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 4.0 Released

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the humppa-negala dept.

201

Undeadly Halloween writes, "On October 18th, OpenBSD celebrated its 11th birthday and ten years of punctual biannual releases. Now it's time for OpenBSD 4.0, which includes tons of new drivers for wireless, network, and storage chips. Consider helping the project by buying the new goodies (CD set, t-shirt, poster, Audio CD). And discover what's new and what battles developers must face daily to support new hardware in the traditional interview featuring nearly 20 developers."

cancel ×

201 comments

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

What a ton of stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16671509)

Is this where all the active development is going on? The list of new/improved supported interfaces and the rest is staggering. Way to go OpenBSD!

Nice. (2, Interesting)

JoshJ (1009085) | more than 7 years ago | (#16671517)

Good stuff. Hopefully some of those free drivers will get spread around to Linux as well.

Re:Nice. (1)

Bastardchyld (889185) | more than 7 years ago | (#16674641)

I started using OpenBSD at 3.8 and I have been very pleased with the whole experience in the short time I have been using them. Those of you who have not tried it yet try it out, if not for this project we would not have OpenSSH, OpenNTPD, and many more, if you support no other project then support this one.

OpenBSD [openbsd.org]

Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16671533)

No, I'm yawning because I just woke up, I SWEAR!

Now supporting the Amish (2, Funny)

dsginter (104154) | more than 7 years ago | (#16671537)

Whew... On the press release, under "New/extended platforms", it says:

"OpenBSD/armish"

I read that as OpenBSD/amish. You can imagine the visions that swirled through my head at that point.

Re:Now supporting the Amish (1)

Lex-Man82 (994679) | more than 7 years ago | (#16671571)

Whew... On the press release, under "New/extended platforms", it says:

"OpenBSD/armish"

I read that as OpenBSD/amish. You can imagine the visions that swirled through my head at that point.

I think the BSD mascot would go down real well in Amish communities.

Re:Now supporting the Amish (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16671593)

What do they have against blowfishes?

Re:Now supporting the Amish (1)

Renegade88 (874837) | more than 7 years ago | (#16671601)

What do the Amish have against a blowfish?

Re:Now supporting the Amish (1)

BJH (11355) | more than 7 years ago | (#16671625)

He did say "BSD", not "OpenBSD", so don't be a totally anal prick about it.
You know as well as I do that he's talking about Chuck.

Re:Now supporting the Amish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16671827)

"Chuck" is not the real name for the BSD mascot. Check into it...

Re:Now supporting the Amish (1)

grub (11606) | more than 7 years ago | (#16671853)


The BSD Daemon is known as...[drum roll] BSD Daemon [wikipedia.org] , not "Chuck".

Re:Now supporting the Amish (1)

ignavusincognitus (750099) | more than 7 years ago | (#16671657)

>What do the Amish have against a blowfish?

Duh. A pitchfork.

Re:Now supporting the Amish (1)

otacon (445694) | more than 7 years ago | (#16671647)

I read it the same way first, but I was thinking "what company would name a processor platform after the amish?" that would be like naming a car after a turtle

Re:Now supporting the Amish (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 7 years ago | (#16672841)

that would be like naming a car after a turtle
Like Toyota did?

it fits though (1)

r00t (33219) | more than 7 years ago | (#16674995)

They proudly announce a reimplementation of CVS.

Let me repeat: CVS. In 2006.

The CVS replacement is already here. We call it Subversion or SVN. It works like CVS, but with several nasty defects removed. Most of us are hoping that CVS will pass into history, to be remembered only on wikipedia.

If you want to reimplement a version control system, you could pick something non-free that doesn't already have a free clone. You could pick BitKeeper or ClearCase, neither of which are 100% sucky or obsolete.

So yes, "amish" fits well.

biannual != semiannual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16671565)

Biannual means every other year. Semiannual means twice a year. OpenBSD serves up punctual releases twice a year. Yet Another Grammatical Error on Slashdot (YAGES?)

Re:biannual != semiannual (3, Informative)

smithberry (714364) | more than 7 years ago | (#16671623)

Are you sure about that?

