Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 3.7 Reviewed

Hemos posted more than 9 years ago | from the good-stuff-to-read dept.

Unix 197

busfahrer writes "Jem Matzan has written a review of OpenBSD 3.7 for Newsforge. He talks about their licensing issues, network features, upgrading packages and the new supported architectures."

cancel ×

197 comments

Declare your bias, why don't you? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12611945)

Opening line:

The operating system world has been blessed by another regular release of OpenBSD.

And, no, it doesn't get any more objective further down. Nor does he talk about the licensing issues or new architectures in any detail at all - less detail, in fact, than he talks about the theme tune.

Re:Declare your bias, why don't you? (1)

oKtosiTe (793555) | more than 9 years ago | (#12611999)

Of course; the theme tune is the best thing about the new release. ;-)

Meh (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12612031)

Just more evidence that it is dying I suppose.

Re:Declare your bias, why don't you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12612038)

Liking FreeBSD is a bias? By that standard everyone's biased and your post has no content.

Re:Declare your bias, why don't you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12612287)

Liking FreeBSD is a bias? By that standard everyone's biased and your post has no content.

Um, it's *Open*BSD.

He comes across as a fanboy. Journalism should be balanced and even handed - by all means tell us it's great, but don't make out you'd already decided it would be beforehand.

Re:Declare your bias, why don't you? (4, Insightful)

millahtime (710421) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612086)

licensing issues

You have issues with BSD licensing? How much freeer do you want it?

Re:Declare your bias, why don't you? (1, Flamebait)

Urkki (668283) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612158)

  • You have issues with BSD licensing? How much freeer do you want it?

Fact 1: BSD license isn't free enough to allow merging in GPLed code.

Fact 2: GPL isn't free enough to allow merging in BSD licensed code.

Wether this restriction of freedom is justifiable or not, wether it is unavoidable or not, the fact is that IMHO this is a significant restriction on freedom (both for the programmer and for the code). It forces people to "re-invent the wheel", and therefore it goes against one of the basic motivations and justifications for FOS software.

Re:Declare your bias, why don't you? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12612235)

Fact 1: BSD license isn't free enough to allow merging in GPLed code.
Fact 2: GPL isn't free enough to allow merging in BSD licensed code.


No, the modified BSD licence - which everyone uses nowadays - allows you to mix BSD and GPL code. The result is always GPL.

But that's not the issue here - RTFA.

Re:Declare your bias, why don't you? (1)

Urkki (668283) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612244)

  • No, the modified BSD licence - which everyone uses nowadays - allows you to mix BSD and GPL code. The result is always GPL.

Thanks for the clarification. No wonder I was modded troll :-)

Re:Declare your bias, why don't you? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12612213)

You have issues with BSD licensing? How much freeer do you want it?

RTFA. The issue mentioned is that OpenBSD folks object to the Apache 2 licence, and so OpenBSD won't get Apache 2.
In fact you won't even find Apache 2, because its license is more restrictive than its predecessor. OpenBSD 3.7 includes a heavily modified version of Apache 1.3.29 instead.

Re:Declare your bias, why don't you? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12612253)

I think we need to stop referring to bsds as free.

it's the wrong word.

and wrong paradigm.

BSD license is like being in a war, and discovering that your supplier is supplying munitions to the other side.

Then your supplier tries to placate you: "There's no war. What war? There is no war. Your freedom is not under attack. You are imagining it all!"

Re:Declare your bias, why don't you? (3, Insightful)

compass46 (259596) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612264)

I'm not sure he was complaining about the BSD license so much as the article not expanding on the license fights OpenBSD has had with hardware vendors. There were only a few sentences scattered throughout.

Re:Declare your bias, why don't you? (3, Insightful)

Metteyya (790458) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612504)

He talks about the licensing issues. Which drives me to the question: what's the logic behind throwing away Apache 2 (because of too restrictive license) and distributing closed-source wireless drivers at the same time?

Re:Declare your bias, why don't you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12612808)

Wait, are you asking why OpenBSD has closed source wireless drivers?

Cause they just replaced the closed source Atheros with an open source one.

Re:Declare your bias, why don't you? (4, Informative)

compass46 (259596) | more than 9 years ago | (#12613352)

The drivers are open source. The board firmware is closed source. They got permission to distribute the blob for the card firmware to make wi-fi setup easier for users so they didn't have to jump through hoops to get their cards to work.

Re:Declare your bias, why don't you? (4, Informative)

Caligari (180276) | more than 9 years ago | (#12613946)

Who said anything about closed source wireless drivers?

The whole point of the recent OpenBSD wireless developments are that the drivers are completely free!

Stallman gave Theo de Raadt the 2004 FSF award in Febuary [slashdot.org] as recognition for crying out loud!

