×

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!

Theo de Raadt gets 2004 FSF Award

CmdrTaco posted more than 9 years ago | from the big-fancy-awards dept.

News 233

Caligari writes "Richard Stallman, presents this year's award to Theo de Raadt. "For recognition as founder and project leader of the OpenBSD and OpenSSH projects. Theo de Raadt's work has also led to significant contributions to GNU/Linux and other BSD distributions. Of particular note is Theo's work on OpenSSH. Theo's leadership of OpenBSD, his selfless commitment to Free Software and his advancement of network security, were cited by this year's award committee.""

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

233 comments

GNU/Linux and other BSD distributions? (-1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793728)

Didn't know Linux was a BSD distribution....

Re:GNU/Linux and other BSD distributions? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11793743)

"leader of the OpenBSD and OpenSSH projects. Theo de Raadt's work has also led to significant contributions to GNU/Linux and other BSD distributions"

notice the word "ALSO"? So his work has ALSO contributed to GNU/Linux and other BSD distributions BESIDES the BSD distribution OpenBSD.

try to read next time!

Re:GNU/Linux and other BSD distributions? (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793815)

'Also' makes no difference to the meaning (and your rewrite also contains the problem phrase). I had to read it twice as the most obvious meaning isn't the correct one this time.

It would probably have been better as 'other BSD distributions and GNU/Linux' as that's harder to misread. Can't think of anything clearer without bringing the grammar nazis out.

Lighen up... RMS describing Linux as a BSD distribution would be quite funny actually.

Re:GNU/Linux and other BSD distributions? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793842)

It would probably have been better as 'other BSD distributions and GNU/Linux' as that's harder to misread. Can't think of anything clearer without bringing the grammar nazis out.i

Some grammar nazis might complain about the tautology `Berkley Software Distribution Distributions'.

Re:GNU/Linux and other BSD distributions? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11793744)

"Contributed to OpenBSD, Linux Distributions and other BSDs"

There is a way to understand it, and another way to misunderstand it.

Re:GNU/Linux and other BSD distributions? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11793748)

I think the article meant it in the sense of "GNU/Linux and BSD distributions other than OpenBSD" - ie: NetBSD and FreeBSD, both of which implement features pioneered by OpenBSD.

Re:GNU/Linux and other BSD distributions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11793778)

> Didn't know Linux was a BSD distribution....
It isn't. If it were, it would have a much hotter mascot [keltia.net] :)

Re:GNU/Linux and other BSD distributions? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11794069)

it might even have two mascots [pheonixgirls.net]!

Now mod this insightful!!!

too bad (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11793732)

that BSD is dying.

netcraft confirms it.

Re:too bad (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11793761)

Not only that, Theo de Raadt is dying.

I'd say *Troll*, more than "Offtopic"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11793883)

.. if you wanna be honest, of course.
--
Requiem for the FUD [slashdot.org]

WTF? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11793752)

Richard Stallman giving an award to Theo de Raadt? That's like Hitler giving an award to Stalin.

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11794033)

Haha, that made me chuckle. Funny because it's metaphorically true.

BSD and FSF? (1, Funny)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793754)

FSF people giving an award to a BSD guy? Delete this new, it's not 1st April tooday!

Re:BSD and FSF? (5, Interesting)

whitespacedout (696269) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793786)

That's pretty cool of Stallman really. Showing respect and recognition to the importance of BSD, despite their mutual differences in ideology about what constitutes truly free software.

Re:BSD and FSF? (5, Insightful)

fsmunoz (267297) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793861)

Actually the differences in ideology between the GNU and BSD developers are more in the outlook and means than any other thing. Free software is free software for both camps, and most sane people in both sides shares a common idea of what free software is. The licences, that are generally the main difference between the two, try to achieve an end using different approaches, but all in all both GNU and BSD people are great contributors to a common free software community. The noise many times created is more on the "newly convert" section of each side :).

It's IMHO rather silly to watch the flame wars between the GNU/Linux and *BSD sides when there is so much more that unites us than what divides us. This award make perfect sense. In the end a gnu, a penguin and a daemon can sometimes be noisy neighbourghs, but in the end they stick together to defend their building. Shitty alegory, I know, eh.

cheers,

fsmunoz

Re:BSD and FSF? (1)

Bastian (66383) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793992)

In the end a gnu, a penguin and a daemon can sometimes be noisy neighbourghs, but in the end they stick together to defend their building.

They may be friends, but that doesn't change the fact that nobody has a &@$% clue how to pronounce 'gnu'.

