×

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!

OpenBSD3.4 Shipping

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the ahead-of-time dept.

Operating Systems 55

skelley writes "As seen on deadly.org, OpenBSD 3.4 CDs have begin to ship. If you ordered one already, you should see a charge appear on your credit card (if that's how you paid) and you should expect to see your CD in the next few days to week (depending on where you are). The CDs are being shipped from Calgary. This is earlier than expected, but hey ... enjoy it!"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

55 comments

Shipping containers for *BSD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218450)

Please see this page [spookyworld.com] for some cool shipping containers for *BSD

Re:Shipping containers for *BSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218807)

You'll have to remove the corpse of VA Linux first.

Isn't that a mistake? (1)

Noryungi (70322) | more than 10 years ago | (#7219629)


I still can't order OpenBSD 3.4 throught its web site. Unless I am mistaken, I think this announcement was a little bit premature...

Re:Isn't that a mistake? (2, Informative)

thelaw (100964) | more than 10 years ago | (#7220338)

actually, those of us who pre-ordered 3.4 have the privilege of getting the released CDs first. after they've completed those orders, everybody else gets to order.

jon

PaX was first... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7220015)

... to invent CDs.

New release, new song (1)

Permission Denied (551645) | more than 10 years ago | (#7220709)

The OpenBSD 3.4 song [openbsd.org]

The 3.1 song was the best. This one is weird - but nice lyrics.

Lots of changes in the release: looks like a large code audit, ProPolice in the kernel, libraries loaded at random addresses, W^X for i386. Looks good. Haven't used with OpenBSD since 2.8 (went to FreeBSD), but this I might try this one.

Re:New release, new song (3, Interesting)

zulux (112259) | more than 10 years ago | (#7221015)

It looks like the FreeBSD people are going to pull in OpenBSD's PF to replace the old and crufty IPF.

( OpenBSD PS was created out of a typical Theo spat with the IPF people - and has gone on to kick IPF's ass. PF is cool! )

Re:New release, new song (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7221259)

Really? Got any links to back this claim up?

Re:New release, new song (1)

zulux (112259) | more than 10 years ago | (#7223786)

Really? Got any links to back this claim up?

more info [benzedrine.cx]

I can't rememebr where, but somebody on the FreeBSD also mentioned poring it for 5.3 or so.

Re:New release, new song (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7225058)

It looks like it will be added, not replacing IPF as you were claiming.

Re:New release, new song (1)

Permission Denied (551645) | more than 10 years ago | (#7226493)

FreeBSD already has two firewall systems: ipf (old and crufty (but cross-platform (Solaris) which is kind of useful)) and ipfw (which seems to get the major work, with ipfw2 having some neat tricks). If they add pf, they'll have three (four if you count ipfw1 and ipfw2 in the 4- series, but you have to choose between one of these two, whereas you can run ipf alongside ipfw). And then it also has IPSEC, which can do some firewally stuff with DENY policies. And then it also has divert sockets, which allow you to write your own userspace firewall systems (among other things).

That's kind of crazy.

Re:New release, new song (3, Interesting)

anthonyrcalgary (622205) | more than 10 years ago | (#7226566)

I love PF. It beats the crap out of netfilter/ipchains, IPF, and it's almost easier to use than a web interface on a hardware router.

Dunno how happy you'll be with it as a desktop system. My OpenBSD machine lives in the basement crawlspace, and I'm reasonably sure it doesn't have a monitor or keyboard at the moment. I don't know what it's like with a GUI.

Re:New release, new song (2, Interesting)

Permission Denied (551645) | more than 10 years ago | (#7227110)

I don't think any of the free *nixes are better or worse as desktop systems. They can all compile the same Mozilla, mplayer or whatever and since I'm the type that always tweaks compile-time options instead of using pre-compiled packages, all the *nixes are the same to me desktop-wise. The only real difference is that I don't need to fiddle with alternative ABIs or wrapper scripts to run vmware on Linux or Opera on FreeBSD but that's not that big a deal since any OS can give me a terminal and a decent browser.

I use FreeBSD at home so I can keep up with -CURRENT whereas I stay with -STABLE on the boxes at work. If my nat box at home breaks due to a cvsup, I can just plug a laptop into the dsl modem to deal with some emergency call. Since I hear only good things about pf, I might return to OpenBSD at home since it really can't hurt anything. The only reason I wouldn't use it at work is because I've set up a mostly FreeBSD shop and I don't want my future replacement to find himself with fifteen different OSes to admin.