Re:Declare your bias, why don't you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12612622)

Uhm.. you did read who wrote the review right? Don't be surprised if it's just a fluff peice without much content.

Willy on Wheels! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12611961)

FP FOR WP VANDALISM!

first (-1, Offtopic)

alfiejohn (871931) | more than 9 years ago | (#12611976)

post :)

Last (-1, Offtopic)

Ober (12002) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612082)

Post!

Re:FUCK (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12612263)

Tard!

That's it, I'm switching (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12612002)

I liked linux back when nobody knew what it was. Now my mom even knows what it is.

Good bye linux, hello obscurity, er, OpenBSD!

Re: That's it (2, Funny)

ulib (816651) | more than 9 years ago | (#12614126)

>Now my mom even knows what it is.

Your mom knows a lot of other things you wouldn't suspect.

Oh, and btw BSD rules. So, you *please* stay away from it. Thanks

(No, I didn't forget the "post anonymously" blah blah)
--
Requiem for the FUD [slashdot.org]

BSD, the history (0, Troll)

Andreas(R) (448328) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612016)

Since BSD is dead (dying?), here is some information [wikipedia.org] about the ancient OS.

Re:BSD, the history (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12612055)

2.7 rocked but de raadt is raping my childhood with these updates. just let it die already!

Re:BSD, the history (4, Insightful)

oKtosiTe (793555) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612059)

BSD is not dying at all. Most of the major operating systems are based on BSD, or have borrowed code from it.

Re:BSD, the history (1, Funny)

/ASCII (86998) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612281)

What are you saying??? Other people are eating BSD alive, and you say it is not dying? Microsoft bit down hard and tore BSDs left foot right of! It is decaying in the fould beasts belly as we are speaking! Of course this is killing BSD. BSD is just limping along, trying against all odds to outrun the pack of wild hyenas that are stealing more of it's codebase every day. But where are they going to run with only one foot? Where I ask you?

Note to moderators and BSD zealots - this is a _joke_.

Re:BSD, the history (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12612296)

Yeah, but that was 15 years ago.

Forgetting one tiny detail... (1)

ulib (816651) | more than 9 years ago | (#12613150)

>Most of the major operating systems are based on BSD, or have borrowed code from it.

Some of the major operating systems *are* BSD. FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD. [slashdot.org]

Re:BSD, the history (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12612150)

BSD is dead. Mod parent up.

Not dead? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12612044)

This is like the 3rd article this week. I guess BSD isn't dead after all.

Re:Not dead? (3, Funny)

millahtime (710421) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612108)

I guess BSD isn't dead after all.

It's now a zombie. Neither dead or alive.

Re:Not dead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12612203)

Kind of like Terri Schiavo was.

Re:Not dead? (1)

matt-fu (96262) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612243)

It's more machine than man.

Re:Not dead? (1)

snookerdoodle (123851) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612386)

Heh heh - yesterday in Sunday School at church, my 9-year-old son learned about a guy named "Lazarus" who, in the Bible, is raised from the dead by Jesus.

His teacher was a little flummoxed because my son kept referring to Lazarus as "re-dead", which refers to some zombie like characters in some of his Zelda games on his Gamecube.

For some reason, she didn't get any happier after I "educated" her about who Zelda was... Believe it or not, we really only let him have 30 minutes of total screen time (TV + Computer + Gamecube) per day. I'm not sure *she* would believe me. ;-)

Mark

Re:Not dead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12614529)

that explains undeadly.org

Everyone is biased.... (1)

NXIL (860839) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612045)

but in their own way. Everyone is unique--we are all alike in that respect. There is no spoon.

Howard Dean Camp's funny story of the day (0, Offtopic)

the Howard Dean Camp (748694) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612052)

Forget this BSD crap, enjoy this story [thekcrachannel.com] instead

Yeeeeeeaaaaaaaarrrrgh!

mod parent up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12612087)

Parent's story is much more interesting than "this BSD crap".

Re:Howard Dean Camp's funny story of the day (0, Offtopic)

datadriven (699893) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612266)

That's cool, now I can get a tinfoil house to go with my tifoil hat.

BSD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12612056)

BSD is the new 'Linux of the nineties' for the antisocial crowd who can't be seen using the same OS as anybody who might be uneducated on the various complexities of making the system run without errors. Basically Linux has become too mainstream so therefore its attractiveness to the 'not in the norm' crowd has dulled. Now there is a new OS that is behind the curve and even more difficult to deal with! Here we come BSD, only when you are dying to we find you the slightest bit interesting!

Re:BSD (1)

Big Mark (575945) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612126)

Oh come on. Real leeter-than-thou people wouldn't dream of using anything that runs on x86.