Re:BSD and FSF? (1)

blixel (158224) | more than 9 years ago | (#11794043)

They may be friends, but that doesn't change the fact that nobody has a &@$% clue how to pronounce 'gnu'.

(GNU is a recursive acronym for "GNU's Not UNIX"; it is pronounced "guh-noo." [gnu.org])

Re:BSD and FSF? (1)

Bastian (66383) | more than 9 years ago | (#11794130)

You pronounce the G? Then what's this "New Linux" I keep hearing about all the time?

Re:BSD and FSF? (1)

byolinux (535260) | more than 9 years ago | (#11794183)

You pronounce the slash too. GNU Linux suggests that the FSF wrote Linux :)

Re:BSD and FSF? (1)

Bastian (66383) | more than 9 years ago | (#11794304)

But guh-noo-slash-lih-nucks makes it sound like there's some new FSF distribution called Slash Linux!

Re:BSD and FSF? (1)

whitespacedout (696269) | more than 9 years ago | (#11794111)

Most sane people in both sides shares a common idea of what free software is.

Tsk. Most sane people don't actually know the difference. I think the difference is important enough to worry about.

The freedom of BSD has the danger of making you a prisoner of its distributed derivatives. GPL guarantees your freedom on distributed derivatives. That's why MS likes and uses BSD - because it can be used to lock you in - but fears the GPL - GPL code belongs to you for the asking. That is also why GPL will eventually out-evolve all other software.

What? (2, Insightful)

ArbitraryConstant (763964) | more than 9 years ago | (#11794297)

"The freedom of BSD has the danger of making you a prisoner of its distributed derivatives."

How? If you don't like the version the company you're dealing with (Sun, Apple) is shipping, you can always get the official software from openssh.org.

"GPL code belongs to you for the asking. That is also why GPL will eventually out-evolve all other software."

No. What has become obvious is that the community of developers is what drives the evolution of a system. Either can stagnate, either can advance quickly.

Re:BSD and FSF? (4, Insightful)

0racle (667029) | more than 9 years ago | (#11794305)

If you choose to distribute BSD licensed code, your stuff doesn't become less free because you chose to allow those distribution terms. You are only a 'prisoner,' as you said, of your own right to choose how to distribute some code. The GPL has numerous restrictions placed upon how you can use GPL software that the BSD license doesn't, therefore it grants far more freedom to everyone. The GPL is not a magic bullet and is not suitable for all situations, and simply having a 500 page license behind your software does not make it any better then anything else or guarantee that it will 'out evolve' anything else.

BTW, care to explain how MS locks me in by using BSD code that I can go and pick up just about anywhere else.

Re:BSD and FSF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11794318)

That is also why GPL will eventually out-evolve all other software.

That remains to be seen. Linux got a big financial boost because it was a fad during the .com boom in the late 1990s. It's still feeding off of that money, and contributions from firms like IBM and Novell, who see Linux as a potential way to both drum up interest in their products (Linux is still mildly interesting to the media), and to harm Microsoft.

Historically, without critical factors like the Linux fad during the .com boom, or the Microsoft OS monopoly, GPL-licensed products have tended to languish. Major open-source projects have always used a variety of licences, with no evidence that projects licensed under the GPL have any particular advantages. In fact, the most pervasive open-source technologies, e.g. BSD sockets and X11, tend to have depended on commercial implementations for their success. That success, in turn, has provided interoperability with the open-source versions, and allowed them to remain useful and evolve. A case in point is that Linux would be essentially useless if either it lacked support for BSD sockets, or if Microsoft Windows lacked support for BSD sockets.

Re:BSD and FSF? (0, Flamebait)

javax (598925) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793898)

There wasn't something like a united brotherhood of open source software on stage when Theo and Stallmann were shaking hands.
Theo will probably burn the FSF-rug anyway...

Re:BSD and FSF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11793833)

I think it's one of the signs of the apocalypse.

Re:BSD and FSF? (4, Informative)

jbolden (176878) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793848)

They've done this quite a bit in the past in terms of licenses:
(The following uses GPL for LGPL... and BSD for BSD, X...)

2004 Theo de Raadt (BSD)
2003 Alan Cox (GPL license)
2002 Lawrence Lessig (ALL)
2001 Guido van Rossum (Python license / BSDish license)
2000 Brian Paul (X license/BSDish )
1999 Miguel de Icaza (LGPL/GPLish)
1998 Larry Wall (Artistic/ closer to BSD than GPL but...)

Linus Torvalds? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11793766)

Looking at past winners, no doubt they all deserve it .. but what about Linus Torvalds?
Is there a reason he didnt get this award?

