm sure you're a big financial supporter of whichever linux distro you use since you're not contributing anything else.

Re:Release Cycles are Open Source's major flaw (3, Informative)

nutznboltz (473437) | more than 11 years ago | (#4407608)

Look at http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/UPDATING [freebsd.org]

RELENG_4_3 was last patched Thu May 2 20:37:12 2002

RELENG_4_4 was last patched Fri Sep 13 15:09:04 2002

RELENG_4_5 was last patched Fri Sep 13 15:07:23 2002

RELENG_4_6 was last patched Fri Sep 13 15:04:16 2002

RELENG_4_7 has not been released.

Seems to me that's at least three supported versions.

FreeBSD 4.3 RELEASE was done April 21, 2001. Last patch was done 13 months after that. You could still use it if you used OpenSSL, OpenSSH, BIND, etc. from the ports tree.

Re:Release Cycles are Open Source's major flaw (2)

lamontg (121211) | more than 11 years ago | (#4408084)

Which is one major reason why I like FreeBSD better than any other open source distribution out there. They also have the ability to do this even though they don't have anyone paying them large quantities of money, or any large companies behind them.

Re:Release Cycles are Open Source's major flaw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4412712)

Red Hat 6.2? You're lucky. In my shop it's Slackware. It was old when it was new. :(

Re:Release Cycles are Open Source's major flaw (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 11 years ago | (#4413602)

One question...if you are concerned about downtime...why upgrade?

Re:Release Cycles are Open Source's major flaw (2)

lamontg (121211) | more than 11 years ago | (#4414738)

it isn't downtime that's the problem. we can do rolling upgrades so that we never lose any services. the problem is that you start to lose support for older versions of the O/S both in software and for hardware. eventually it becomes a pain to maintain old versions of the operating system, particularly when you'd like some of the newer features.

the problem is that it would be best to do those upgrades on your own schedule, rather than the "release early, release often" 6 month upgrade cycle.

Newbie (2, Interesting)

penguin_punk (66721) | more than 11 years ago | (#4404679)

I know this should really be an "Ask Slashdot" question, but I am _really_ interested in learning how to admin OpenBSD systems, and I am having a hard time trying to find books and websites aimed for beginners. Here is my question:

Any good (Open)BSD books on the shelves?

I am currently a sysadmin/netadmin/sys-support guy for a (really) small isp/hsoting company. Our boxes are a mixture of NT/W2K and I'm looking into operating systems for our new servers whenever they arrive. I feel adequate running a linux distro such as Slackware as a new web server, but I would love to put up a *bsd box. (As well as run mySQL, radius, ids[snort], on *nix flavours, as opposed to MS)

I've played with Linux for about 5 years, but not consistently until this past year, where I ran Apache under Mandrake for a websrever for my friends and I (that didn't last long), as well as installed Slack 8.0 on an old p133 for a router/firewall and Slack 8.0 on my laptop. I'm not 100% fluent in *nix scripting and such, but I'm trying really hard to become less reliant on Windows. Both at home (desktop) and at work (servers). Back to my question, now that I can pull my weight with Linux, what is the best way to teach myself more OpenBSD? I've tried using it on a couple of different occasions, but I found the command names and devices so.. so... cryptic(?) to me. I have extra boxes to play on (including two new Celerons 1.3's) at home, but my spare time is almost non-existent, so I'd rather have a book I can read on the shitter or before I go to bed.

Any ideas are GREATLY appreciated.

(I haven't looked into this for about 6 months, but this slashdot article renewed my appreciation and lust for OpenBSD. There may have been kick-ass books and websites written within the past 6 months that deal with BSD administration, but like I said, I'm really busy and my time is tight, so even if you have a pointer that seems obvious to you, please post it up.)

Submit/Preview?? I'll take Submit.

OpenBSD Books (1)

Noodlenose (537591) | more than 11 years ago | (#4404974)

Genuine OpenBSD Books are rare. AFAIK, there's only one out there, and that's pretty outdated: "Building Linux and OpenBSD Firewalls" by Sonnereich and Yates. As it describes OpenBSD 2.5 it doesn't really explain new features.

Nevertheless there is enough documentation on the web and plenty of help on IRC (esp irc.openprojects.net #open-bsd), the newbie openbsd mailinglist, O'Reilly and man pages, so go for it and join up. Even Lowendpc [lowendpc.com] has a good openbsd section for newbies. It's easier than you think, and the installation is a doddle.

Re:OpenBSD Books (1)

penguin_punk (66721) | more than 11 years ago | (#4405816)

Thanks for the info!

I have subscribed to some lists and hope to get a working OpenBSD box up and running this week. It's too bad I can't Mod you up for this one....

Just like everything else, I'm sure if I dive into it for a week or two, I'll be fluent. (Even the disk device names and such confse me at first glance)

I think my first box will be an ipchains-based firewall with snort to log attempts and do real-time attacker blocking. Possible? I believe so.

It might be overkill for my home ADSL connection, but it's something that can transfer over to a production box.

I think I'm high as a kite right now on caffeine. I keep imagining this spider climbing up my back. Water cooler, here I come.

Re:Newbie (-1)

ReluctantBadger (550830) | more than 11 years ago | (#4405041)

Yep, I'm a troll, but OpenBSD is my OS of choice.

Despite what my fellow trolls may think, OpenBSD is definitely *not* dying. I run it on every server here at work - "It just works".