See for instance http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid =Mozilla-search&va=Biannual+ [webster.com] which says biannual means "occurring twice a year" compare with biennial http://www.webster.com/dictionary/biennial+ [webster.com] "occurring every two years"

Re:biannual != semiannual (1)

otacon (445694) | more than 7 years ago | (#16671693)

See I knew that was wrong, because I was thinking my property taxes are due biannually, and I pay twice a year. I was like if thats the case then I've been pay like four times what I should be.

Re:biannual != semiannual (1)

eraserewind (446891) | more than 7 years ago | (#16671789)

whereas biweekly means both "occurring every two weeks" and "occurring twice a week".
Gotta love that precision.

Re:biannual != semiannual (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16671823)

From www.openbsd.org:

The last 10 years, every 6 month period has (without fail) resulted in an official OpenBSD release making it to the FTP servers. But CDs are also manufactured, which the project sells to continue our development goals.

So biannual it is.

Re:biannual != semiannual (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16673949)

Just like biweekly, biannual encompasses both meanings, semiannual and biennial. You neglected to note that, in the definition for biannual linked above, biennial is a valid definition for biannual. So "biannual != semiannual" is an incorrect conclusion, as biannual may indeed mean every two years depending on the context.

Classic question (1)

magicnico (1002869) | more than 7 years ago | (#16671607)

Cool ! can I run it on my toaster ?

Re:Classic question (1)

remembertomorrow (959064) | more than 7 years ago | (#16671661)

You seem to be confusing OpenBSD with NetBSD.

If you were attempting to troll, *looks at userid* that was pretty pathetic.

Re:Classic question (1)

DieNadel (550271) | more than 7 years ago | (#16671697)

Hmmm, no... this would be NetBSD [embeddedarm.com] .

Check this [laughingsquid.com] cool picture as well.

I could use a security-enhanced toaster at my office though...

Re:Classic question (1)

darth_linux (778182) | more than 7 years ago | (#16672391)

the cylons have their own OS i think, but it's worth a shot.

Re:Classic question (1)

Klaidas (981300) | more than 7 years ago | (#16673749)

No, but you can run Linux on your watch [youtube.com] !

Benefits of OpenRCS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16671641)

What are the benefits of OpenRCS? Is it just that it's a BSD-licensed implementation? Have there been any performance, reliability or scalability improvements?

Re:Benefits of OpenRCS? (2, Informative)

Nimrangul (599578) | more than 7 years ago | (#16672473)

If you had read the articles linked you'd know that OpenRCS is an almost completely compatible replacement for the GNU RCS, it is a clean reimplementation. The idea being security and reliability improvements. OpenCVS will more of the same once completed, and perhaps after it's features are all complete will add additional things, but until then it is seeking only to be a complete replacement for the GNU CVS.

CVS reimplementation???? (1)

r00t (33219) | more than 7 years ago | (#16674857)

Yuck.

CVS has already been replaced by subversion (SVN). CVS sucks horribly. Subversion only sucks a little bit.

I could see doing a BitKeeper or ClearCase reimplementation maybe. Let CVS pass into history.

OpenBSD/amish indeed...

Re:Benefits of OpenRCS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16673967)

From what I can see, OpenRCS's rcsdiff is slower than GNU RCS's, and because it doesn't support the -p option (which GNU RCS passes to diff), it doesn't work with CVSWeb. But I'm hoping it improves because I like replacing GNU programs on my Linux system with BSD programs. I've already replaced coreutils, ed, gzip, tar, cpio, among others with BSD equivalents. So far so good.

Amazingly small boot CD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16671671)

It kinda annoys me that I have to waste a whole 650MB CD-R disk on a five MB boot image... oh well. ...here I go...installing 4.0

TDz.
(and by the way, why can't OpenBSD boot from CD-ROM on the VAX architecture? OpenVMS can boot from CD-ROM just fine)

Re:Amazingly small boot CD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16671799)

If you have a floppy drive, you can use it to create a boot floppy and do the install. I have done that countless times. But floppy drives are so yesteryear. CDs are cheap, on the other hand. You could boot from a USB memory stick if your computer supports it, but I don't think OpenBSD has an option for that method of installing. Figure out how and advance the knowledgebase by posting directions.