That said .. OpenSSH rocks. Theo de Raadt and everyone else who contributes to OpenSSH should be proud.

Re:Linus Torvalds? (5, Informative)

Hope Thelps (322083) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793816)

Looking at past winners, no doubt they all deserve it .. but what about Linus Torvalds?
Is there a reason he didnt get this award?


I don't know whether this is still the policy, but from memory they originally aimed for this award to go to people who hadn't already received other awards for their work on free software. Linus has so wouldn't be eligible.

Re:Linus Torvalds? (2, Insightful)

Pflipp (130638) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793829)

Another reason could be that Linus is an a-political OSS writer, while the FS Award seems to be oriented at ideology. Last year's winner, IIRC, was Lawrence Lessig. I've never used a line of software he's written, but he's going all the way for FS ideology.

Nevertheless, there's no such thing as a perfect match for an award winner (prove the Nobel Prices for Peace :p), and it cannot be denied that Linus has done his share.

Re:Linus Torvalds? (2, Insightful)

Hope Thelps (322083) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793864)

Another reason could be that Linus is an a-political OSS writer, while the FS Award seems to be oriented at ideology. Last year's winner, IIRC, was Lawrence Lessig. I've never used a line of software he's written, but he's going all the way for FS ideology.

I'd say that Theo is much further from the FSF's ideology than Linus is. Linus at least likes the GPL.

Re:Linus Torvalds? (5, Informative)

808140 (808140) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793998)

Hardly. Theo wouldn't give a free software award to RMS, perhaps, because he considers GPL licensed code to be less than Free, but RMS considers BSD-licensed code to be Free, and he's the one giving the award.

Despite their differing views on what constitutes Free Software, though, both men are largely motivated by ideology. Consider Theo's reaction to the ipf debacle, his response to the XFree86 license change, and his appeal to the community to help fight the good fight against wlan cards that require non-freely redistributable binary firmware to function. This man is every bit as committed to software freedom as RMS is.

Linus, on the other hand, has stated publically on many occasions that he sees nothing wrong with proprietary software, and uses BitKeeper (a proprietary version control solution) to manage the Linux kernel tree (rather than say, CVS or Subversion) because, in his words, "it's better".

Without passing judgement, it is very clear that Linus values convenience above principle. This is part of the reason so many Slashbots like him: he is, in their minds, "refreshingly" a-political.

Whatever their differences, RMS and Theo are both idealistic. They are primarily motivated by their desire for Freedom, not because they want to produce the best system ever (although that may be true as well).

To me, RMS giving TdR this award is absolutely appropriate, and while I didn't expect it, I'm very pleased. I would be very surprised if Linus were named, and to be honest, I would be a little disappointed.

Not that I have anything against Linus, mind you -- he's a brilliant guy -- but at the core, he's an engineer, and so awarding him for his commitment to the ideology of Free Software would go rather against the grain, imho.

Very Well Said (1)

curveclimber (17352) | more than 9 years ago | (#11794121)

Stallman is constantly the target of criticism for being so concerned with distinguishing Free software form Open Source software. But the posts above show even the technically literate audience of /. still don't get it.

I think you explained well why TdR would be more deserving of a Free software award than Torvalds.

Re:Linus Torvalds? (2, Insightful)

HanB (774214) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793851)

I don't agree with modding down the parent.

You get a reward to be put in the spotlight. To introduce someone you didn't really know or did not yet see the full quality of his work.

Linus is already fully in the spotlight.

He deserves it ! (4, Insightful)

rainer_d (115765) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793768)

Whatever you think about his personality - I think most people vastly underestimate the contributions OpenBSD makes to the Free Software World.
Not only from a pure lines-of-code point-of-view, but also by the way the OpenBSD-project scrutinizes licenses and pushes security and cryptography forward every day.

Congratulations, Theo - keep on fighting !

Agreed. (1)

hot_Karls_bad_cavern (759797) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793792)

i was just about say something along these lines. Theo can turn folks who encounter him for the first time, but i gotta tell ya, i sleep better at night with a stripped, clean, secure OpenBSD firewall. i give money to the FSF, i think OpenBSD is deserving of my monetary support as well. Glad to see this type of recognition for his work :)

Theo responds in typical BSD fashion... (5, Funny)

Mr Ambersand (862402) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793769)

..by refusing the award on the grounds that the GNU license "isn't free enough". ;-)

Re:Theo responds in typical BSD fashion... (0, Offtopic)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793801)

Troll? Moderators who don't know what smileys are?

Ah yes. This is slashdot.

Bet they're on crack too...

So what's the award? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11793771)

Does it involve monetary prizes?