Re:BSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12612436)

That's right, they use Sokolov's 4.3BSD-Quasijarus on VAXen, in a basement and they'd like it!

Re:BSD (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12612381)

Actually, from an admins point of view, the BSDs are easier to learn than any linux distribution. That is not to say they are easier to use, but they are simpler when it comes to managing the system:

Less complicated init;
MUCH better documentation;
Less painful filesystem management (though LVM2 is really nice);

The downsides are significant however:

Bad support for esoteric hardware;
Less vendor support;
Fewer eyes looking over the code (though, to be fair, there is MUCH less code for them to look over)

Re:BSD (4, Interesting)

PapaZit (33585) | more than 9 years ago | (#12614521)

Fewer eyes looking over the code

I don't know if this is really true. There are three major BSD "distributions" with subtle differences. Fans of each routinely look over the code for the others looking for good, "stealable" code. Not only does that mean that people are looking at the code, but informed "outsider" coders are looking at it with a critical eye. So, even if the code is reviewed by fewer people, it's reviewed by people who are more likely to notice, report, and fix bugs.

DUPE (-1, Troll)

essreenim (647659) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612074)

dot com dot slash dot slash dot com dot doop

Why Can't We All Just "Get Along"? (3)

snookerdoodle (123851) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612089)

"...an effigy of a crown-wearing penguin."

Sheesh. The prez in "Mars Attacks" said it best:

"Why can't we work out our differences? Why can't we work things out? Little people, why can't we all just get along?"

Mark

Re:Why Can't We All Just "Get Along"? (1)

nurhussein (864532) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612130)

Then the aliens kill the prez and plant a flag on his body and laugh manically.

Not a good image to evoke.

Re:Why Can't We All Just "Get Along"? (2, Funny)

snookerdoodle (123851) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612285)

Nah - you understand perfectly.

Just picture a bunch of little BSD Daemon guys killing Stallman and... ;-)

Mark

Re:Why Can't We All Just "Get Along"? (3, Funny)

Rick the Red (307103) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612458)

Just picture a bunch of little BSD Daemon guys killing Stallman
Hey! That's my "happy place"! I saw it first! Thanks for blabbing about it on Slashdot. Now everyone will want to go there, it'll get all crowded, then I'll have to find some other place to go in the middle of meetings...

Re:Why Can't I Just "Get logged on"?!!!1!one!!1!!1 (0, Offtopic)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612152)

"503 Service Unavailable" ?!!!!


WTF Taco, you've really balled things up in a not this time!!!!

Actual information (5, Insightful)

slavemowgli (585321) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612093)

Is there *any* actual information in this article at all (useful information, anyway)? The only tidbits I could find boil down to things like "my on-board controller didn't work", "I couldn't compile KDE myself", and "this and that specific option to this and that program gives a warning when you use it".

Outside of these things, the only pieces of information I could find boiled down to "there's two new ports", "it still doesn't include Apache 2.x", and "you get daily (in)security reports mailed to you". If it wasn't for the irrelevant fluff mentioned above, I'd assume the author of this article hasn't even installed OpenBSD and instead just looked through the website and maybe Google'd for some extra information.

I really hope the author didn't get payed too much for this, because no matter how much he got, the article wasn't worth it.

Re:Actual information (5, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612206)

I have to admit I am disappointed. No benchmarks. No list of new features, No detail on setting up a server running it.
Heck it was more of a bad press release than a review.

Re:Actual information (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12613369)

that's why it made front page news. funny how the good stuff never gets front page time, yet the trolltastic crap *always* does

There is less reason to review OpenBSD. (3, Insightful)

emil (695) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612778)

When I ran RedHat, there were some pretty annoying things that got changed from release to release (inetd disappears, two different C compiler installs because of kernel problems, etc.).

This kind of stuff doesn't happen in OpenBSD. From an administration perspective, my first 3.2 install is very similar to the 3.5 that I run now, which itself is similar to 3.7. There are no large architecture changes (perhaps because things are well-thought-out from the start).

Because of this, you pretty much know what you're getting when a new OpenBSD release comes out. The installer is practically identical, and the running system yeilds few surprises. There will always be new features, but there won't be lots of things to unlearn.

So no, I don't really pay much attention to the reviews. The list of new features on the OpenBSD web page pretty much tells me all that I need to know.

Re:There is less reason to review OpenBSD. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12613525)

Oh yeah, because the switch to ELF wasn't big, nor was the switch from GCC 2 to 3..

Come on, OBSD is a great OS, but this is the wrong point to argue. Upgrading RedHat is far simpler than upgrading OBSD. With RH, you just stick the CD in and choose upgrade. Away you go. The changes that were made were for the better, and is one of the reasons Linux is a more progressive operating system that continues to break new ground all the time.