Re:New release, new song (1)

anthonyrcalgary (622205) | more than 10 years ago | (#7227401)

"I don't think any of the free *nixes are better or worse as desktop systems."

Eh -- I dunno. Everything targets Linux. Takes a lot less work to get stuff working on it, especially like video cards and stuff. Also, consider the better interactivity on 2.6. Not appropriate for servers yet, but should be fine for a plain old dekstop. OpenBSD can't even take full advantage of a P4 HT.

A firewall system is a different story. Your basic scrap computer will do just fine, as long as it can fit 2 PCI NIC's. It's better for security if it's a seperate box from everything else, and it's cheaper if the computer that stays on all the time can do so on like 20 watts.

"Since I hear only good things about pf"

gah... you don't even want to know. After you've screwed around with it for a few hours it's easier than a hardware router with a web interface. Complex stuff can be done in one line, and while it requires thought, it has a much smaller tendency to bite you in the ass than with the other firewalls I've dealt with, because the language is smart and intuitive.

And it's fast.

Re:New release, new song (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 10 years ago | (#7232056)

Everything targets Linux. Takes a lot less work to get stuff working on it, especially like video cards and stuff.

Not true at all. For just about anything except videocards, it's automatically detected and setup by the kernel. No need for kudzu, no messing with modules.conf or other options. No need to deal with unresolved kernel symbols, etc. Although it doesn't support as much hardware (it supports a very large portion of it though) it's hardware support is much better, in every way.

For videocards, it has XFree86 like every other Unix system. It's no mork work to get it setup on OpenBSD, than on any other system.

As far as programs go, it's harder to get a program to work on Linux (either binary, or src), than it is to install it from the OpenBSD ports (or the binary package if you wish).

Also, consider the better interactivity on 2.6.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, at all. Would you care to clarify?

OpenBSD can't even take full advantage of a P4 HT.

No, it can't take advantage of HT yet. Does that make all that much of a difference, overall? You make certain trade-offs when you go for security and stability... A little performance difference isn't all that big of a deal.

Re:New release, new song (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7234703)

Erm, when really common things like USB joypads aren't supported, FreeBSD is a LONG way behind Linux. Good server OS, definitely, but for the desktop Linux is king. Stable, fast, easy to get software for and broad hardware support.

OpenBSD Shipping Vehicle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7221131)

Click here [theparlorbandb.com] to see something that looks sort of like the typical OpenBSD shipping vehicle. However, since it is Open, you are likely to see a convertible model.

Re:OpenBSD Shipping Vehicle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7221914)

After you get rid of the VA Research and VA Linux corpses, perhaps there would be room.

Except VA is dead, and BSD is still alive and work'n

Wasteful packaging (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7221463)

Is it just me, or is anybody else getting fed up with the oversized packaging that is used these days?

My copy of OpenBSD3.4 arrived at the office today, and turned a few heads. I'm sure they can come up with a more compact package... check it out [coffingems.com]

Re:Wasteful packaging (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7222003)

It won't even fit Roblimo or the other walking dead of VA Linux.

Re:Wasteful packaging (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7223606)

Sweet! My grandma is about to kick the bucket and I can just use the openbsd box as a casket. I'll tell my family it cost $6000 +tax(can't forget to pay ol' arnold the gov) and profit up the ass!

Troll-in-one (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7221766)

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

The *BSD Wailing Song

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact: *BSD is dying

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Elegy For *BSD

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

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

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


  • Gaping holes filled

  • Rotting corpse obsolete code
    BSD end near


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

Hope this helps.

Four new security advisories about *BSD:

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

2) Children should not play with dead things.

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

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

Re:Troll-in-one (2, Insightful)

Shanep (68243) | more than 10 years ago | (#7227040)

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

From my old server...

login as: root
root@10.0.0.2's password:
Last login: Thu Oct 16 13:12:27 2003 from 10.0.0.13
OpenBSD 3.2 (GENERIC) #25: Thu Oct 3 19:51:53 MDT 2002

Welcome to OpenBSD: The proactively secure Unix-like operating system.

Please use the sendbug(1) utility to report bugs in the system.
Before reporting a bug, please try to reproduce it with the latest
version of the code. With bug reports, please try to ensure that
enough information to reproduce the problem is enclosed, and if a
known fix for it exists, include that as well.