Re:So what's the award? (1)

Lobo93 (638514) | more than 9 years ago | (#11794000)

He got 5 kilos of flax; none of that funny money you wage slaves call "a reason to live".

He killed telnet! (5, Insightful)

ftoomch (700184) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793791)

Imagine a world without the networking Swiss Army knife that is ssh.

OpenBSD is a totally underrated OS too. Even if it is a bit slow, its packet filter actually works.

Re:He killed telnet! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11793874)

Err, the Swiss army knife of networking is netcat, not ssh. And besides, Theo has nothing to do with the creation of ssh. He (and dozens others, of course) implemented a free version of it. So, if anyone, it was Tatu Ylonen who killed telnet.

Re:He killed telnet! (1)

BJH (11355) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793935)

Yes, but then Ylonen went on to try and kill the beast he'd created by taking it non-free.
If it wasn't for Theo and his posse, we'd all still be using a cranky, buggy, unsafe release of SSHv1.

Re:He killed telnet! (2, Insightful)

ftoomch (700184) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793937)

I didn't realize that the netcat people had trademarked that name. Seriously though, I just used this metaphor to show that ssh is not just a secure way to log in to some server (and I have heard it referred to as a Swiss Army knife before, by the O'Reilly people no less).

I didn't say he did invent ssh, but I believe he has been the main popularizer of it by giving all and sundry a free version of it.

Watch out! (2, Funny)

JM (18663) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793796)

Eventually, Stallman is going to ask us to call it Gnu/OpenBSD ;-)

Re:Watch out! (4, Insightful)

slavemowgli (585321) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793858)

Unlikely. The BSD people are actively working to replace every GNU utility still in the system with a BSD-licensed version - look at the changelogs for OpenBSD, for example, and you'll occasionally see an entry mentioning that this or that has been replaced.

Re:Watch out! (1)

northcat (827059) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793868)

Only on slashdot does a post like parent not get modded down as troll.

Have some fucking gratitude.

Tito, hand me a cluestick (1)

Flower (31351) | more than 9 years ago | (#11794182)

When you reincarnate please remember to stay in line and get double helpings on observance (you missed the emoticon which provides *gasp* context) and humor (ummmm, it was an obvious joke) before coming back. The gift of "leading sheep into making bad mods on /." really wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

Re:Watch out! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11793959)

Old joke.

The only reason that Stallman wants to call it GNU/Linux operating system is because calling it 'linux' is just to ambigious.

Linux is a kernel.
Linux is a OS.
Linux is a social movement.

All of it's meanings are used interchangably and unless you understand excactly what is going on in the discussion it makes it very hard for a lay-person to understand what is going on and causes needless arguements when somebody just wants to talk about linus and kernel developement and the other person wants to talk about Free and open source software in general but things that what the other guy is saying by saying 'linux'.

So by saying 'Open source software movement' or Free software, and then GNU/Linux operating systems, and then the Linux kernel is much clearer then going:

Linux, Linux, and Linux all mean three completely, but interelated things.

It's seems so obvious to anybody who remembers hearing 'Hi, I am Darel, this is my brother Darel, and this is my other brother Darel."

It's a 'Duh' just call it GNU/Linux and get over ourselves, but instead it's:

one slashbot:
GNU/Linux! WTF is that? Why don't we call it X.org/Apache/BSD/GNU/Linux!!!! RMS is a insane hippy! Fuck him!!! ARGHHHHHH!!!!

other slashbot:
ROLF-lololololololololololol!!!!!!1111o neoneoneone

Don't forget folks, words mean stuff.

Unless your talking about Linux, then it can mean anything you feel like, from a social movement, to a specific kernel, to a business model.

Prime-time recognition for outstanding developer (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11793804)

I must say that the first two postings to this bulletin are shameful. This man is without doubt one of the brightest software engineers on the planet. His expertise and insight into securing our systems is breathtaking. Everyone owes Theo a great deal. His contributions to open source software have given us the unbreakable, impenetrable OpenBSD AND the ubiquitous OpenSSH. His devotion to and competence in security have finally been recognised by the community. I didn't have an answer to the question "who should win the FSF award??" until about 5 minutes ago when I saw the announcement. The award couldn't have gone to anyone more deserving.
Oh, and dickhead: BSD is not dead.
Congratulations Theo!! *two thumbs up*

Re:Prime-time recognition for outstanding develope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11793812)

>BSD is not dead.
That's too weak an assertion. BSD is not even declining.
--
Requiem for the FUD [slashdot.org]

Theo, is that you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11793813)

;-D
Seriously, I totally agree with you.