Instructions for upgrading OpenBSD are . Now please tell me which is more administration work. [openbsd.org]

Re:Actual information (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12613262)

The reviewer (Jem) authors fantasy books, so his style of writing might not be what some of you are used to when reading technology reviews. Had he detailed his review better, perhaps it would've helped to satisfy Slashdot's diverse community of cool guys, geeks, and ambiguously gay readers.

Considering the strange mix of predictable stupidity (those likely to bite on the fantasy author bit), intelligence, and the mob mentality Slashdot threads generate, he'd be smart to take the excessive negativity with a grain of salt.

After all, without a single United States, Microsoft, or RIAA article on the front page, it's painfully obvious this poor man is being used for target practice.

Re:Actual information (3, Insightful)

molnarcs (675885) | more than 9 years ago | (#12614097)

Once I criticized this guy (in a comment) for an even more shallow review FreeBSD 5.3 - because I firmly believed (and I still believe) that he didn't even bother to install it :)) He wrote a review on 5.2 a few months before that, which was very critical (and rightfully so, 5.2 was a quite flaky release) but at the same a really good review. In his 5.3 review he basically recirculated the points he made for 5.2, and even got some really weird factual mistakes. His response was to put me on his foe list ... now that's a pretty childish behaviour, isn't it?

Later he wrote an article on newsforge about "Being Free is Hard to Do" on free software, than he submitted this article to slashdot under his nick (ValourX), describing it in the following terms:

What is more important to you -- the four freedoms of Free Software, or the ability to maximize the value of your computer? It's a question that comes up on Slashdot often, but rarely is it so well argued as it is in this NewsForge article. Link. [slashdot.org]
What shameless self promotion! It is a pity, for once this guy wrote excellent reviews and articles, but what he does lately is prostitution, not journalism.

Standard OS Review Questions? (1)

Adelph (814984) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612144)

I've seen crap reviews like this all over the place recently. Perhaps some standardized questions to answer about the OS as it is being reviewed would make the reviews more informative and comparable?

hiuhuiuhi (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12612183)

hiuihu

I expected more, but of course... (5, Insightful)

dayid (802168) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612184)

As someone who replied to the original article (see bottom of original link) mentioned, it would've been interesting to have seen a true comprehensive analysis of OpenBSD, rather than a lot of "I think" and "I liked".

I would have appreciated the article more if it were a lot more in-depth, but perhaps that would've ward off others. I would like to see him not just talk about the install process (initially), but also how easy it was to install applications (and not just "I had to type too much"), configure them (interface-configuration, or purely text-editing), and finally - how well they all interacted. Now, I know that sounds more like an analysis of the individual applications rather than the operating system, but what is an operating system if not a platform that you use to interact with applications?

We also hear about the "new wireless" stuff... where was that? Test with multiple cards? USB-Wireless perhaps? PCMCIA Wireless? To tout such things (even in the review) and then not do anything with them is rather disappointing.

Re:I expected more, but of course... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12612376)

Are you actually suggesting that, *GASP*, Hemos should have checked to see if the submitted link was of some minimal level of quality before posting it on the front page of Slashdot???? ARE YOU MAD??? Slashdot editors don't have time for the petty tasks of, uh, editors.

Re:I expected more, but of course... (1)

TheLetterPsy (792255) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612755)

A lot of the information on the wireless work can be found in the Changelog [openbsd.org] . Basically, they got a lot of work done and are continuing to work on 802.11g chips and HostAP protocols for many wireless devices.

Also, as noted in a previous story [slashdot.org] , the Sharp Zaurus port allows you to (with a CF ethernet adapter) set up a handheld, on-the-go wireless AP.

A much better source of information can be found at this ONLamp Interview With OpenBSD Developers [onlamp.com]

We use it to power some very large databases (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12612224)

Even though OpenBSD isn't great for performance in most cases, we've used it in our consulting business to power some of the customer / billing / receivable databases for some very large LA bars, restaurants, and clubs.

--

Restaurants, bars, and clubs in Los Angeles [nightspots.la]

The shot at RMS for the day (4, Funny)

The Slashdotted (665535) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612332)

From the article:

The theme of the OpenBSD 3.7 CD set is The Wizard of Oz, and the cute little CD jacket cartoon strip shows the OpenBSD mascot and friends on a journey to achieve better wireless card drivers. Their adventure takes them to the Emerald City to meet the great and powerful Wizard of OS himself -- an effigy of a crown-wearing penguin. The man behind the curtain turns out to be a Richard Stallman-like character with GNU horns. The characters are disappointed because the Wizard ends up being "all talk -- no action!" So they decide to code the wireless driver by reverse-engineering the device.