Re:Amazingly small boot CD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16671839)

Ummm... VAX architecture & USB memory stick? hahahaha the two don't go together.
I'm not even sure if USB was invented when the last VAX rolled off the DEC assembly line.
Anyway, I've got one machine (a 4000 m60) with a floppy...that's enough to bootstrap up a machine so I can set up a 4.0 netboot server so I can get the rest of my VAXen running

Re:Amazingly small boot CD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16671893)

Ever heard of a CD-RW? They cost pennies more and you can even.... wait for it... re-use them!!

Re:Amazingly small boot CD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16671963)

All I have are CD-Rs
It's 5:50am, there are no stores open right now that sell CD-RWs (does 7-11 sell CD-RWs?)
I...Must...install...OpenBSD...ASAP...or...else... the...universe...will...implode...

Anyhow, I've had bad experiences with my old Compaq Deskpros not being able to read CD-RWs...so I buy CD-Rs

Re:Amazingly small boot CD (1)

fnj (64210) | more than 7 years ago | (#16672211)

Not only that, but has anyone actually used CD-RWs (or even DVD+-RWs) since they were a novelty when the priginally came out?

Re:Amazingly small boot CD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16672489)

Yes, but I'm a very strange person who does things like creating their own bootable systems.

Re:Amazingly small boot CD (1)

grub (11606) | more than 7 years ago | (#16672945)


I have a few CD-RWs and DVD-RWs that are used all the time for screeners that we watch in our divx DVD player. No point in wasting a good disc on that.

Re:Amazingly small boot CD (1)

foldingstock (945985) | more than 7 years ago | (#16673717)

It is amazingly small until you build a custom OpenBSD install/boot cd with all the available install sets. Then it is about average-sized. http://theowned.org/news.php?item.2.2 [theowned.org]

Re:Amazingly small boot CD (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#16674165)

I use CD-RWs on a fairly regular basis, for test burns and for shipping medium quantities of data to other people's houses. I rarely use my (one) DVD-RW but I do occasionally do a test burn on it. It's only a 1x so if I'm in a hurry it doesn't help much; my drive is 16x :P

Laptop Vendors need to step up (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16671683)

The whole documentation firestorm recently didn't seem to stop their progress. The issue remains, how to get the chip vendors to provide documentation that allows writing drivers for OpenBSD in this case, and all the other OSs. Maybe the pressure needs to come from a different side.

What would Broadcom or Intel do if Dell or Hewlett Packard told them to provide documentation for each of the chips in the laptops or desktops. If it became a business decision, no Dell laptops with a non-documented Broadcom chip, would it make Broadcom wake up? Or does this argument hit a brick wall, a) they are in bed together already and of one mind. or b) Dell/HP couldn't care less about what some minor segment of the market wants?

Still, I like the looks of OpenBSD 4.0 and my order is on its way.

Re:Laptop Vendors need to step up (2, Insightful)

Dan Ost (415913) | more than 7 years ago | (#16674015)

Even if they're of one mind now, putting pressure on Dell, HP, and the rest might
make them change their minds later. The key is to make this as visible an issue
as possible.

Talk to the chip manufacturers.
Talk to the OEMs.
Talk to the people who do the purchasing for your company. If you're lucky,
they might start asking the right questions when they place an order. That's
the kind of thing that makes Dell/HP/etc take notice.

real patriots run BSD (0)

2TecTom (311314) | more than 7 years ago | (#16671687)

imho, commercial OS's are just fascistware

open unix rocks, and so does freedom

Why support it? (-1, Troll)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 7 years ago | (#16671735)

I can't run any of the stuff I need to run under OpenBSD, so why the heck should I even care about it?

It's a specialized OS for an extremely small minority of users. What a waste of resources...

Re:Why support it? (2, Insightful)

evilviper (135110) | more than 7 years ago | (#16671765)

I can't run any of the stuff I need to run under OpenBSD,

Name it, and stop trolling.

OpenBSD is a normal Unix system (most software compiles), supports FreeBSD and Linux binary emulation. Has Wine in ports, etc.