About the shameful postings, don't get to upset, it's /. after all, no need to take it serious.

There is somebody missing here: (2, Interesting)

colores (766507) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793806)

Previous winners of the Free Software Award * 2003 Alan Cox * 2002 Lawrence Lessig * 2001 Guido van Rossum * 2000 Brian Paul * 1999 Miguel de Icaza * 1998 Larry Wall Why he is no yet on the list?. May be because his public use of some proprietary software

Re:There is somebody missing here: (5, Interesting)

Mr Ambersand (862402) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793835)

Why he is no yet on the list?. May be because his public use of some proprietary software

From the beginning, Linus has held the posistion of "eh, whatever" with regards to software freedom. He'll take advantage of it, but he's been very clear on where exactly software freedom is in his list of priorties (which is: below convience).

In contrast Theo has re-written whole parts of his operating system (pf and OpenSSH) for the sake of being able to give away an entirely free-for-any-use operating system.

While Linus has made an invaluble contribution to Open Source, Theo has proven time and time again to be a strong and active advocate for Free Software (with a capital 'F').

Re:There is somebody missing here: (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11794113)

In contrast Theo has re-written whole parts of his operating system (pf and OpenSSH) ...


OpenSSH, hardly. In README in OpenSSH 3.9 source code:


OpenSSH is a derivative of the original and free ssh 1.2.12 release
by Tatu Ylonen. Aaron Campbell, Bob Beck, Markus Friedl, Niels
Provos, Theo de Raadt and Dug Song removed many bugs, re-added newer
features and created OpenSSH. Markus Friedl contributed the support
for SSH protocol versions 1.5 and 2.0.

Re:There is somebody missing here: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11793853)

He who?

Re:There is somebody missing here: (1)

slavemowgli (585321) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793866)

Yes, I agree. Bill Gates definitely deserves an award, too! :)

Re:There is somebody missing here: (1)

legirons (809082) | more than 9 years ago | (#11794016)

"Yes, I agree. Bill Gates definitely deserves an award, too! :)"

Microsoft won the "Best Linux advocacy" award (Linux Format, May 2003) for their "Licensing 6.0" scheme and the number of business customers it alienated

Re:There is somebody missing here: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11793884)

Who's Brian Paul and why should I care?

Re:There is somebody missing here: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11793923)

Who's Brian Paul and why should I care?

Why are you asking if you don't even know whether you care?

Re:There is somebody missing here: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11793940)

As one AC to another. I'm asking because I don't know whether I don't care or don't care not but don't knowing who he is will don't help me to don't not care less if that information don't indicate that he's don't worth don't caring about.

Re:There is somebody missing here: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11793972)

He worked on MESA [mesa3d.org], here's a pic [mirrormonster.com] of him collecting his reward.

Good Candidate (1)

Aknaton (528294) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793823)

Theo is a good candidate for this award. He is dedicated to creating a free, secure operating system that includes only truly Free software.

Of course, Theo can be acrimonious, but that doesn't change if contribution to Free software.

Where's Linus? (1)

greazer (165571) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793825)

Previous winners of the Free Software Award * 2003 Alan Cox * 2002 Lawrence Lessig * 2001 Guido van Rossum * 2000 Brian Paul * 1999 Miguel de Icaza * 1998 Larry Wall
I agree with everyone on this list of gread free software contributors, but it's certainly conspicuous that Linus is missing from it.

Re:Where's Linus? (1)

Mr Ambersand (862402) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793862)

Not really, contributing to it is not the same as strongly advocating for it; and Linus has always been wishy-washy about Free Software.

It makes no sense to give an award from the FSF to someone who both derides the GNU standards *and* says to use 'whatever works'. It's a political award and Linus' politics don't fit the Free Software model.

He's much more of an open source kind of person.

Re:Where's Linus? (3, Informative)

rama (1657) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793939)

Not so. Specifically, since the fsf announcement excludes Linus and RMS. Here is from the announcement: "People such as Alan Cox, Miguel de Icaza, Donald Knuth, Larry Lessig, Brian Paul, Guido van Rossum, Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, and Larry Wall who have already received this or other awards for their contributions, are not eligible for the Award for the Advancement of Free Software."

Basically, it is the past year winners + Linus + RMS + Knuth + Larry Lessig. Looks like an august company and no slight meant, certainly to Linus. Being in the same league as Knuth is pretty good, I would say, even for Linus.

[Just FYI, even after all these years, Knuth pays money if you find a bug in his TeX program, or in his Art of Programming books].

Congrads Theo! (4, Insightful)

WillRobinson (159226) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793827)

I use Linux every day, and appreciate the fact that I have a good method to connect to my servers in a secure manner, thanks to Theo.

