Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

OpenBSD 3.6 Released!

Hemos posted more than 9 years ago | from the coming-out-at-you dept.

Operating Systems 194

dspisak writes "The people over at OpenBSD have released version 3.6 containing significant new features such as: SMP support for i386 and amd64 archs, the ability to optimize pf rulesets, better hotplug support, in addition to more robust encryption and vpn functionality. This is in addition to more recent hardware support, for a full list of changes take a look at the 3.6 changelog. Don't forget to use the mirrors!"

cancel ×

194 comments

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

fp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10688066)

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

Re:fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10688544)

Has it been resurrected like our Lord, the saviour jesus h bush.

SMP (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10688078)

WOHOOO!!!!

I wonder if they plan to do smp on any other arch?

Re:SMP (2, Informative)

BawbBitchen (456931) | more than 9 years ago | (#10690091)

Depends.

I asked about SMP for Sparc32 (I have a quad SS20!) but there was no take on that. SMP for Sparc64 maybe coming..

FP (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10688080)

FP

ef pree (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10688082)

pmgs i w0ns

Hooray! (3, Funny)

Rhesus Piece (764852) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688086)

Excellent timing!
Right around Halloween, the "dead" comes back to life!

Congrats and good work to the OpenBSD team!
Keep it up.

Re:Hooray! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10688420)

Just in time for http://scoinfo.com/ [216.250.128.211] too (still hot off the DNS)! Learn all about why BSD is 0wnzors by SC0.

Re:Hooray! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10688433)

OpenBSD == BFD

Re:Hooray! (1)

falzer (224563) | more than 9 years ago | (#10689057)

Hey, just in time for the mexican "dia de los muertos!"

custom iso I made : (2, Informative)

xarontas (810791) | more than 9 years ago | (#10690002)

ed2k://|file|openBSD36.i386+ports+src.bootable.iso |276707328|abfef21976ed88d112bb413889ec24a3| you can check security using MD5 sums for the files included boot image used: floppy36.fs

Loal Dudes!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10688096)

and to those who'd mention emu ports, the processor in a mac is not as powerful as that in a PC of the same price-range, nor are most emulators that are ported to mac optimized to run on mac. additionally, i don't believe all pc games are really shite these days. some gems are released occasionally... not that the mac gets ports of them most of the time anyway.

seriously, i can't understand why anyone with even rudimentary knowledge of information technology would use a mac, other than the simplicity of use after a hard day's work on a real computer. as for me working on a mac feels almost condescendingly... simple. that's all well and good for someone who desires only to do simple tasks on their [vastly overpriced] computer, but for someone who needs to get into the guts of the machine for either fun, hobby, or simple necessity, macs are clearly not the best computers to get.

the audience for apple products is essentially people who either:

a) are better off not fiddling with the workings of a system [those unskilled when it comes to PCs]

b) people who still believe macs have better video & audio quality or are better for audio/visual editing. generally artfags, sometimes professionally.

c) people who believe the 'think different' ad campaign and the faux-utopian company-manufactured apple 'community' mean apple products make them cool. artfags, trendy college kids, yuppie blogger types.

c2) people too stubborn to switch to PCs because they have been using apple products for years and have developed 'brand loyalty'. these people are just idiots.

d) ipod users. another subclass of c, really, because they are stupid enough to buy a more expensive, less reliable, nigh-featureless product simply because everyone else has one. apple has a near-monopoly on digital music hardware and DRM'd music sales both [a 54% share of the mp3 player market against MANY competitors, plus something like 80-90% of the digital music sale market, i'm not sure about the latter figure, i haven't checked lately]. the ipod is shit hardware with shit support [the battery problem], and the alternatives are cheaper & better.

and worst of all:

e) people who buy the computer because it comes in a prefab cabinet that looks like a lamp and is therefore 'prettier'. these people are the same who hire interior designers and 'feng shui' twats to tell them what to buy and where to put it. yuppies mostly. fucking yuppies.

think boycott.

build your own pc for 1/3-1/2 the price. when it comes to laptops, you can get more powerful machines from other huge companies for a better price because they don't look like massive, colourful clamshell-style BC pillcases. you don't even have to install windows on the fucker if you don't want to. i'm sure some company still sells machines with no OS. go linux if you want to be different and special. or beos. or something that doesn't suck.