Re:Why support it? (1)

Maniac (5054) | more than 7 years ago | (#16672097)

And have you ever tried running the wine in ports... it's a version from 1999, which no longer works, because openbsd discontinued some required kernel-patches that were needed for it.

Re:Why support it? (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 7 years ago | (#16672921)

Fair enough... No Wine, then.

I doubt the great majority of Unix users make use of Wine, anyhow.

Re:Why support it? (1)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 7 years ago | (#16672989)

Oracle RDBMS
Cisco IP Communicator
Any brand of SQL based tools. Take your pick!

Re:Why support it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16673747)

However, the best database around (PostgreSQL) runs perfectly on OpenBSD. It even has a nice BSD license, which is all the sweeter.
The "commercial shits"[1] don't support OpenBSD and they actually only support some very specific Linux distros and releases. If you deviate from those in any way, you're SOL. That's what you get for banking on commercial shits.

[1] c.f. wth-radio-humppa.mp3 :-P

Re:Why support it? (1)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 7 years ago | (#16673899)

Thank you for those kind words, sir. I happen to work for Oracle, so any other database is not an option. You may find that hard to believe but...

Re:Why support it? (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 7 years ago | (#16674729)

I happen to work for Oracle, so any other database is not an option.

Well, I suppose you could just keep on complaining about how OpenBSD doesn't run Oracle or you could ring up good old Larry and get him to start supporting it. Either way, complaining about how it's not useful for your purposes is about as useful as someone complaining that they can't haul around two tons of construction equipment in a Prius. Right tool for the right job and all that. This isn't your tool.
 

Re:Why support it? (1)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 7 years ago | (#16674803)

No shit Sherlock!

Why do you think I said it was not useful since it doesn't support any of the tools *I* need to run? geeezz Some people are just not very bright!

Re:Why support it? (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 7 years ago | (#16674887)

Your comment is not very useful for me, so I'm replying just to let you know that it's not useful. Your reply was a specialized comment for an extremely small minority of readers. What a waste.
 

Re:Why support it? (1)

Calinous (985536) | more than 7 years ago | (#16672967)

Yes, OpenBSD was not created for one to run everything under it. While it won't give Linux a run for its money (not to mention Windows), OpenBSD has a very well delimited market niche. If you have a use for it, it's perfect. If not, it's not Use the best tool for the job

Re:Why support it? (1)

Da VinMan (7669) | more than 7 years ago | (#16675051)

Just out of curiosity, how would you define that niche?

Re:Why support it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16675271)

Just out of curiosity, how would you define that niche?

Pretentious script kiddies who sit around in IRC all day pretending that developing a non-functional OS is the same thing as developing a secure one.

Guess what, Theo; MS-DOS hasn't had "a remote hole in the default install" EVER!

Re:Why support it? (1)

dartmongrel (855947) | more than 7 years ago | (#16671767)

how is a specialized OS a waste of resources??? If you don't use OpenBSD, that's fine by me.

Re:Why support it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16671785)

Well go buy a fresh copy of Vista then and STFU.

Re:Why support it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16671805)

And why should I care about your fu**en anal-probe stuff ?!?

Re:Why support it? (1)

DieNadel (550271) | more than 7 years ago | (#16671837)

I'm quite sure you're trolling, but anyway...

Could you please name what applications you need to run, and at which point they stop?

If it's not too much hardware dependant, maybe there is a way to run it on OpeBSD. It even has linux/freebsd/solaris/others binary compatibility (to some extent).

Post your problem and I'll try to help you (if you want, of course).

Re:Why support it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16672031)

Big, stupid, ugly...LOOK!!! A troll!

"It's a specialized OS for an extremely small minority of users."

So, like Linux? It's interesting you mention specialized OS, then mention NO OTHER OS for comparison. XP Home, technically, is namely specialized too.

Furthermore, one could call every Linux distro/flavor/variation a specialized OS, not to mention Linux itself hardly has a majority stake in the OS world.

"I can't run any of the stuff I need to run under OpenBSD"

iow, you haven't tried the OS one bit. Guess you don't run Linux either, given OBSD runs a good number of Linux apps without problem.

heh (3, Informative)

ArbitraryConstant (763964) | more than 7 years ago | (#16672045)

Turns out a specialized OS for a small number of users often ends up being something that can't be easily replaced. PF has availability features no one outside of Cisco can match, and they can't match them for what it costs us to use OpenBSD for the job.