And I want to thank him for his other contributions, as it has made me some good cash, installing BSD boxes in front of Windows email servers with packet filtering!

Again Thanks Theo. I wish this type of stuff could reach more mainstream news, but we can all know just like other major happenings in the world, there is a army of unsung heros who make things happen.

Open* spinoffs & the Open Source idea? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11793885)

Take NetBSD and make your own spinoff
Take SSH and make your own spinoff
Take CVS and make your own spinoff
Take NTP and make your own spinoff ...

Wasn't the Open Source idea to collaborate and feed back changes, working one source, instead of celebrating the Microsoft-style "share and embrace"?

Re:Open* spinoffs & the Open Source idea? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11793979)

... because NetBSD development was not free. Theo lost his access to the CVS tree. Read the email exchange, and you'll find out that's where the main problem was. ... because SSH was not free. OpenSSH started with the last release from Tatu Ylonen with a free licence. ... because the CVS people don't get the OpenBSD patches. For instance, CVS client/server is still not officially supported, even though that's what everybody uses. ... because NTP is thoroughly insecure, and NOT free. NTP is released under a variation of the ISC licence, which means it CAN'T be distributed freely.

In the CVS case, collaboration with the CVS team was impossible. In all other cases, it was a question of freedom. Those other projects had strings attached, Theo yanked the strings and had the balls to restart things.

BTW, thanks to NetBSD. If you hadn't forcibly taken out Theo, he probably wouldn't have done so much for free software. Starting his own project off NetBSD was probably the boldest move he's ever done.

Re:Open* spinoffs & the Open Source idea? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11794067)

NetBSD has always been free, but like any other system, certain people have the final say as to what constitutes the official version. Theo used to be one of those people for NetBSD, but his style was too unprofessional for some of the others, so he lost that privilege.

If NetBSD hadn't been free, Theo obviously wouldn't have been able to create his spin-off, which still today imports a lot of code from NetBSD. The bottom line is, Theo still could have contributed to NetBSD, but without being an official representative of the project with CVS access, but he didn't want to do that, so he started his NetBSD fork.

Having said all that, I agree it was a good thing Theo lost commit privileges to NetBSD, and started OpenBSD. He's contributed much more with OpenBSD than he probably would have if he had stayed in NetBSD.

Re:Open* spinoffs & the Open Source idea? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11794123)

Back then, there was no anonymous cvs access to the sources. You had to be a part of NetBSD inner circle to get access to the development sources.

All that was free was the released version. There was some amount of political control of information.

Reread the exchange between Theo and the other members of NetBSD-core. One persistent complaint from Theo is that he could no longer easily work on the sparc port, because he did not have access to not yet released code.

Let's put aside any re-definition of freedom by the FSF, OSI and whatever group of the month is running this show.

No, this is not free development. Theo was not free to see what was going on in NetBSD in a technical sense. He had lost control. And the people in netbsd-core used that power to try and get Theo to promise he would change his behavior.

Whatever you might think of Theo's attitude (yes, he can be a complete fucker sometimes), that's not freedom, by any sense of the world.

Now, look at the world today. All BSDs have open cvs trees. I think that would have happened, eventually, but I'm 100% certain Theo's decision to make sure OpenBSD CVS tree would be totally open to public scrutiny at all times has a HUGE role to play in that change.

Re:Open* spinoffs & the Open Source idea? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11794279)

You're overlooking two facts:

1) the "development" sources (NetBSD-current) were always available in NetBSD, on a daily(?) base, so saying Theo would have been restricted to releases is wrong. And

2) it was not able to just make a anoncvs-server for NetBSD then, due to the AT&T licensed code still being in there back then, which would have violated some people's rights. This was fixed later and NetBSD got its anoncvs server after that. And not because "oh, look what THEY have, we need that too now!".

Please stick to the facts when posting. If you don't know facts, research them.

For those wondering "why not linus" (5, Informative)

Mr Ambersand (862402) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793892)

Reading this FAQ entry [gnu.org] should shed some light on why linus has never been, and probably will never be up for this award.

Re:For those wondering "why not linus" (2, Informative)

rsidd (6328) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793995)

That FAQ entry has nothing to do with Linus. As others have pointed out, people like Linus (and RMS himself), who have already received other awards for their contributions, are not eligible [gnu.org].

I don't know how they decide that Theo or Guido or whoever is eligible (I'm sure they've received awards, though possibly of much less significance).

Re:For those wondering "why not linus" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11794020)

All you need to know about Stallman and his out of control ego is that he wrote a 7000 word FAQ devoted to the GNU/Linux naming cause.