BSD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10688099)

BSD is dead.

Actually (4, Informative)

Karamchand (607798) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688107)

..it was released on 29th of October already, as you can read here [undeadly.org] . When download, please don't forget to use the torrent [benzedrine.cx] !

I wish (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10688108)

I wish there was someone in real life who knew what OpenBSD was so they could share my enthusiasm =(

DO YUO WANT KARATE?!? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10688207)

Re:I wish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10688386)

irc to chat.taucher.net #bsd
see you there!

Re:I wish (5, Funny)

nomadic (141991) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688465)

I wish there was someone in real life who knew what OpenBSD was so they could share my enthusiasm =(

I know a girl who's extremely interested in OpenBSD, I could give you her number if you want.


Nah, just messing with you, made that up.

Re:I wish (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 9 years ago | (#10689366)

well here's a real one [ambientirony.mu.nu] .
I don't have her number though....

On Address Space Randomization... (4, Interesting)

nweaver (113078) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688113)

There was an excellent paper at CCS last week on the limits of address space randomization. If you want address space randomization to be effective, use a 64 bit architecture and native 64 bit binaries for your OpenBSD system.

Re:On Address Space Randomization... (4, Informative)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688387)

couldn't find the whole paper, but here's a short description:
here [stanford.edu]

About Slashdot BSD Logo (-1, Offtopic)

Metteyya (790458) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688136)

Concerning recent releases of Free- and OpenBSD, isn't that time to start thinking about new icon? NetBSD changed their symbol lately to orange flag and because two other BSD's use the same logo as Net, maybe it's time to put this flag on /.?

Re:About Slashdot BSD Logo (1)

isolenz (466129) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688227)

ummm, what are you talking about, openbsd is using the fish (puffy is his name?). and has been since early 3.0 releases (I think 3.1). Personally, I think that the fish is much better than the flag. So all three distro's are unique now in terms of icons.

--
isolenz

Re:About Slashdot BSD Logo (2, Informative)

Chundra (189402) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688399)

Actually, the fish has been around since 2.6 [openbsd.org] .

Re:About Slashdot BSD Logo (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10688306)

stfu. you're either a troll - or a fucking retard.

Re:About Slashdot BSD Logo (3, Informative)

ebooher (187230) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688750)

Ok, the current icon for a generic BSD story on /. right now is the Daemon, right? Everyone I know associates the Daemon with BSD regardless of flavor. NetBSD has attempted to single themselves out as a seperate distro from the rest of the BSD group/stables. Why would it make any sense to use their new logo as the *generic* BSD logo? If the /. story is 100% devoted to NetBSD, then sure, use the flag like Apple has their own logo. But I don't think it would be worthwhile to replace the Daemon with the NetBSD flag on a story dealing with OpenBSD.

Re:About Slashdot BSD Logo (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 9 years ago | (#10689409)

For openBSD they should use This pic [icewalkers.com] since it was definatly the best release image.... EVER.

Little Late (2, Informative)

the morgawr (670303) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688139)

OBSD 3.6 has been out since Friday. It was released early with the hope that mirrors would have time to get set up before a massive slashdot-like download blasted the main site.

Well, come to think of it, this article was on time...

Is there a such thing as... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10688151)

'Closed'BSD ???

is that what SCO is all aboot???

Thanks,
Albert Pooholes

Re:Is there a such thing as... (2, Informative)

eln (21727) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688345)

Well, there was BSDi, which I think is defunct now, which was a closed-source OS on a BSD base (a piss poor one, I might add). Then of course, there's OSX, which is a closed source OS built on a BSD core.

So yes, there is.

BSD is UNIX (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10688156)

yeah baby, it rulez!
and the openntpd is a good piece of work.

GNU must die. Somebody must clean the shit.

Firewall ? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10688161)

What are the differences ,between packet filter and ip tables, for use as a firewall box ?

Re:Firewall ? (-1, Flamebait)

Triumph The Insult C (586706) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688292)

pf(4) works and isn't a nasty kludge of hacks

Re:Firewall ? (2, Insightful)

homer_ca (144738) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688636)

That and a pf ruleset actually makes sense when you read it.