For example, our Internet connection at work is managed by OpenBSD. If I rebooted our firewall, no one would notice, because the backup would kick in and it would preserve state for everything, even pre-existing TCP connections. You could be streaming music and it wouldn't even skip. How can I do that with Linux again?

"I can't run any of the stuff I need to run under OpenBSD, so why the heck should I even care about it?"

Hm. Whenever I have that problem, I just download the Linux version and run it under binary emulation.

Re:heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16672227)

OpenBSD on the desktop is pretty limited, but for server or firewall boxes the redundancy support is just fantastic! We use CARP, pfsync, and ifstated to have two redundant firewalls on two redundant net connections, with state tables all synced up and everything (if the connection goes down we have to get new state because the external IP changes, but for one of the machines/switches/net cards dying, it's totally seamless). And all this at 25% the cost of the equivalent Cisco.

Re:heh (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 7 years ago | (#16674801)

We use CARP, pfsync, and ifstated to have two redundant firewalls on two redundant net connections, with state tables all synced up and everything (if the connection goes down we have to get new state because the external IP changes, but for one of the machines/switches/net cards dying, it's totally seamless).

Out of curiosity, how are you implementing failover with different external IP addresses? Or is this for outbound connections only, such as internet enabling an office?
 

Re:Why support it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16672255)

> I can't run any of the stuff I need to run under OpenBSD, so why the heck should I even care about it?

no reason, bye

Re:Why support it? (1)

endeavour31 (640795) | more than 7 years ago | (#16672287)

Stupidest.

Response.

Ever.

You sir, are too moronic even for the typical /. troll.

I had a lot of fun with Linux in my 20's... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16673541)

But now that I'm older I want the stability and security that only OpenBSD provides. ;-)

Re:Why support it? (1)

Tweekster (949766) | more than 7 years ago | (#16673797)

So why are you posting?
seriously, did you think you HAD to post on every slashdot topic or something?

why dont you go waste your time elsewhere, no one cares about your opinion on OpenBSD.

The best feature of OpenBSD... (2, Interesting)

cucucu (953756) | more than 7 years ago | (#16671859)

is that it can run Linux executables!

Re:The best feature of OpenBSD... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16672219)

Even better is you can run them in a sysjail. This way, when your Linux executable is exploited, the whole box isn't compromised.

This is a dream for those of us forced to have to run linux executables

No... the best feature is the research (2, Insightful)

HighOrbit (631451) | more than 7 years ago | (#16672297)

By research, I mean the novel approaches they take to acheive new functionality in firewalling, routing, hardware drivers, and cryptography. They also have a reputation for coding "correctness" in improving the basic BSD/Unix utilities that are then used by other projects. I tend to think of the OpenBSD project as an extremely productive research institution run on the cheap. My opinion is that they are probably on a level close to Sun and its multi-million dollar R&D in pumping out Unix inovations.

No, I don't run OpenBSD myself right now (I have in the past), because I currently have no compelling need of its unique features that would justify me moving away from the comfort of apt-get for binary updates. The source-only updates are my only real complaint about OpenBSD, and even that is because I'm basically too lazy to deal with it myself.

Re:No... the best feature is the research (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16672969)

The source-only updates are my only real complaint about OpenBSD, and even that is because I'm basically too lazy to deal with it myself.

If you are referring to packages, OpenBSD has a system for binary updates so you don't have to compile from source. Set PKG_PATH to your preferred repository, then pkg_add -ru to see what packages have updates.

Re:No... the best feature is the research (1)

Calinous (985536) | more than 7 years ago | (#16673003)

Some people love the source-only updates, as witnessed by the increase of the gentoo community :)

Re:The best feature of OpenBSD... (1)

tommasz (36259) | more than 7 years ago | (#16674579)

Just like OS/2 could run Windows executables. That didn't save OS/2 and I doubt this will do much for OpenBSD.