Terminal type? [xterm]
Don't login as root, use su
oldserver# dmesg|grep cpu0
cpu0: F00F bug workaround installed
cpu0: Intel Pentium/MMX ("GenuineIntel" 586-class) 200 MHz
cpu0: FPU,V86,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,MCE,CX8,MMX
oldserver# dd if=/dev/zero of=/home/share/17MB.bin bs=32k count=544
544+0 records in
544+0 records out
17825792 bytes transferred in 1.110 secs (16057261 bytes/sec)
oldserver# ls -la /home/share/*.bin
-rw-r--r-- 1 root nobody 17825792 Oct 16 15:25 /home/share/17MB.bin
oldserver# time cp /home/share/17MB.bin /home/share/music
0.0u 1.3s 0:01.66 81.9% 0+0k 293+1916io 11pf+0w
oldserver# time cp /home/share/17MB.bin /home/share/17MB.bak
0.0u 1.3s 0:05.23 26.0% 0+0k 286+1916io 0pf+0w

That's 1.66 seconds to copy a file exactly 17Mbytes from one disk to another, on an Pentium 200 MMX OpenBSD 3.2 machine.

To more closly match what you are doing, copying the same file to the same disk took 5.23 seconds.

1. You can not play games on it. Yeah, when I want to play games, the first thing I think is OpenBSD!

2. It cannot be used by my grandma. Neither can PIX. Your point?

3. It lacks a GUI of any note. You obviously consider any free Unix that doesn't come installed by default with a GUI as "lacking a GUI". I guess you use Mandrake because that is all you are capable of using.

4. There is no support available for it. http://www.openbsd.org/support.html [openbsd.org]

5. It is an assortment of fragmented OSes. This is so untrue. The BSD's are whole and complete units in themselves. You wanna talk fragmentation, look at Linux.

6. It cannot be run on the x86 platform. Idiot. This is the worst troll I have ever seen. http://www.openbsd.org/plat.html [openbsd.org]

7. You have to compile everything and know C. http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=pkg_a dd&sektion=1&format=html [openbsd.org]

8. Support for the latest hardware is always poor. BSD's often supports certain hardware before Linux does (crypto, USB, etc) and once something is supported, the support often tends to be much better (WiFi).

9. It is incompatiable with GNU/Linux. OpenBSD supports binary emulation of most programs from SVR4 (Solaris), FreeBSD, Linux, BSD/OS, SunOS and HP-UX. (from the OpenBSD front page)

10.It is dying. Yeah, right. Do you think that if you keep saying something, it will happen? The only thing that will happen, is that most people will ignore you and a few will take the time to ridicule you.

Re:Troll-in-one (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7234723)

"BSD's often supports certain hardware before Linux does"

And? So what? It still doesn't have really basic stuff like USB joypad support. Linux does. So what's your point?

God, Windows had USB support before BSD _or_ Linux, and does that make it a better OS?

You pathetic zealot.

Re:Troll-in-one (1)

UltraSkuzzi (682384) | more than 10 years ago | (#7260517)

What an informative article! I feel 100% smarter by reading that. Now just for comparison, I did a google search on various operating systems.

Linux Returned 112 million articles
BSD returned 7.6 million articles
OS/2 returned 4.4 million articles
CP/M returned 100 thousand articles

So BSD is not dying, by any means. It is stable, scalable, and every web site on Netcraft's top 50 (http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html) longest uptime list is a *BSD variant! Dead?

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

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7221897)

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.

Immature OS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7221908)

There's no way you'd catch our business using OpenBSD. Why?

Theo. I have seen so many posting from this boy that prove he is the most arrogant and unprofessional person in the BSD scene.
Any well thought out arguement/query towards him he usually answers with "False." but doesn't justify his reasoning.

If that's how he handles well thought out comments/questions, then I can only imagine how he handles hard bit of coding.

Maybe if someone with a maturity level higher than gradeschool takes over then OpenBSD has a good chance. But at the moment it's an unprofessional joke.

Re:Immature OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7222774)

I mostly agree with your post. He can code probably very good, but that's not my problem with him. Point is, he is indeed immature. I've followed him closely. I have some theories about him and a mental illness, but i have to know more about his childhood to analyse it futher. I've run OpenBSD. I still do. And i'm not satisfied.