Re:The shot at RMS for the day (0, Troll)

Megaweapon (25185) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612410)

The characters are disappointed because the Wizard ends up being "all talk -- no action!" So they decide to code the wireless driver by reverse-engineering the device.

Just curious, when was the last time that RMS reverse engineered a useful device and posted the driver source?

Re:The shot at RMS for the day (1, Funny)

Slashcrap (869349) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612628)

Just curious, when was the last time that RMS reverse engineered a useful device and posted the driver source?

Just curious, when was the last time Theo wrote a compiler suite capable of e.g building OpenBSD?

That's what I love about the OpenBSD community - the total lack of arrogance.

Re:The shot at RMS for the day (1)

Megaweapon (25185) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612836)

Arrogance or not, at least they are actively persuing hardware manufacturers to get specs opened up a bit. None of those corps are going to listen to RMS while he preaches GNU philosophy from his pulpit. And hey, why bring up the compiler? It's free in all the appropriate senses, so Theo and crew are simply using available tools.

Re:The shot at RMS for the day (0, Troll)

Slashcrap (869349) | more than 9 years ago | (#12613116)

And hey, why bring up the compiler? It's free in all the appropriate senses, so Theo and crew are simply using available tools.

Because it simply wouldn't exist without RMS. And the BSDs wouldn't be where they are now without GCC. Trying to argue otherwise is simply revisionist history.

So you can say that RMS is all mouth and no trousers if you want. And I can point out your arrogance.

Answer this - what is the greatest contribution to the Free Software community? GCC or being able to distribute the firmware for a few wireless cards?

Re:The shot at RMS for the day (1)

Megaweapon (25185) | more than 9 years ago | (#12613364)

And the BSDs wouldn't be where they are now without GCC. Trying to argue otherwise is simply revisionist history.

That assumes that another compiler wouldn't have matured along with the BSD progression. Granted, GCC was the first solid one on the block, so it got used. Nothing against GCC, but you can't just state that without it various "open source" projects would not be where they are today. To argue otherwise is simply pretending to be all knowing.

Besides, GCC should be called K&R GCC, because where would GCC be without the C language?

And I can point out your arrogance.

*shrug*

Answer this - what is the greatest contribution to the Free Software community? GCC or being able to distribute the firmware for a few wireless cards?

GCC has certainly been a boon to the "free/open/whatever-word" communit(y/ies). However a compiler by itself isn't terribly useful if you don't have much operating system source to compile it against. Hence the importance of device drivers, firmware API's, etc. But I'll try to remember your point when I'm setting up a high availability GNU/Hurd box with all the latest hardware...

Re:The shot at RMS for the day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12613857)

"That assumes that another compiler wouldn't have matured along with the BSD progression."

By that line of reasoning, I'll say that it doesn't matter that Theo and crew rev-engineered the drivers, because, hey, someone else would have come along and done it too.

(No offense to Theo and crew. They're doing a great job and I have the utmost respect for them. However, it's annoying to see people revere the OpenBSD team while at the same time slamming Stallman. It's so hypocritical. You may not like his ideals, but don't knock his contribution to the Open Source software library.)

Re:The shot at RMS for the day (1)

Megaweapon (25185) | more than 9 years ago | (#12614075)

No, the point is that Theo and crew are taking an active approach to get what they need. To make a claim that BSD and related projects wouldn't be where they are without GCC implies that only the GNU project was/is capable of producing a good C compiler. It just happens that the GNU project made a good C compiler under palatable licensing terms, so the various BSD projects used it. So what?

As far as "slamming" RMS, I think the cartoon in question is basically just a "joke", and I think some people should take a chill pill before trying to scream foul.

Re:The shot at RMS for the day (2, Insightful)

sp0rk173 (609022) | more than 9 years ago | (#12614711)

Wow. What a lame argument, "If GCC didn't exist, BSD wouldn't be where it is today, and you can't say otherwise because otherwise didn't happen!"

The simple fact of open source isn't what gets built, it's the spirit behind it - a spirit that exists without some fat bearded douche bag writing PART of a compiler (which isn't JUST WRITTEN BY RMS, IT'S WRITTEN BY MANY MANY OTHER PEOPLE [gnu.org] TO REACH IT'S CURRENT, USEFUL FORM!!! Jeebus people). That spirit would move other people to develop their own compiler, much like the anti-GPL spirit in the BSD community has fostered increasing support for TenDRA [tendra.org] . So, to answer your question, what is the greatest contribution to open source? Motivation to write open source software. If GCC didn't exist, that motivation would push coders to develop a different free compiler. To say otherwise is to speak with dogmatic blinders.