OS/2 OpenBSD comparison silly (1)

AHumbleOpinion (546848) | more than 7 years ago | (#16675155)

Just like OS/2 could run Windows executables. That didn't save OS/2 and I doubt this will do much for OpenBSD

That is a silly comparison. OS/2 tried to compete against Windows, OpenBSD does not try to compete against Linux. OpenBSD does its own thing and doesn't really care what others do. It helps to keep in mind that the OpenBSD folks are a little more mature (obviously referring to the community at large and excluding Theo :-)) and are religious only when it comes to security, not regarding platforms. As a matter of fact they tell newcomers to develop for Linux and let their app run under emulation, that it is pretty unlikely that the newcomer needs the performance advantage of running natively and should go for a larger market instead.

BTW, Linux emulation is more of a *BSD thing, not OpenBSD specific.

Re:The best feature of OpenBSD... (1)

LizardKing (5245) | more than 7 years ago | (#16675219)

Just like OS/2 could run Windows executables.

I seem to recall having to reboot into some sort of virtual machine to run Windows under OS/2. However with OpenBSD Linux emulation, I can run a Linux executable as though it was a native one. The difference is that they they run on a more secure operating system and (at least with FreeBSD and NetBSD Linux emulation) they sometimes run faster. Now that the Sun JDK is running native on FreeBSD and NetBSD, the last reason I have for running Linux binaries on a BSD is gone - however emulation keeps the door open for others who want to run some binary only Linux app on BSD.

Audio CD? (1)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 7 years ago | (#16671895)

presumably this contains the installer, encoded into audio Commodore 64-style?

Why wont hardware vendors give out documentation? (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 7 years ago | (#16672177)

Has anyone actually gotten a straight answer from hardware vendors as to why they wont give out documentation? Can you build a modern x86 PC using only hardware that is fully supported by free software with no binary bits, blobs, non-redistributable firmware or missing functionality? Are there any hardware companies that DO give out documentation?

Re:Why wont hardware vendors give out documentatio (1)

archen (447353) | more than 7 years ago | (#16672397)

I think most people already know the reason when they look at nVidia and ATI. They're violating an assload of patents. Anymore I'm not sure that most of these companies care so much about giving away the specs, as giving away information for patent infringement. And lets face it, if you make almost ANYTHING you are probably infringing. Why incur an additional cost just for some crazy hobbyist programmers?

Re:Why wont hardware vendors give out documentatio (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#16673753)

Simple
WiFi cards. May run into issues with the FCC since they are are supposed to be not "easily modifiable by the end user".
Graphics cards. May use technology from another company that is under an NDA.
DMCA. Intel has released all the documentation for their graphics chips except for the MacroVision part.
And last but not least, cost. It costs money to release documentation. Frankly for most companies the Linux OpenBSD market isn't worth it.
The simple answer is no. If you build an all Intel system then you will be very close to your goal. If you want WiFi use a Proxim card.
You will be missing the ability to play DRM video but other than that you will be okay.
However the no binary bit is IMPOSSIBLE.
Sorry but unless you flash your Motherboard with a new BIOS and you do not have a single FPGA or other programmable logic chip on any board that you add to your system you will have some closed binary code somewhere, even if it is the in the microcontroller in your mouse and keyboards.

A totally open system doesn't currently exist. I don't see the big issue with some binary blobs. If they are just field upgradeable code for a PLD or an embedded cpu I don't see the problem.
Even such over the top zealots as Theo and RMS have never raged about the microcode in the CPU, the logic code in PLDs, or the masked code in microcontrollers.
So if you want a totally open system I suggest you get out your soldering iron. Otherwise pick the best compromise between open and function you can. As I said an Intel mother board with an Intel GPU is your best start.

OpenBSD 4.0 released? (0)

aristolochene (997556) | more than 7 years ago | (#16672179)

It's been released ?



That's a real shame. It'll never survive in the wild...../P

It'll have to be another donation (2, Funny)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 7 years ago | (#16672285)

T-Shirts - Hideous
CD Set - More toxic landfill
Posters - see t-shirts above
Audio - got to be kidding

Re:It'll have to be another donation (1)

dylan_- (1661) | more than 7 years ago | (#16673095)

T-Shirts - Hideous
Actually, I kind of like the 4.0 t-shirt, but given the Mobilix affair, I wouldn't expect them to last long. Get 'em while they're hot!