Re:Firewall ? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10688740)

Both PacketFilter and NetFilter provide enhanced filtering capabilities, and are statefull.

The way you build your rules is a little different.

I don't think there's much difference for Joe User (who wants to protect his home network beind cable/dsl).

The features in pf that I like are:
- packet normalization (scrub in all)
- ISN modification (modulate state)

I think you should rather use OpenBSD/pf if you intend to have a firewall with enhanced VPN capabilities, since OpenBSD has pretty good security features.

But the bottom line is: choose the one you're comfortable with. Both can be secure only if well configured!

BSD is dying :-( (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10688173)

Sad but true.

When's the last time you installed it on a computer? Not as an upgrade from a previous version, but as a new install on a system that never had BSD installed on it before.

Re:BSD is dying :-( (0, Troll)

SocietyoftheFist (316444) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688389)

Last year. I'm about to install 3.6 on an Ultra 10 I was given too.

Re:BSD is dying :-( (3, Funny)

Ryan Huddleston (759930) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688434)

FreeBSD 5.2.1-RELEASE (GENERIC) #0: Mon Feb 23 20:45:55 GMT 2004
ryan@cm ryan $ date
Mon Nov 1 13:20:20 EST 2004
ryan@cm ryan $ uptime
1:17PM up 172 days, 17:47, 1 user, load averages: 1.44, 1.45, 1.42
About 172 days ago.

Re:BSD is dying :-( (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10688782)

Well then you forgot a couple of ca's to do ...
But hell (to keep it bsd) if you wan't uptime only, I guess FreeBSD is suited as any other OS.

Re:BSD is dying :-( (1)

Jayfar (630313) | more than 9 years ago | (#10689708)

~$ uname -a
Linux zig.jayfar.com 2.4.18-6mdk #1 Fri Mar 15 02:59:08 CET 2002 i686 unknown
~$ uptime
2:17pm up 275 days, 6:28, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

Re:BSD is dying :-( (1)

psbrogna (611644) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688915)

Yesterday. I use BSD for anything that I'd like to be more secure than the average distro. Anything on the frontline basically- w/ports open to the wild. Chroot'ing gives me a warm fuzzy. You gotta assume that now matter what software you're using it's going to have holes, and the holes will eventually be discovered. It's nice to know that when this happens the damage will be somewhat limited.

It's like a BSD golden age lately (3, Interesting)

ewg (158266) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688195)

It's like a BSD golden age lately, with (alphabetically!) FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD releases coinciding.

Hooray for all three. It's a amazing luxury to have so many open source Unix-like operating systems and kernels out there, free for the download.

Re:It's like a BSD golden age lately (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10688551)

I'm still waiting on DeadBSD

Re:It's like a BSD golden age lately (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10689696)

Wait longer... *much* longer. ;)
Nearly 2.5 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD [netcraft.com]

Re:It's like a BSD golden age lately (4, Informative)

BrookHarty (9119) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688743)

There are more BSD's distros than the top3 (Free/Net/Open), you have PicoBSD, Firefly BSD, Debian GNU/BSD, Gentoo BSD, BSDi, BSD-OS and Darwin.

Seems like lots of choices for BSD users.

Re:It's like a BSD golden age lately (1)

Fweeky (41046) | more than 9 years ago | (#10689082)

s/Fire/Dragon/

Re:It's like a BSD golden age lately (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10688947)

Yeah.. its too bad the age will only last for
20 turns.

Re:It's like a BSD golden age lately (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 9 years ago | (#10689025)

This is a total opposite of what it was like in the past.

10 years ago I really wanted to learn a unix but had no real stable versions available for the pc. You needed a risc box. I was thinking of buying a Powerpc 601 next cube. They were cheap and only $1400. My friends thought I was nuts. A few years later I learned about Linux and it became stable and ready enough to use.

Today its the opposite with cheap free unixies available on x86.

Re:It's like a BSD golden age lately (1)

C. E. Sum (1065) | more than 9 years ago | (#10689162)

Powerpc 601 next cube ??

The cubes were 68k based, as were the slabs. After a point you could run OpenStep on several platforms (among them PPC), but there was no NeXT branded hardware that I know of.