Outside of him, I don't think anybody really cares about it that much.

Hehe (1)

FullMetalAlchemist (811118) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793893)

Considering this [monkey.org], and especially Theo's view on Free Software; i.e. that it isn't anywhere close to real freedom, a stance I agree with btw; I'm quite surprised, pleasantly surprised.

Anyway, go Theo!

The ultimate threat (1)

Lifewish (724999) | more than 9 years ago | (#11794046)

A few posts later:

----------
> To accuse a person of sabotage, a crime, is a serious matter. If the
> accusation comes from Brett Glass, it can be ignored, but when other
> people do say it I'm entitled to refute it. I am sorry that the
> accusation was made on your mailing list.
>
> Yesterday you said you would, so
> keep your word for once.
>
> I did not make any promises to you yesterday; I stated a decision that
> I had made for my own reasons.

Bugger off, Richard.

Get off these lists, or you'll see me on the gnu lists much more.

----------

Now there's a threat... glad to see they've made up.

Positively surprised... (1)

Florian (2471) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793909)

...that the FSF honors a developer who releases his work under a non-copyleft (=the BSD) license and whose main project is an operating system alternative to GNU and Linux.

Re:Positively surprised... (1)

idiotnot (302133) | more than 9 years ago | (#11793936)

The two clause BSD license is GPL compatible.

The split between GNU and BSD is largely historical; BSD wasn't a full OS, rather just enhancements atop Unix (which you needed an AT&T license to run, and couldn't modify). By the time the BSD lawsuit was fleshed out and the BSD license made free, the GNU project was already well underway.

Oh my god... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11793914)

Theo De Raadt is one of the unfriendliest assholes in the world.

He has repeatedly stolen security technology like PAX and claims to have only one remote hole in 8 years, while there were atleast 3-5 remote holes in the minimal installation.

I cannot understand how RMS can sell himself off like this...

Learn more about OpenBSD technology (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11793920)

If you want to learn more about the great work these guys do in networking and security, check out the OpenBSD Events [openbsd.org] page for upcoming talks by the developers themselves.

There will be a number of talks this week in Dublin, Ireland from Theo de Raadt, Henning Brauer and Ryan McBride which are open to the public and completely free of charge!

Re:Learn more about OpenBSD technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11793985)

"There will be a number of talks this which are open to the public and completely free of charge!"

And free to modify or redistribute?

hard to believe (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11793925)

Isn't that the one that forks everythings, make security fixes, does not tell anyone about it and when somebody else finds them tells "I already fixed them?"

Or the one lying about the security of his products ("No security holes if not switched on"?)

Or the one that pressured all people into installing a version of openssh with a security hole by not telling that only two recent versions are affected but telling everyone to install the latest one. (And implying that the majority of the people not having the latest or latest but one should also install the latest one.

Well, that is really a funny situation...

Re:hard to believe (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11793954)

If you had any kind of clue about the way `proactive security' works, you wouldn't write such drivel.

Why is OpenBSD called OpenBSD ? because it was the first BSD to make its CVS tree accessible for everyone. That's right, anyone can subscribe to source-changes and see the commit messages. And anyone can get the sources.

Now, most security fixes are NOT tagged as security fixes. They're tagged as clean-up, or reliability issues, or normal bug-fixes.

Why is this so ?

Quite simply, because those fixes are done while reading the code, NOT in reaction to a security hole.

That's what `proactive security' means. When you find something fishy, you just go and fix it, you don't sit on your fat ass and wait for months until someone finds a way to exploit it.

As a result, OpenBSD is more secure than most other OSes out there. Not because of cool technology like ProPolice or W^X, but simply because of good engineering practices.

OpenBSD doesn't have the latest cool feature. It's never been about that. But it has obsessive-compulsive developers who care about security.

Security is not a plug-in. It's not something you add to a distribution after you've put in all the carelessly designed and dangerous features.

Security is a process.

Security is a state of mind.

Security is a priority: either you put it right there, in front of you, and FIX THINGS when you think they might get broken, or... you will run into actual nasty holes, and make the front page of bugtraq.

Re:hard to believe (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11794002)

There are only two possibilities:

1) You are an OpenBSD user
2) You are an OpenBSD developer

otherwise you would not believe the propaganda of the OpenBSD team.

And don't you see the contradiction in your own words. On the one hand you claim OpenBSD developers are security obsessive and on the other hand you claim they do not see that their fixes have security relevance.

A security obsessive person must be seriously dumb if he does not realise that a bug he fixes could have security relevance.

