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!

Making OpenBSD Binary Patches With Chroot

kdawson posted about 7 years ago | from the sometimes-a-cigar-is-just-a-stogie dept.

Upgrades 66

Lawrence Teo writes "Unlike other operating systems, patches for the OpenBSD base system are distributed as source code patches. These patches are usually applied by compiling and installing them onto the target system. While that upgrade procedure is well documented, it is not suitable for systems that don't have the OpenBSD compiler set installed for whatever reason, such as disk-space constraints. To fill this gap, open source projects like binpatch were started to allow administrators to create binary patches using the BSD make system. This article proposes an alternative method to build binary patches using a chroot environment in an attempt to more closely mirror the instructions given in the OpenBSD patch files."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Is BSD dead? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18494445)

Lets talk about.. keep it all on this thread please

Thank you OpenBSD (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18494493)

PF is very good and much better then pos netfilter.

PFSense has to be the best firewall software around. PFSense > mOnOwall, smoothwall, or any pos Linux firewall

Yeah, totally well-supported comment, dude. (1)

Lethyos (408045) | about 7 years ago | (#18495849)

I agree. PF is just like so totally awesome and everything else is like major sucks. Because I say so.

Re:Thank you OpenBSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18499379)

Better than you, better than you! Nanana!

Yeah, BLOBs...that's EXACTLY what OpenBSD is for. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18494453)

Of any OS, OpenBSD is the one that is sooooo anti-BLOB that it makes this article pretty funny in an ironic way
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_blobs [wikipedia.org]

Re:Yeah, BLOBs...that's EXACTLY what OpenBSD is fo (1, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | about 7 years ago | (#18494547)

BLOB means something different to OpenBSD people.. as does "vulnerability".

Like Rain on Your Wedding Day (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18494575)

fact: You don't know what binary blobs are.

Re:Yeah, BLOBs...that's EXACTLY what OpenBSD is fo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18494579)

You obviously don't understand what a binary blob is; let me direct you to the wikipedia page so you can educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_blobs [wikipedia.org]

Hint: The article is not about blobs at all.

Who cares (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18494463)

BSD is dieing. Netcraft confirms it.

Re:Who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18496743)

BSD is dieing. Netcraft confirms it.
You're lieing and I'm crieing that BSD is dieing
So start tieing your shoez cuz I'm bieing the drinks.
And OpenBSD is made by frieing some chinks. Word!

LOL OpenBSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18494479)

The OS for people with unlimited spare time.

Re:LOL OpenBSD (1)

QuantumG (50515) | about 7 years ago | (#18494593)

Nah, that's Gentoo.. 'specially if you run ReiserFS.

Re:LOL OpenBSD (1)

frankm_slashdot (614772) | about 7 years ago | (#18496377)

What's amusing is that when I read the parent thread I said to myself, "Nah, that's Gentoo..."
And I say that as a person who only uses OpenBSD and Gentoo (as far as free OS's are concerned).

What can I say, I'm a glutton for punishment.

Re:LOL OpenBSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18496871)

If you run it with ReiserFS it's the OS for people who want to kill their wife.

That and OJ-OS.

Re:LOL OpenBSD (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18496731)

Funny, but I left the Linux world a few years ago because I got tired of wasting time managing the OS and fucking around with trying to figure out what changed this particular kernel release or what the new packet filter is going to be this year, or if we'll be using tmpfs or udev or whatever the fuck else as a memory filesystem, or why some stuff that used to work doesn't anymore. Etc, etc. ad infinitum.
OBSD is so fucking cohesive and stable compared to Linux that I can't imagine ever wanting to go back.

Re:LOL OpenBSD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18502979)

It's easy to be stable when you're firmly stuck in 30 year old technology.

Have I missed something here? (2, Insightful)

00_NOP (559413) | about 7 years ago | (#18494597)

Linux patches are also distributed as source code. Indeed, isn't this the old skool *nix way, full stop?

Re:Have I missed something here? (3, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | about 7 years ago | (#18494941)

There's this other OS you might have heard of, it's called "Windows". Stupid name, I know. They distribute their patches as binaries. I also heard there's this other OS, it's something like "Tiger" or "Panther" or something and they do the same thing.

I know every fourth word out of Theo's mouth is a slight against Linux, but that doesn't mean everyone related to OpenBSD does this.

Re:Have I missed something here? (0, Offtopic)

oscartheduck (866357) | about 7 years ago | (#18495053)

Without wanting to start a fight or anything, I genuinely don't see how the grandparent is slighting linux here. You can for a lot of linux OSes get the patches as source code. Sure, Windows doesn't, but that's not linux, which the grandparent specifically asked about. As for Mac OS, I don't know whether you can get the patches as source, but I imagine not.