Re:It's like a BSD golden age lately (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 9 years ago | (#10689490)

Are you sure?

I remember reading about it in pc magazine in 1994. I may be confusing a riscOS box which looked cool(it was a long time ago), but I remember seeing the gui with the doc and lusting after it. That or perhaps it was a powerpc prototype?

It mentioned it lacked real software and Next was trying to make a last pitch in order to save it.

Don't forget the most important part.... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10688204)

of this release!

A new BSD song!

Yeah!!!!!!

Re:Don't forget the most important part.... (0)

e9th (652576) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688564)

Offtopic? C'mon, mods. CD 2, track 2.

i notice... (5, Interesting)

null-sRc (593143) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688240)

i noticed under new features:

tcpdrop(8), a command to drop TCP connections.

this looked like an awesome idea, and I'm wondering what the windows / linux equivalent is... anyone know?

Re:i notice... (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688478)

Ok, it says that if one connection is causing congestion, you can drop the connection...
But can they just reconnect?

Re:i notice... (2, Informative)

Tuzanor (125152) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688652)

Not if you already changed the firewall rules to stop it. :-) If you change the firewall rules, the already open states would still be there and you'd have to kill the connection for it to stop. This new feature just gives you more fine grained control. So instead of having to flush all the open states (which would affect everything)

Re:i notice... (1)

SillySnake (727102) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688611)

In windows it's the power button.

Re:i notice... (1)

HepCatA (313858) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688662)

I think in Windows it's a balloon that pops up and says "Network Cable Disconnected"... :-)

Re:i notice... (2, Informative)

NicolaiBSD (460297) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688730)

Linux/iptables equivalent is here [freshmeat.net] .

Re:i notice... (1)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688917)

there is none in windows that i know of, but it would be trivial to code one:

MIB_TCPROW row={MIB_TCP_STATE_CLOSED, myaddr, myport, theiraddr, theirport};
SetTcpEntry(&row);

Not just for routing. (5, Informative)

saintlupus (227599) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688308)

OpenBSD has a reputation for being the ideal platform for making into a router or firewall. That's true, but it's also a really nice general server OS for low power tasks. I run it at home as a file/web server, and it's really quite nice.

If you like Unix (as opposed to hating Microsoft), give it a shot.

--saint

Re:Not just for routing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10688779)

I run it at home as a file/web server, and it's really quite nice.

Thats what the neighbours say about serial killers.

Re:Not just for routing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10688807)

Figure this is the best place to ask:

1) As a windows user, plus some experience with Linux (Mandrake is running my current file/web server), where's the best place to start when trying to jump into one of the BSDs for a file/web server?

2) My drives are currently ext3; will BSD recognize that?

Thanks!

Re:Recent FreeBSD switcher (1)

erik_norgaard (692400) | more than 9 years ago | (#10690037)

1) Haven't tried NetBSD or Dragonfly. But, I think FreeBSD is by far the general purpose server OS, and also I believe the easiest to pick up coming from Linux.

2) If I am not completely wrong, then you can mount ext3 as ext2 with the price of not having the journaling. If so, your file system will be mountable as ext2 under FreeBSD.

macppc G5 support? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10688313)

When will Open support Apple's new G5 computers? Currently the hardware compatability only lists all older G3 and G4 based computers.

Reasons I like OpenBSD (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10688498)

Simple (text install). Default install is small, but gives you a complete, basic Unix-like OS. Man pages are really useful. Multi-platform, so you don't have to manage a different OS on every arch you have. OpenBSD is creating technology that helps other distros, such as OpenSSH. I'm expecting to see their BGP and NTP stuff showing up elsewhere.

If you had ordered the CD's... (5, Informative)

BawbBitchen (456931) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688539)

...you would have 2 servers up and running already. Got my CD's last week and have 1 new box up and one old 3.5 box upgraded. May thanks to Theo and the team for such great software.