It's not as though RMS is the only one who can start a compiler and get it to attain self-sustaining momentum. Any good college CS program involves a class in compilers. A compiler is not some great mystery of comptuers, it just takes a lot of work to get one that works well enough for production use. Once TenDRA becomes stable and feature-rich enough to be used in production, BSD wills switch over to it in droves.

Re:The shot at RMS for the day (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12612874)

And when was the last time Richard had anything to do with the GCC project's code?

Re:The shot at RMS for the day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12613762)

So the guy writes the one of the most popular compilers around (no mean feat!) and you bitch that he hasn't done anything with it lately?? You fucking ingrate. Take a good hard look at yourself, you selfish prick, because the picture isn't pretty.

Re:The shot at RMS for the day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12613677)

Unbelievable. This type of moderation goes to prove that the general public is incompetent and cannot be trusted with mod points.

Parent post gets modded troll when it is a 100% valid response to the grandparent troll above (which of course remains at +1, since it's pro-bsd). This happens in every article that is oriented around an OS or company. All the fanboys mod down anything critical of the topic. We need a new browse option: "Invert score".

To the idiot who modded parent post a troll: Re-read what the word "troll" means, because you obviously have no understanding of it.

Re:The shot at RMS for the day (1)

Megaweapon (25185) | more than 9 years ago | (#12613963)

Quit your whining. My question was valid.

Mandatory Access Controls? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12612334)

Hello,

I would be interested in having an in depth discussion on the pros and cons of the openbsd approach as compared to some of the patches for linux. SELinux being the most famous, however I am actually a fan of RSBAC, www.rsbac.org.

From what I understand, OBSD attempts to audit code to elliminate bugs in the first place, which while noble is not entirely practical. Systems like Rsbac act as support so if a security exploit is found, no damage can be done.

Thoughts?

Also, not trying to start a war, but I fail to understand why the six years without a hole in the default install is used so often to promote it..., the default install is essentially useless, as there have been holes in the services that most people would want to enable...

Re:Mandatory Access Controls? (2, Interesting)

tim_mcc (679987) | more than 9 years ago | (#12612607)

the default install is essentially useless, as there have been holes in the services that most people would want to enable...

Well, this depends really on what you think *most* people want. The system contains a number of tools from the default install, including:

ntpd
pf
bgpd
isakmpd
spamd
OpenSSH
X.Org
Gcc
Perl
Apache
OpenSSL
Groff
Sendmail
Bind
Lynx
Sudo
Ncurses
Heimdal
Arla
Binutils
Gdb


Although I may have missed few...

As you can see from the apps mentioned, there are a number ways you could put a default install box to use. Basic web server, firewall, mailhost..?

Re:Mandatory Access Controls? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12612731)

none of those services are enabled by default...enabling = no longer default install

Re:Mandatory Access Controls? (0, Flamebait)

gowen (141411) | more than 9 years ago | (#12613082)

None of those is enabled by default.

If sendmail were part of the default install, do you really think OpenBSD could claim the security record that it does now.

Re:Mandatory Access Controls? (1)

tim_mcc (679987) | more than 9 years ago | (#12613127)

You have a point, although as far as memory serves sendmail *is* enabled by default too.

At least, I don't remember enabling it on my boxes. But then I'm not known for my amazing memory.

Re:Mandatory Access Controls? (1)

Nickus (10876) | more than 9 years ago | (#12614526)

Sendmail is enabled by default but it only listen on the localhost interface.

MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12613932)

he makes a good point

Requiem for the FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12612346)

// Please *don't* mod this up. It has [slashdot.org] already [slashdot.org] been [slashdot.org] done! [slashdot.org] Thx

... facts are facts. ;)

FreeBSD:
FreeBSD, Stealth-Growth Open Source Project (Jun 2004) [internetnews.com]
"FreeBSD has dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."
Nearly 2.5 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD (Jun 2004) [netcraft.com]
"[FreeBSD] has secured a strong foothold with the hosting community and continues to grow, gaining over a million hostnames and half a million active sites since July 2003."
What's New in the FreeBSD Network Stack (Sep 2004) [slashdot.org]
"FreeBSD can now route 1Mpps on a 2.8GHz Xeon whilst Linux can't do much more than 100kpps."