Re:Have I missed something here? (1)

lexarius (560925) | about 7 years ago | (#18497631)

The kernel and low-level stuff is open, so I suppose if you are so inclined you can download the latest darwin sources/patches and compile them. The GUI-type stuff is closed, though, so binary patches for that.

Wow, no substitute for good programming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18495671)

It's really a shame they couldn't be bothered to program it right the first time.

disk constraints? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18494627)

it is not suitable for systems that don't have the OpenBSD compiler set installed for whatever reason, such as disk-space constraints

Jesus Christ. If you don't have 2 GB of disk space, and can't afford 2 GB of disk space, maybe you shouldn't run a computer.

Those of you running openbsd from flash media are entitled to flame me, but even then, 2 GB of flash is pretty cheap these days.

Re:disk constraints? (-1, Troll)

alphamugwump (918799) | about 7 years ago | (#18494797)

Embedded, buddy. When you're running a computer like this [tinyurl.com] , you're looking at KB, not gigs.

DO NOT CLICK LINK! troll! (1)

allanw (842185) | about 7 years ago | (#18494869)

i'd mod down if i had any points

MY EYES! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18495071)

Done. Also, I want my innocence back.


Re:MY EYES! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18495193)

Your concern has been noted, and will be dealt with shortly. Please stay on the line until an operator can assist you. Thank you, and have a nice day.

Re:disk constraints? (2, Informative)

QuantumG (50515) | about 7 years ago | (#18495001)

OpenBSD is primarily used for firewalls. The purpose of a firewall is to do essentially nothing 'cept route and filter packets. As such, the cheapest least broken hardware is typically used. Some people (*cough* Steve Wozniak *cough*) even see embedded firewall devices that run OpenBSD. They run entirely off flash memory.

Re:disk constraints? (3, Insightful)

wb8wsf (106309) | about 7 years ago | (#18495217)

Thats a questionable statement, that OpenBSD is primarily for firewalls.
I'm writing this on an OpenBSD 4.1-current laptop (IBM A31p ThinkPad) and
have used OpenBSD exclusively since 2001 for all my desktops. A lot of
people are discovering that OpenBSD does really well as a desktop. With
the introduction of 4.1, Open Office is supported, not to mention KDE,
media stuff, a really outstanding population of wireless cards, etc. I
think there are people who think of OpenBSD as a just a firewall; as
good (well, wonderful) as pf is, there is so much more there.

Why on the desktop? (1)

zsau (266209) | about 7 years ago | (#18496887)

I currently use Debian on my desktop; I used to use FreeBSD. Given that both of these are aimed at being general purpose operating systems, whereas OpenBSD is at least perceived as being primarily a firewall/server operating system, why would you choose to use OpenBSD on your desktop instead of something more general purpose? What advantages and limitations does it have over GNU/Linux distributions or FreeBSD as a desktop? Is it something along the lines of you know it from your firewall so you'll use it on your desktop, or do you feel it's independently the best OS for the job?

(I use Debian GNU/Linux largely for hardware support; at least at the time I installed it, no BSD supported my PPC64. That's probably changed, but if it ain't broke, don't fix it eh?)

Re:disk constraints? (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | about 7 years ago | (#18497563)

If OpenBSD is such a great desktop, why is your post formatted so terribly? Do you think you're writing on a typewriter, or does OpenBSD only ship with a crap web browser?

Check this out. I
can put
random line
breaks in my posts, too! It's
like turning
into poetry.

Re:disk constraints? (3, Informative)

ArbitraryConstant (763964) | about 7 years ago | (#18495599)

Yup. We do this at work (no link because I'm not spamming). We sell OpenBSD firewalls on minimal hardware (about the size of a broadband router, low power enough to be fanless), and then sell various services on top of that. You can do a surprising amount.

We use flash memory, and the space and rewrite cycle requirements for compiling on this are prohibitive.

Re:disk constraints? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18497519)

Compile on a vmware or qemu, or other VM. Anybody setting up a tiny flash system surely has a bigger box laying around, right? Disk space is only an issue for people who own only a single machine with a small drive, and those guys must be pretty rare these days because even laptops these days have 60+ GB internal IDE disk.

Re:disk constraints? (1)

NoMaster (142776) | about 7 years ago | (#18499859)

Some people (*cough* Steve Wozniak *cough*) even see embedded firewall devices that run OpenBSD. They run entirely off flash memory.
As do I, if I look across the room right now. A mini VIA machine, bought originally to play with, that now boots a stripped-down OpenBSD off a read-only mounted IDE-connected CF card, running firewall & local DNS.

And the point of this article is *stripped down*. Unfortunately, the writer gets it all wrong, re-invents someone else's wheel, and doesn't really solve the problem (if my firewall still had GCC on it I wouldn't need to frack around like he suggests - but a compiler, like the X & Games packages, has no place on a firewall.)