Re:Newbie (1)

penguin_punk (66721) | more than 11 years ago | (#4406064)

hrmm... I meant to reply to this one.... why can't I reply to trolls? :)

Re:Newbie (2)

MobyTurbo (537363) | more than 11 years ago | (#4407737)

I don't know of any OpenBSD books. (Though I do know of a couple of FreeBSD books.) My advice would be to get generic Unix books. Books such as "UNIX Power Tools" and "the purple book", "Unix System Administration" (which includes FreeBSD information) (you'll know the latter from the immitators with the same name because of it being a purple $70 paperback :-) ), would help lots even if some of the advice might need modification for OpenBSD.

I run NetBSD myself and am a former FreeBSD and Linux user. A lot of the knowledge I had from the others and books on the other Unices directly translates to what I run now, which is the operating system most akin to OpenBSD.

Re:Newbie (1)

penguin_punk (66721) | more than 11 years ago | (#4408368)

Is there a site you know of (or used book store) that would have these CHEAP?

Maybe anyone reading this has the books mentioned?

Re:Newbie (2)

MobyTurbo (537363) | more than 11 years ago | (#4408417)

Is there a site you know of (or used book store) that would have these CHEAP?
Unfortunately, good computer books are very expensive; as they are either priced according to textbook or professional book prices. Try getting them from an online used bookstore or an auction or discount site like half.com

OpenBSD (1)

Ryvar (122400) | more than 11 years ago | (#4409089)

A good source of 'how to' for OpenBSD is www.geodsoft.com's guide to installing and locking down OpenBSD. Whenever I do a fresh installation, I always double-check said site to make sure I haven't forgotten anything. It isn't complete, but it's a damned good start.

Really, though, the best way to learn OpenBSD is to just start using it. As you need to do new things, you'll learn how to effectively use the man pages, sites like Geodsoft, and the misc@OpenBSD mailing list to tackle your questions.

--Ryv

Re:Newbie (2)

friscolr (124774) | more than 11 years ago | (#4445631)

Any good (Open)BSD books on the shelves?

Michael Lucas (author of Absolute BSD: The Ultimate Guide to FreeBSD) is due out with a book on OpenBSD in a few months (Q1 03?)

so, can you wait? ;-)

OpenBSD is pure shit (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4405049)

If you want a secure OS, use NetBSD [netbsd.org]

Also, don't forget that Theo de Raadt is asshole [goatse.cx]

The OpenBSD team has confirmed, OpenBSD3.0 is dead (4, Funny)

MavEtJu (241979) | more than 11 years ago | (#4406386)

The OpenBSD team has confirmed it, OpenBSD 3.0 is dead. After an initial increase in use the decline has become visible even for them and they decided not to support it anymore. Everybody who was using it has dropped it in support for version 3.1 and 3.2. This is a clear message to the community: OpenBSD 3.0 is dead. Upgrade NOW!.

Re:The OpenBSD team has confirmed, OpenBSD3.0 is d (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4406559)

I already spent 4 mod points modding your shit down, I will next time I get mod points too, Asshole.

Re:The OpenBSD team has confirmed, OpenBSD3.0 is d (1, Offtopic)

MavEtJu (241979) | more than 11 years ago | (#4406970)

Hello Anonymous Coward, feel free to recognize a parody when you bump into one.

How is this news worthy? (1)

jolan (187075) | more than 11 years ago | (#4406395)

Wow an old version of OpenBSD is being EOL'd. I don't see how this is even remotely news worthy. This happens every release.

Advice on CVS tags in openbsd. (1)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 11 years ago | (#4407976)

Okay... so fetching source from the openbsd cvs mirrors.

All the docs on the openbsd site are a bit dated, and you have to piece things together..

everyone talks of -stable and -current. Are these actual CVS tags?
Can I do a cvs get -rSTABLE and get the latest stable?

I know that, for instance, OPENBSD_3_1 is the 3.1-stable tree....

is there somewhere where the cvs tagging is properly documented?

Re:Advice on CVS tags in openbsd. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4409475)

learn to read the documentation

This isn't linux where they write stuff for the braindead masses.

Re:Advice on CVS tags in openbsd. (1)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 11 years ago | (#4411915)

Okay. Which documentation, speficially?

As I said, one can glean some working tags out of some of the upgrade FAQs.. it's enough to work with.. but nowhere is there a simple description of their tagging.

zerg (2)

Lord Omlette (124579) | more than 11 years ago | (#4415199)

http://pics.bash.org/swim-bsd.jpg

What we can learn from BSD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4415881)

What We Can Learn From BSD
By Chinese Karma Whore [slashdot.org] , Version 1.0

Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. As we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.

Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and after initial successes with the 4.1 BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.

These early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of internal conflicts that would mar BSD's progress. In 1992, AT&T filed suit against Berkeley Software, claiming that proprietary code agreements had been haphazardly violated. In that same year, BSD filed countersuit, reciprocating bad intentions and fueling internal rivalry. While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents [theos.com] on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.

As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became worse and worse. As we all know, incompatibilities between each BSD distribution make code sharing an arduous task. Research conducted at MIT [mit.edu] found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study [rice.edu] .

Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar [tuxedo.org] , rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones in software development. BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.

The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become bureaucratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.

That fucking sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4417147)

So anything older than 1 year gets no security updates?

Guess when 3.1 gets killed I'm going to be putting Linux on my firewall.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?