NetBSD:
NetBSD, for When Portability and Stability Matter (Oct 2004) [serverwatch.com]
NetBSD sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (May 2004) [slashdot.org]
NetBSD again sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (Sep 2004) [netbsd.org]

OpenBSD:
OpenBSD Widens Its Scope (Nov 2004) [eweek.com]
Review: OpenBSD 3.6 shows steady improvement (Nov 2004) [newsforge.com]
OpenSSH (OpenBSD subproject) has become a de facto Internet standard. [openssh.org]

*BSD in general:
Deep study: The world's safest computing environment (Nov 2004) [mi2g.com]
"The world's safest and most secure 24/7 online computing environment - operating system plus applications - is proving to be the Open Source platform of BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) and the Mac OS X based on Darwin."
BSD Success Stories (O'Reilly, 2004) (pdf) [oreilly.com] ~ from Onlamp BSD DevCenter [onlamp.com]
"The BSDs - FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Darwin, and others - have earned a reputation for stability, security, performance, and ease of administration."
..and last but not least, we have the cutest mascot as well - undisputedly. ;) [keltia.net]

--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.

if slashdot didn't own newsforge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12612670)

there's no way this POS "review" would have seen the light of day. Disappointing, even by slashdot standards.

Free, but not quite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12612952)

While I appreciate what OpenBSD has provided, OpenSSH for one, I do have to pause when I consider how the distribution itself is licensed.

OpenBSD is distributed as a bunch of files, and an FTP based installer. If you want ISOs, you can buy them, but you can't share them after you buy them because they are proprietary. You can get an ISO made by someone else, however the OpenBSD site implies that you probably shouldn't trust them (but that's your decision to make), provided the ISO is not the same was the "official" ISOs.

I realize they are trying to earn money to support OpenBSD's efforts. However, several Linux distributions also seek to earn money for their efforts, yet they also provide ISOs of their distribution (for free even). Take a look at LinuxISO [linuxiso.org] for an example of the various ISOs available.

For all his quirks, I do not believe RMS would blur things in the same way. Whether you agree with him or not, he makes his position known, and then stands by it. I don't think he'd make a "proprietary" version of his work like OpenBSD is doing.

I am not saying Theo doesn't have the right to do this. He does. And it's his choice (or OpenBSD's choice, if there's a board that makes these decisions) how to license and release their work. I just think it's a bit hypocritical, that's all.

Something to consider. I do not know if they would consider this a violation, but from what I understand of how OpenBSD ISOs are licensed it would be. Suppose you and a few friends, or you have an office with multiple people supporting your systems. You would be violating the license on the distribution if you purchased one set of disks and made copies for your internal use. _IF_ one of the strengths of FOSS is the freedom from the hassles and expense of managing proprietary licenses, then that strength is effectively taken away by the proprietary nature of the OpenBSD ISO license, since, in theory at least, you would still need to track the ISOs to make sure you did not have illegal copies.

[For the record, I have purchased OpenBSD in the past. I ended up not using it for various reasons I won't go into here. When I needed BSD, I used FreeBSD instead. The ISOs are also available at the LinuxISO link above. I also use Linux and Mac OS X.]

Re:Free, but not quite (0)

Nimrangul (599578) | more than 9 years ago | (#12613102)

It is not "proprietary" jackoff, it's "copyrighted", what is wrong between your chair and keyboard?

There is nothing wrong with specifically warning people against just trusting the Internet, if you download a .iso claiming to be a OpenBSD 3.7 installer there is a chance that it is not, or that someone has modified it. Therefore OpenBSD does not tell you to go out and download something that you cannot read the source for, that what they sell is what they know is trustworthy.

There is nothing wrong with specifically copyrighting a disk you make and saying other people cannot copy it - Theo de Raadt has never said that copyright was a bad thing, quite the opposite, he has been very procopyright. Theo has long been a supporter of people to use whatever license they like, using copyright law to best suit their needs and desires.

Theo does not stand for the same thing as Richard Stallman, for Theo there is no blurring involved. Your twisted view of things perceives one because you buy into the Free Software Foundation's rhetoric.

Yes, it is infact illegal to copy something that is copyrighted without first obtaining permission.

You're being a git kid, bug off.

Re:Free, but not quite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12614373)

You entirely missed my point.

The "distribution ISO" _IS_ proprietary -- meaning it MAY NOT BE COPIED. Copyright is merely the tool to enforce the proprietary nature. The packages used in the distribution are OPEN. There is a huge difference.

To read the rest of the reply, it's included under the parent. Though I doubt you will.

Re:Free, but not quite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12614227)

You entirely missed my point.

The "distribution ISO" _IS_ proprietary -- meaning it MAY NOT BE COPIED. Copyright is merely the tool to enforce the proprietary nature. The packages used in the distribution are OPEN. There is a huge difference.

Can you create a derivative work from the ISO? _NO_ because it is proprietary. Again, it is copyright that provides the instrumentation to protect the proprietary nature of the ISO. Note again, I constantly am referring to the ISO -- not OpenBSD itself.

Copyright is key for BSD and GPL licenses, as well as the many others. I was not complaining about the copyright on the work. I was not saying copyrights were bad or should be outlawed. I was simply making the observation that you still have to deal with proprietary restrictions if you buy and/or use the ISOs, and that this seemed contrary to the general FOSS culture that OpenBSD is a part of.