If you have not tried OpenBSD please do. While I will not speak on the idea of OpenBSD on the desktop I will speak to how great it is as a firewall. If you have struggled with IPTABLES it is time to give a try to PF. Have a look. It should be easy to understand:

ext_if="xl0"
int_if="fxp0"
# clean up the packets
scrub in all
# nat the internal network to the external interface
nat on $ext_if from !($ext_if) -> ($ext_if:0)
# setup a table of RTBL IP's for spammers
table persist
#redirect any IP's in the the RTBL to spamd
rdr pass inet proto tcp from to any port smtp -> 127.0.0.1 port 8025
# ftp proxy
rdr pass on $int_if proto tcp to port ftp -> 127.0.0.1 port 8021
# redirect any internal user to squid
rdr on $int_if inet proto tcp from any to ! $int_if port 80 -> 127.0.0.1 port 3128
# pass extenal web request to the internal www server
rdr on $ext_if proto tcp from any to any port http -> 192.168.0.2
# pass extenal web request to the internal www server
rdr on $ext_if proto tcp from any to any port https -> 192.168.0.2
# drop everything
block in log
# allow out and keep track
pass out keep state
# allow anything to the loopback and internal interface
pass quick on { lo $int_if }
# no RFC 1918 spoofing (quick - do it now!)
antispoof quick for { lo $int_if }
# allow external ssh in
pass in log on $ext_if proto tcp to ($ext_if) port ssh keep state
# allow smtp in
pass in log on $ext_if proto tcp to ($ext_if) port smtp keep state
# allow the www forwarding
pass in log on $ext_if proto tcp to 192.168.0.2 port http keep state
# allow the www forwarding
pass in log on $ext_if proto tcp to 192.168.0.2 port https keep state
# allow outbound smtp
pass out log on $ext_if proto tcp from ($ext_if) to port smtp keep state

Very simple and clean. If you need a firewall give it a try!

Re:If you had ordered the CD's... (1)

Megaweapon (25185) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688751)

That's pretty cool looking. Is there any sort of comparison between pf and iptables out there? A quick googling didn't find much (or I'm using the wrong terms). iptables can certainly be a bit cryptic, and if pf is as simple as that I'll definitely have to take a look at it.

Re:If you had ordered the CD's... (4, Informative)

the morgawr (670303) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688893)

Don't know of a comparison but a quick overview of pf is available: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/index.html

It might just be that I'm a little thick up top, but I've found it easier and quicker to use PF instead of iptables for routers. The main thing I like about it is that you can do your packet shaping and filtering with the same config file. You can also track state connections by IP address (source tracking).

Re:If you had ordered the CD's... (1)

Megaweapon (25185) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688983)

Cool, thanks (I should have started with the FAQ, duh). I just like how I can skim the pf stuff and get a pretty good idea about what is going on, rather than a klunky-looking iptables script.

Re:If you had ordered the CD's... (3, Informative)

e9th (652576) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688988)

A reasonably good book on pf is Building Firewalls With OpenBSD and pf by Jacek Artemiak. It's an okay intro to firewalling, with lots of pf specific examples. No direct comparisons with iptables, though.

Re:If you had ordered the CD's... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10689457)

pf doesn't do this [suse.com]

Re:If you had ordered the CD's... (3, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 9 years ago | (#10689470)

You are actually using more rules than you really need to, as you can combine the rdr and the pass rules:

## Webserver (http/https)
rdr pass on $ext_if proto tcp from any to ($ext_if) port http -> 10.0.0.8 port http
rdr pass on $ext_if proto tcp from any to ($ext_if) port https -> 10.0.0.8 port https

I like this better than having two seperate rules, as you know youve included both!

Return of the undead (-1, Troll)

axafluff (530026) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688590)

BSD is resurrected!

hotplugd is neat (5, Informative)

hkb (777908) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688745)

hotplugd is pretty damned neat on the user end. It allows you to define actions performed when a device is plugged in, such as a digital camera (ala cp /mnt/camera/* ~/pictures/$DATE/).

It's also mentioned in a recently slashdotted interview with some OpenBSD devs here:
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2004/10/28/ openbsd _3_6.html

OpenBSD impossible to update? (4, Interesting)

berck (60937) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688816)

I've got OpenBSD running as a little personal webserver, DNS server and so on. It's running OpenBSD3.1, because at least back then, it was absolutely impossible to update. Every up understanddate involves going through and manually mucking with endless configuration files, etc. I use Debian for most everything, and have grown so used to the ability to run an apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade.