On the other hand this fits into the picture of OpenBSD. Do not announce and hope that noone else will ever realise it, to protect the "1 remote security hole in 8 years" lie on the front page.
Because this is all OpenBSD is about...

Re:hard to believe (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11794042)

You still don't know what you are talking about.

Yes, most bugs we fix have some kind of security relevance. This is obvious. Now, are we going to tag each single entry we commit with `possible security fix' ? Are we going to spend a lot of time convincing other people this might be relevant ?

Nope, we are not.

We tried. This is simply a waste of time. It doesn't work. A lot of other projects don't have a clue. You tell them that what you're doing might be security-related, and you waste hours explaining the issue to them.

Think about it. Every time you simplify a piece of code, or replace an obfuscated algorithm with something simpler, you ARE handling security issues... or you might be. That's not important.
You are not going to waste time figuring out whether that fix is an actual security fix, or just some clean-up.

Because you can use the same amount of time fixing other issues, and that's more useful.

Want actual proof ? Look at all the changes in OpenBSD that replaced strcpy/strcat with strlcpy/strlcat. Now, go out on the linux lists, and ask why strlcpy still isn't a part of the glibc, but strfry is. Or look for comments on the above subject from Ulrich Drepper.

Make up your own mind.

Who do you think has a clue ?

The people who found out countless potential buffer overflows all over the place, fixed these, and still find that new code has the same mistakes and buffer overflows ?

Or the people who think that strlcpy is irrelevant because good programmers don't write buffer overflows ?

You could also look at tmpnam and mkstemp, and countless other examples.

As another instance, look at chroot and privilege separation. In many cases, the added safety translates to less features (like, a chroot'ed daemon that can no longer read its configuration file on a kill -HUP, or an http server that needs a whole set of libraries to run cgi). Bottomline, do you want the extra features, or the added security.

Most time, there is a trade. Those security fixes rely on non-portable parts of the libc. In many cases, third party software will buy back the extra stuff (look at rsync, kde and strlcpy), but this takes time...

try to do some development work, instead of posting opiniated, clueless comments on slashdot. Spend some time fixing security issues. See your patches take months to get accepted upstream. See the next release still have the bug, because some clueless, feature-conscious developer added some code with the exact same wrong pattern in another area than the one you've been fixing...

Re:hard to believe (1)

jschauma (90259) | more than 9 years ago | (#11794221)


Why is OpenBSD called OpenBSD ? because it was the first BSD to make its CVS tree accessible for everyone. That's right, anyone can subscribe to source-changes and see the commit messages. And anyone can get the sources.

You seem to be stating that the other BSD's didn't do this or at least not until OpenBSD did it first. Granted, I wasn't around at the time OpenBSD forked off of NetBSD, but looking at this message [netbsd.org] it would seem that NetBSD's commit messages were public quite a while before OpenBSD existed. It would also seem that at that, anybody could get the sources. Just FYI.

Away satan! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11794045)

Bugger off Richard!

Re:Away satan! (0, Troll)

wheelbarrow (811145) | more than 9 years ago | (#11794394)

I'd like to explore the sentiment behind the troll I am replying to. I think this comes from a natural and warranted level of suspicion about the utopian vision of RSM. Doesn't RSM realize that he already lives in a world where he is free to distribute software according to the GNU manifesto? Likewise, I am free to require payment from users of the software that I create. Isn't that enough for you RSM fans out there? I get nervous that you won't rest easy until you can take my rights to require payment away.

Congratulations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11794051)

May I not be the last to say,
Congratulations Theo!

/me Stands and applauds
/roommates give quizzical glances

Comma Misuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11794149)

"Richard Stallman, presents this year's award to Theo de Raadt."
Ahem. Richard Stallman, presents? WHAT is that COMMA doing there?! Did you just decide it would be a good idea to stick a comma betwee the subject and predicate? Did you pass third grade?

Oh, irony (1)

ndogg (158021) | more than 9 years ago | (#11794276)

I find this entirely ironic. I'd love to see de Raadt accept the award from Stallman personally. I would bet de Raadt's reaction would be memorable.

That said, this is awesome. de Raadt definitely deserves the award for all the hard work he's given to the community.

My eyes! (1)

damian.gerow (458051) | more than 9 years ago | (#11794288)

Normally I'm not this anal, but I just can't help it. Why in ${DEITY}'s name is there a *comma* after 'Richard Stallman'? Who could have *possibly* thought that it was a good idea to put a comma there?

Yes, I know, we're geeks, and we butcher the English language on a daily basis. But come *on*, people, at least make *some* effort to use some common sense.

Load More 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...