You actually proved my point with your response, all but conceding that the ISOs are proprietary. You just refuse to see it because "proprietary" has such a bad connotation. I chose my words carefully, and got the response I was looking for. Take a step back and I would think you would see what I am talking about. [Then again, maybe not.. critical thinkers typically do not resort to name calling when they don't have a compelling argument.]

And, I agree, Theo is free to do as he chooses. I just find it hypocritical. If he firmly believed in the BSD license, then he should have continued to use it, even for his distribution. That's all.

As for buying into FSF rhetoric -- hardly. I just don't buy into the BSD rhetoric either. The two licenses have their purpose. Understanding the difference between the various licensees is crucial when choosing a license for something you create.

Re:Free, but not quite (1)

Nimrangul (599578) | more than 9 years ago | (#12614437)

But it is not proprietary, it is being sold off. It's is not exclusively owned, it is exclusively copyable.

Re:Free, but not quite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12614656)

So, once someome buys the CD they can use it and they can give it away to someone else to install, hell they don't even need to give it away, they can just lend it and that is all right? Makes sense to me.

It doesn't stay solely owned by Theo de Raadt, cause he's selling copies.

It does however remain Theo de Raadt's sole right to copy such things.

I switched from Linux (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12612976)

Last night I switched from Debian unstable to OpenBSD 3.7, on account of the better wireless support.

So far it's been a good deal. I copied my $HOME from Debian, installed a bunch of stuff from the ports tree, and I can hardly tell the difference now, other than better wireless support, and probably a cleaner userland.

OpenBSD's base system is great, and though the ports tree is nowhere near as massive as Debian, it still contains nearly 100% of the relevant tools that I use every day, packaged in a very clean manner. I'm satisfied!

MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12613640)

5 lines, and it's a better review than the one in the FA.

Re:I switched from Linux (1)

jruschme (76180) | more than 9 years ago | (#12614491)

Let me begin by saying that I want to like OpenBSD 3.7, I really do, but I find that I can't... not enough to switch to it.

Last week, my dual-boot Win98/Ubuntu laptop (an Inspiron 3700) ate itself, so I decided to use the opportunity to try OpenBSD 3.7, given the allure of the new wireless drivers.

The install went well and I got X running as soon as I realized that I needed to use 'xorgconfig' rather than 'xf86config3'. I downloadeed a snapshot of the ports tree and did the obligatory builds of Gnome (2.8), Firefox (1.0.4), and Mozilla (1.7.8); the latter in an attempt at getting a Gecko SDK. I even built the native JDK.

After all that, though, I came back to the same issue which has always kept me from running a BSD as a fulltime OS- limited ports. I understand the licensing issue, but compared to the NetBSD package tree and the even-more vast FreeBSD ports tree, the OpenBSD ports tree is downright spartan. Many packages are not there (mplayerplug-in, w32codecs, OpenOffice)while others seem hopelessly out of date (Netatalk, Wine). While it is likely that many of the missing ones would build from source anyway, this removes most of the advantages of the package system.

As for the rest, this is perhaps the legacy of the Linux vs. BSD wars. In the old days, some software would run on BSD, some on System V, some on both. Back then, it always seemed like the "interesting" ones would run on BSD. Today, it seems most of the OpenSource development centers on Linux with BSD, at best, an afterthought.

That said, perhaps it's time to try a FreeBSD iso... I need to wipe the drive anyway. :-)

Re:I switched from Linux (1)

ulib (816651) | more than 9 years ago | (#12614787)

If the number of ports/packages is one of your main concerns, FreeBSD currently has more than 12.000 ports. [freebsd.org]
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.

not.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12613018)

nothing new here, move along.

No troll, I'm dead serious and love OpenBSD (1, Insightful)

LM741N (258038) | more than 9 years ago | (#12614193)

When will OpenBSD finally boot above cylinder 1024 or whatever? I am very serious about this because I love OpenBSD and would like to see it on more desktops. It has progressed much in the last 10 years.

OpenBSD is not open to the typical install process, ie 10Gig of Windows then no possible booting for OpenBSD.

Do we have to wait for version 5.0 before Theo "gets it?"

FUDster. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12614398)

I know this is slashdot, but please stop spreading FUD.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=127944&cid=106 91304 [slashdot.org]

Apache2 (2, Insightful)

paulwalker (883911) | more than 9 years ago | (#12614573)

Open BSD does not support Apache2. This affects me personally because I love Apache and can't do without it. I don't know how the rest of you feel...I really don't see why any1 should take up such an OS. Windows rocks!!!
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...