The inability to easily update OpenBSD, to me, nullifies any benefit one gets from it being "secure". If I'm running a two year old version of Apache because it's such a pain in the butt to update, how iss that secure? I think automatic security updates are imperative for a secure system.

And, furthermore, the automatic updating system should be secure as well.

Re:OpenBSD impossible to update? (5, Informative)

44BSD (701309) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688966)

CVS is your friend. See also the updating mini-faq, conveniently located here [openbsd.org]

Re:OpenBSD impossible to update? (1)

berck (60937) | more than 9 years ago | (#10689136)

Exactly. There are what, 200 files in /etc that need to be updated by hand to get from 3.1 to 3.6?

Re:OpenBSD impossible to update? (1)

the morgawr (670303) | more than 9 years ago | (#10689272)

Maybe you should have updated with each release since jumping from more then two behind isn't gauranteed to be supported. I'm just guessing but, I think if you tried to skip 5 major releases of debian, you'd have some problems too.

I update my production servers within a month of every release and it never takes more than 30 minutes.

Re:OpenBSD impossible to update? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10689513)

That is because you just use OpenBSD without any ports/packets. Or if you do, they packages don't use flavors, which it really takes longer to update.

Re:OpenBSD impossible to update? (1)

berck (60937) | more than 9 years ago | (#10689746)

I updated 3.1 from CVS when there was a big apache security hole. It was a pain, but I didn't have to spend hours in /etc. When I looked at what it was going to take to update to 3.2 when it came out, I groaned, and decided to do it later.

Part of the problem is I don't interact with this machine. It serves stuff. OpenBSD is just enough not-linux that it takes me a long time to remember how to do some fairly basic things, like upgrading with CVS. I have to read the how-to's each time.

Which is why, unless you guys manage to convince me otherwise, it's going to run Debian eventually so I don't have to worry about it.

And, no, Debian has no problem updating from anything to anything. It just does it all like magic. In fact, I still install Debian from the same base files on the same CD I made two years ago, and just run update...

Re:OpenBSD impossible to update? (4, Informative)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 9 years ago | (#10689309)

Also you can use binary snapshots to upgrade, which I did recently from 3.1 -> 3.5. VERY easy. I would've done source upgrade, but the computer is a 386 and that takes a long time :-p

As for updating files in /etc/ ... MERGEMASTER! It's a port, in sysutils I think...mergemaster is your friend, and a really, really awesome program.

Re:OpenBSD impossible to update? (1)

manifest37 (632701) | more than 9 years ago | (#10689505)

I can attest to this. Mergemaster allowed me to update two 3.5 boxes to 3.6 in less than hour, including doing the actual upgrade from the cd. Yes I bought the cd, and you should too.

Re:OpenBSD impossible to update? (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 9 years ago | (#10690125)

I agree--beyond supporting OpenBSD, it's quite handy to have the CDs. I've convinced the business to buy a copy of OpenBSD at least a time or two a year, so it works out pretty nicely.

Re:OpenBSD impossible to update? (1)

berck (60937) | more than 9 years ago | (#10689816)

Oh, that sounds awfully promissing. I'll check it out, thanks!

Re:OpenBSD impossible to update? (1)

the morgawr (670303) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688990)

How is it hard to update? I've run servers with OBSD since 2.9 and I've never had problems.

Re:OpenBSD impossible to update? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10689359)

How hard is it to back-up important files, install, restore the back-ups, then reinstall important applications? When you do this, you have just updated the system (which you claim cannot be updated).

If you have a system of administration policies and methods, this should not be too hard.

I think you just want everything done for you so you just need to push a button or click an icon. Oh! Maybe that's maybe the problem--you are probably a GUI person. You do seem to not like getting your hands dirty, as evidenced by your statement about "mucking with endless configuration files."

As far as updating apache, download the latest target, untar it, move into its root directory, "./configure" it, "make" it, "make install" it, and replenish it with your configuration options (and extra modificactions).

What?!