For example, a patch for PF was there for more than a month. Finally an announcement was made about this patch. Then, it gets deleted because it isn't ''according to the rules''.

Says Theo, who hates politics, and hated the way that worked in NetBSD. How the hell does that justify that months long bug in PF? Then, in the topic on Deadly.org, people say ''it was already fixed'' because ''it is in CVS''. Hello? We end users run -stable mostly.

Thread:
http://www.deadly.org/article.php3?sid= 20031003143 700&mode=flat

Seems the OpenBSD ''core'', or at least Theo can't play with criticism. Although probably not everyone in the group takes this description, the user groups of Linux are according to me pretty childish.

Making a mistake can happen. We're humans. It's no shame. Current world politics blur mistakes. I thought a part of opensource projects would be to be open, and i thought OpenBSD would be open too.

Yet, they keep their development process (which includes hierarchy) closed. Follow this PaX thread. Makes me wonder what to they have to hide?

Thread: http://www.deadly.org/article.php3?sid=20031009110 855

His continious bashing of glibc and Linux. Example hereunder.
Thread: http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/6

Yesterday i stumbled accross this thread:
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-user s/1996/10 /20/0004.html

I've had it. I cannot feel okay if my OS is relying on such a creep. The only thing i'd really miss on other OSes would be PF. Therefore i'll probably switch to another BSD, probably NetBSD. Since i have no problem with the GPL at all i can just as well switch to Linux. The killing of GPL in OpenBSD, and the killing of Qmail, is far beyond my interest. If PF gets ported to Linux or IPTables or something gets similair functionality, i'll switch to Debian GNU/Linux, also because of practical reasons which will start to become important in my near future.

(don't even dare to state you're gonna use another BSD on Deadly.org, even if you use arguments, you're still gonna be flamed)

Re:Immature OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7222844)

"the user groups of Linux are according to me pretty childish."

Oops, i meant of OpenBSD instead.
Example: #openbsd on Freenode, Deadly.org, ...

Re:Immature OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7223631)

So are the majority of Slashdot.org posters. . .

Re:Immature OS (1)

anthonyrcalgary (622205) | more than 10 years ago | (#7227463)

What's the big deal?

He's an asshole. So is Rieser. So is Stallman. A lot of the people in the open source community are. Who cares? You don't have to deal with him.

Re:Immature OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7232214)

"He's an asshole."

So we agree on that.

"So is Rieser."

Hans Reiser? Why? You don't state arguments.

"So is Stallman."

Richard Stallman? Why? You don't state arguments.

"You don't have to deal with him."

Hah. When i run OpenBSD, i have to deal with Theo. He controls many things in my OS. That includes patches. And i run OpenBSD. Not for long, that is.

Re:Immature OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7240913)

Theo doesn't control anything in your OS. That's the point - you have total control. You can modify it yourself or pick which patches you want to be applied.

Who cares about Theo? I'm not running a clone of Theo in my house, I'm running a nice operating system. Pretend he has quit the development team and now everything comes from fluffy unicorns whose mission is to make a good, secure OS and make everybody feel all warm and fuzzy inside. They really like you and want to be your friend. Now run the operating system and forget about politics.

Re:Immature OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7230010)

Says Theo, who hates politics, and hated the way that worked in NetBSD. How the hell does that justify that months long bug in PF? Then, in the topic on Deadly.org, people say ''it was already fixed'' because ''it is in CVS''. Hello? We end users run -stable mostly.

some patches arent instantly backported to -stable versions so that they can be tested in -current (or personal environments) first, to make sure they actually work without causing other problems.

Re:Immature OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7232270)

I know. However that shouldn't take more than a month. Plus, when it's finally there, pull it off again because it wasn't done in a bureaucratic way.

Re:Immature OS (1)

Shanep (68243) | more than 10 years ago | (#7227028)

Maybe if someone with a maturity level higher than gradeschool takes over then OpenBSD has a good chance. But at the moment it's an unprofessional joke.

You base this opinion on your opinion of Theo?

I know of two major banks which use OpenBSD for their firewalls. I've received this info from insiders on independant occasions without asking (was a comment in passing, during conversation, regarding my use of OpenBSD).

The source is there and people do use OpenBSD's tree and their own private tree's for real, business critical work.

Re:Immature OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7227189)

Whatever. The most important fact is that OpenBSD is dying.