Binary patches - or even binary updates to -current packages & the kernel, maybe located somewhere else in the install tree - would be nice. But I can understand why they don't, and I'm not going to hold it against Theo et al if they don't provide them. I'll just continue to do an in-place upgrade every 6 or 12 months, merging my script and config changes each time.

Re:disk constraints? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18495397)

You actually need about 64mb for a compiler. But many people run firewalls off floppies, which don't have that space.

Slashvertisement (4, Insightful)

mandelbr0t (1015855) | about 7 years ago | (#18494647)

The submitter is just pumping up clicks to his own site. You'll notice that he's also the author of TFA. I don't see that this is a particularly useful system, since you'd just be building binaries on another box anyway. If you're going to do that, you might as well just build an upgrade CD and upgrade through the normal process.

Re:Slashvertisement (0, Flamebait)

QuantumG (50515) | about 7 years ago | (#18494859)

Wow, it must be a day for people who don't know the definition of slang terms. A Slashvertisement the term used to imply that some has paid Slashdot to run a story for them.

Seems pretty unlikely in this case doesn't it?

Re:Slashvertisement (1)

mandelbr0t (1015855) | about 7 years ago | (#18495565)

You got a reference for that? I understand "Slashvertisement" to mean an article posing as news being a means to advertise something/one else. My apologies for my ignorance.

Don't patch! (3, Funny)

had3l (814482) | about 7 years ago | (#18494657)

I still use version 2.3, I refuse to run an OS that has a blowfish as its mascot.

Re:Don't patch! (4, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | about 7 years ago | (#18494915)

Shit man, what have you got against Puff?

You, me, parking lot.

Re:Don't patch! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18496645)

Personally, I've got nothing against Puff the Magic Dragon. It is Puff the fucking Blowfish that gets me down.

Re:Don't patch! (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | about 7 years ago | (#18568731)

Puff the Magic Blowfish, lived in the sea
And frolicked in the SCSI disk in a land called Bee Ess Dee.
Little Theo de Raadt loved that rascal puff,
And brought him threads and interrupts and other fancy stuff!

Why not copy-on-write? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18494769)

The article describes a technique which is in large very inefficient, and wasteful. It is analagous to the notion that a process must be completely copied on fork, however this is not true. Typically the pages used by a child process are copy-on-write, and are only duplicated as the child writes to them. To see the analogy, consider that the article describes this basic process:

(1) Create a new directory (the author creates something in /var).
(2) Unpack a brand new OpenBSD distro and source distro to this directory.
(3) chroot this directory as /
(4) Create a timestamp file using touch (the author calls this a "cookie").
(5) Unpack the modifications to the dummy system. Scripts which refer to absolute path names will work now.
(6) Create a timestamp file using touch.
(7) using find, collect all files that were modified during the time the first and second cookies were made into a tar ball.

This is analagous to copying an entire system, then working on the copy. Rather, why not using a unioning file system? Mount the file system as a unioning file system, thus when a write occurs on a file, it will actually not be modifying the system file system, but a dummy file system, mounted in /tmp or where ever. Once the patch is complete, collect all modified files (the file system will read from the dummy file system automatically) into a tarball as before. This technique has several advantages:

(1) You don't have to re-create the entire system (and upgrade it as necessary).
(2) The dummy file system typically runs in memory (which is very fast, and usually plenty large for a diff-like 'patch').
(3) It seems like a perfect fit for a unioning file system.

I am actually a fan of transactional file systems, but unionfs seems perfect for this. There is a BSD unionfs it seems here: http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/ [freebsd.org] . Also, if you are in Linux, and you want copy-on-write for some reason, check this out: http://www.am-utils.org/project-unionfs.html [am-utils.org] .

Factual Errors (3, Interesting)

DaMattster (977781) | about 7 years ago | (#18494809)

Most open source operating systems deliver their patches primarily as source code. I know Free and Net BSD and Linux provide source based patches. In fact, if you track the FreeBSD security announcements and errata information, you download a source code patch in the form of a diff file. To apply the patch, simply make certain you have downloaded the source code in the /usr/src directory and use the patch command. From there, the diffs are applied and you can run make to recompile the patched section. The commercial Linux vendors like Red Hat and SuSE provide binary patches for convenience purposes. The author of this article really should do more homework before making the statement that he did. Personally, I like the patch and compile method. I do know that this is a more secure way of supplying patches because you can read the source code and it makes delivering malware harder. I like to see what is going on behind the scenes.

Re:Factual Errors (0, Flamebait)

QuantumG (50515) | about 7 years ago | (#18494887)

Yeah, the summary/article didn't say "Unlike other open source operating systems" ..