Re:OpenBSD impossible to update? (1)

berck (60937) | more than 9 years ago | (#10689597)

I suppose that before I was a debian user, and before I'd experienced the magic of apt-get, I would have thought the same way. I used Slackware for years, and back in the real of Slackware 4, upgrading glibc was almost impossible. You had to start by compiling a compiler, so that you could eventually compile the libraries, and deal with managing concurrent libs. It's not that couldn't do it, it's just so much nicer to have the ability to let a well-built utility do it for me!

It's not that I mind getting my hands dirty, it's that it just seems like a waste of time. I am a GUI person in the sense that I use KDE. But I do it on a dual-head system, and one head runs nothing but tabbed consoles. Some things are better suited to a GUI (web browsing) others are better suited to the command line (file manipulation).

Re:OpenBSD impossible to update? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10689510)

Looking through the OpenBSD documentation it does seem indeed possible and not the worst thing you could go through.

Keeping up to date with security fixes on the other hand just comes off as odd for most Linux users. Reading through the docs the OpenBSD way does seem to make sense in a "Unix way" but for anyone who has used any modern Linux distro or even Windows it comes off as positively unnecessary and more difficult than it needs to be. Debian, Fedora, Mandrake, Suse etc all have moron proof, no thought upgrade mechanisms. This is a philosophy I subscribe to as well and until OpenBSD changes its methods(ie never) it will continue to seem strange and needlessly awkward for performing basic updating functions that other modern OS's made easy long ago.

I know with a few scripts keeping OpenBSD up to date seems rather simple to old hats but signed binaries rather than compiling fixes are the way of the future.

I'm not saying OpenBSD sucks or something but they as well as Gentoo are out of step with anyone who isn't an OS hobbyist. The role I see for them is more of a security research team that comes up with good ideas that can be folded into other products rather than an OS that will ever be widely used for Corporate or home users. That's OK too.

Re:OpenBSD impossible to update? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10689564)

In that case, you should use FreeBSD. make world and mergemaster works great, isn't it?

They released a corpse? (-1, Troll)

ShatteredDream (636520) | more than 9 years ago | (#10688884)

Or is BSD alive today? I can't remember. Can someone tell me whether we're trying to kill BSD or praise BSD today.

Off to my 2 minute Microsoft hate...

Goodbye to [XFree86, ipf & apache] groups? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10688918)

The notes to the Pond-erosa Puff [openbsd.org] lyrics complain about XFree86, ipf and Apache being non-free and state "Make your stuff non-free, and something else will replace it."

According to the release notes, it seems like ipf is the only thing that actually did get replaced. XFree86 has been "replaced" by XFree86 4.4.0 "unencumbered." And Apache has been replaced by... Apache v1.3.29. Does this mean they consider Apache v1.x to be a "replacement" to Apache v2.x? Are they going to continue with Apache v1.x or is there some point that they will actually *replace* it?

FInally (2, Funny)

Grayswan (260299) | more than 9 years ago | (#10689182)

Awesome! I can finally run BSD on my old quad 386sx with 1Meg of RAM! Now I'll be cooking with propane.

Re:FInally (1)

Gogo Dodo (129808) | more than 9 years ago | (#10689607)

Don't you know that propane is dead? Charcoal all the way!

Re:FInally (1)

MrNemesis (587188) | more than 9 years ago | (#10689824)

But does Netcraft confirm it? ;)

Re:FInally (1)

Gogo Dodo (129808) | more than 9 years ago | (#10690095)

Yup, it's dead [netcraft.com] : Site name or availability problem for www.propane.com. We could not get any results for your selected site.

Way behind the times (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10689433)

...containing significant new features such as: SMP support for i386 and amd64 archs...

Wow, SMP support. And it's only 2004.

PFFFTTTTTTTTTTTT.

CDs (1)

LittleLebowskiUrbanA (619114) | more than 9 years ago | (#10689445)

Anybody gotten their CDs yet? Ordered mine a month ago. The new stickers should give the GPL/Linux Nazis at my work pause :)

OT: Where is NetBSD 2.0?? (1)

astyanax (8365) | more than 9 years ago | (#10689462)

I'm very happy for OpenBSD's and FreeBSD's recent releases, but where the heck is NetBSD 2.0? I thought the original timeline was late May '04? Any NetBSD developers know the inside scoop on this? I'm sure the logo contest did not push back the relase of the whole OS!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>