Re:It'll have to be another donation (1)

ecliptik (160746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16674103)

Even since OpenBSD started to "theme" each release I've been disappointed in the merchandise. The artwork is great, but it's just something I wouldn't want to hang on my wall or wear in public.

Thankfully you can still order stuff from old releases. My personal favourite is the poster from 2.9 [openbsd.org] , which is simple and illustrates exactly what OpenBSD is about but professional enough you could hang it your office. I'd buy something every release if they were more like that.

Theo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16672379)

I think a big part of these problems are not more complicated than Theo's breathtaking disability to relate to others, treat people friendly and helpful, and simply behave in an _adult manner_ instead of the childishly abrasive and arrogant way he's known by.
Theo, stop going about everything and everyone with a friggin' pair of blinkers on your head - others might just open up to you (and your projects') benefit by simply being nice, instead of being a jerk. It's called being a peoples person, and it usually gets you ahead instead of being set back.

Nice release, though! Just waiting for the recent 3.9 errata to be patched up for the stable branch...

Re:Theo (1)

ari_j (90255) | more than 7 years ago | (#16673521)

Theo being childishly abrasive and arrogant? You're kidding! Check out this masterpiece of social graces [freebsd.org] .

Re:Theo (1)

carlhaagen (1021273) | more than 7 years ago | (#16674355)

and in his usual fashion of complete social ineptness i guess he did not even have the common decency to apologize for his own mistakes and shitty attitude?

it's interesting how a single rotten apple can spoil an entire basket. i know a few business who simply because of his unfriendly "aura" displayed in situations of seeking support etc. chose another solution. the worst part about it is that theo and his equally minded minions usually go "yeah and? as if the openbsd community cares LOL", which really says everything about what kind of a user attitude an orginazation should NOT have.

anyone recall theo's raving discussions about how closed source vendors refuse to consider the little users as users, and refuse to help out? ironically that is the exactly same behaviour theo sports towards other people :) oh, the narrowminded ones...

Re:Theo (1)

rbanffy (584143) | more than 7 years ago | (#16674977)

You know... It would be fun to have a Theo x RMS deathmatch.

Re:Theo (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 7 years ago | (#16675137)

Oh, you mean like how he got pissed off when certain companies started preinstalling OBSD on machines and then told their customers the BSD mailing list was their support forum, without even the courtesy to tell anyone on the list what they were in for?

I can't blame Theo at all for how he responds to greedy bastards like that.

SGI port? (1)

saintlupus (227599) | more than 7 years ago | (#16672405)

Is anyone running the SGI port? I just got a couple of decommissioned O2s from work, and I'm wondering what to install on them.

(I've already got one running Irix at home, so that's covered.)

--saint

Does it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16672465)

... but does it run linux?

Re:Does it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16675175)

It'll run linux binaries...

Version numbering? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16672485)

Anybody else think its a bit of a coincidence that 2.9 was followed by 3.0 and 3.9 was followed 4.0? I mean, why bother with the "."? :-)

Obligatory BSD is dying quote (-1, Troll)

rfc1394 (155777) | more than 7 years ago | (#16672519)

It is now official - Netcraft has confirmed: *BSD is dying

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

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers.

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

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

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

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

Fact: *BSD is dead

---
Previous usage of this article [slashdot.org]

Re:Obligatory BSD is dying quote (0, Offtopic)

ettlz (639203) | more than 7 years ago | (#16672595)

Something of a tradition around here, eh?

Re:Obligatory BSD is dying quote (1)

chroot_james (833654) | more than 7 years ago | (#16673043)

Apple is BSD you dolt.

Re:Obligatory BSD is dying quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16674087)

BSD is totally uber solid. I got servers which I have never shut down since 2001 fool.

Openbsd sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16672555)

openbsd sucks

Who gives a shit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16673337)

OpenBSD 4.0 Released

Who really gives a shit?

Re:Who gives a shit? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16674727)

Is that shit blowing out from your anal-probe ?

Just kidding, go fsck yourself !
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>