Re:Immature OS (1)

1s44c (552956) | more than 10 years ago | (#7238238)

There's no way you'd catch our business using OpenBSD

Thats your loss. OpenBSD is a great system and just because Theo can come across as rude and arrogant doesn't mean he can't pull together a great system.

I try to respect people for what they do well, not hate them for their faults.

haiku (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7221997)

flask of ripe urine
pressed to bsd lips
bsd drink up

Re:haiku (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7222086)

Dumbass. -1, Redundant. Didn't you read the Troll-in-one?

Haiku (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7222056)

Corpse rotting in ground
Dirty hippies everywhere
BSD is dead

homosexual rag doll (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7222202)

The tiger lunged at Horn during the evening show at the Mirage hotel-casino and grabbed his arm. The tiger then went for Horn's throat. Shaking the illusionist from his mouth like a rag doll, the tiger dragged Horn from the stage.

I hope the tiger doesn't get AIDS.

OpenBSD, W2k - dual boot? (1)

teemu.s (677447) | more than 10 years ago | (#7227629)

may someone has tried to dualboot openbsd 3.4 (current) with windows 2000 (its just a desktop system - no production machine.)
and NTFS? currently Im running w2k (on fat32 which sucks) and OBSD3.3 - and GAG [sourceforge.net]
- due the new (?) NTFS Support [openbsd.org]it should work if GAG is installed on a w2k boot partion - or am I totally wrong? (I know I should have posted this to misc@openbsd.org - which Ill do in the evening..)

Re:OpenBSD, W2k - dual boot? (1)

teemu.s (677447) | more than 10 years ago | (#7227656)

o.k. NTFS Support is new - according to the man page mentioned in my initial post - it first appeared in FreeBSD 3.0 and has later been ported to OBSD 3.4.

Re:OpenBSD, W2k - dual boot? (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 10 years ago | (#7237203)

New in OpenBSD. FreeBSD 3.0 is getting long in the tooth. Works great for me, but it's read only.

Where to download 'unoffical' ISO's? (0, Troll)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 10 years ago | (#7235860)

Yes. i know the offical 'cd format' is copyrighted ( what a crock ) and i can make my own if i want to go thru all that work and have the time.

But i dont..

Re:Where to download 'unoffical' ISO's? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7239170)

I don't find it to be a crock. The OpenBSD project lives or dies on the money brought in by CD releases. By copyrighting the "official" layout, they ensure that "official" cds only come from them. Therefore the project lives on.

OpenBSD doesn't not have the corporate backing that some operating systems that shall remain nameless do.

Still a crock (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 10 years ago | (#7245918)

Others dont copyright the 'layout' and they are still thriving.

I understand he wants to continue to be funded, but pissing people off in the process isnt a good way to do it.

Its kept my $ going to the FBSD camp instead of theo, due to the attitude.

No more a crock than others (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7239714)

There are a few Linux forks that have a similar policy.

If you don't like buying the CD, go and DL from the FTP site the files and do network based installs.

Or, move to a BSD version that doesn't have such a restriction, if you don't like the way OpenBSD does business.

Why violate the wishes of the OpenBSD 'crew'?

Why violate? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 10 years ago | (#7245904)

I could care less about their wishes ( or anyone elses ). its what I want that matters.

Simple as that.

I normally use FBSD anyway, but i like to keep a collection of current alternatives to look at.

And I dont want to screw with having to create my own install ( and network isntalls are not acceptable, i do tests offline.. )

Re:Where to download 'unoffical' ISO's? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7240833)

Whaaaa? There are six or seven *.tgz files, a kernel, and a ramdisk image to download. That's all you need (plus the floppy disk image). If you don't need X or games, that cuts your download time considerably. Find the proper arch folder on the ftp site and it will have all the files you need.

There is no 'all that work' and a couple clicks to download is not time consuming. Get the installation docs and they will walk you through every step.

What We Can Learn from BSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7249169)

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 generous 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.

Re:What We Can Learn from BSD (-1, Troll)

JShadow (192326) | more than 10 years ago | (#7283732)

We can learn that trolls will never learn :)

ROFL...the "studies" are hilarious.

The best part is that these trolls are excellent for generating curiosity about *BSD...which results in people wanting to try it for themselves...which results in more people liking *BSDs.

Thanks trolls, *BSD loves you. :)
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...