Re:Factual Errors (1)

Conley Index (957833) | about 7 years ago | (#18495201)

For FreeBSD, you may also use freebsd-update http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=freebsd-u pdate&sektion=8&manpath=FreeBSD+6.0-stable [freebsd.org] , which is very convenient... not only the "commercial Linux verdors" give you binary patches.

Re:Factual Errors (1)

DaMattster (977781) | about 7 years ago | (#18496307)

Hey, that's kind of cool. I didn't know about freebsd-update and I am a FreeBSD admin. That's the cool thing about UNIX like systems. There is always learning. I usually do a cvsup if I want to upgrade the whole thing. For just bugs in BIND or other programs, I grab the patch file.

Similar to existing techniques? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18494927)

This is a lot like existing techniques, such as Gentoo's installation sandbox: first, a package is installed in a temporary file system, and changes made during the installation are then merged into the live filesystem (if installation was succesful, and none of the newly added files conflict with files already installed).

Furthermore, the FreeBSD manual recommends a similar procedure for automated building of package lists (lists of files installed by a package): create a regular port, install it into a temporary copy of a base filesystem, and use mtree to figure out what files were modified during the installation process. In this case no chroot environment is used, since ports are expected to honour the installation prefix (given in PREFIX).

So it's a pretty well-established technique; I'm not even sure using it to upgrade the base system is novel: as of late, FreeBSD provides binary updates to its operating system in addition to the traditional source upgrades (and binary releases), although I'm not sure how these packages are created.

this isn't a wise thing to do (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18495049)

fuck ya'll bitches. dumb azz linux faggots smoking them faggot dicks.

Packages? (0, Troll)

Doug Neal (195160) | about 7 years ago | (#18495109)

This sounds like a total hassle. What's wrong with proper package management? (I'm not trying to troll, I'd really like to know!)

Re:Packages? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18496713)

I consider OpenBSD my primary desktop OS. Now, having used systems like Debian, I must admit yours is a question that's difficult to answer. I probably can't come up with one that is compelling for all people. But I can take a stab at how I feel about the issue.

If I could use a few words to describe the interaction of base system packages on Linux with the equivalent on BSD, I could describe the BSD scheme with words like "small", "simple", "cohesive", "compact". Although many different software packages are in fact pulled from many different sources (gcc and Xorg are some important examples), there is a sense of it all belonging to a single unit. It is developed together, in the same source tree. If you look at header files, or config files for various daemons, or the source tree itself, or whatever, you get the feeling that it is all one big unit.

If BSD is all these things, then Linux package management can be described as somewhat more "chaotic". This is both good and bad. It is good in the sense that different packages can be developed, configured, and upgraded separately in the base system. This has some benefits, sure. But you also lose some of that cohesion. A simple example: on OpenBSD, you can configure all of the preinstalled daemons in the base system with one fell swoop, by editing the config file /etc/rc.conf. This is accomplished by developers hand tweaking the default config file and the shell scripts that take action upon it. The typical Linux solution is to have the package manager rather chaotically add to /etc/init.d and /etc/rc.* at the whim of potentially thousands of different package authors. There are pros and cons to both approaches, but, it all boils down to a philosophical difference. And between BSD and Linux, there are many philosophical differences. I think a lot of them boil down to the contrast between chaotic and very conservative development.

So, I don't know if I have conclusively answered your question, but this is a small part of my view on the subject.

It might be nice for OpenBSD to provide binary patches. They do, after all, provide binaries for lots of packages in ports. It might also be worthwhile to remember that OpenBSD is relatively small, relatively developer-oriented, and not a rich project. It might not be worth the effort to put lots of different binaries online when they can focus their energies on improving -current.

Re:Packages? (1)

stripe42 (845170) | about 7 years ago | (#18503549)

Thanks for the description. I haven't really used BSD, but the description -- one big unit -- interests me to try it out.

Re:Packages? (1)

mrsbrisby (60242) | about 7 years ago | (#18500283)

This sounds like a total hassle. What's wrong with proper package management? (I'm not trying to troll, I'd really like to know!)
The only thing wrong with proper package management is that OpenBSD doesn't have it, so you're going to get lots of touchy-feely responses about how it feels better, or is about some matter of taste to do extra work that someone else has already done.

Fortunately, FreeBSD has something _almost_ as good as Slackware's packaging system (which isn't very) so it shows that at least a few *BSDers recognize that there's a problem, any requests for packages in FreeBSD-land are met with "just compile it yourself", and "disks are cheap", and my all time favorite, "your time isn't worth anything".

Besides, ports and cvsup are "good enough" so long as every machine maintains itself, so people who use a *BSD as their "desktop os" aren't noticing the problems anyway. Two or three machines aren't that bad, and anyone maintaining fifty machines has rolled their own solution long ago.

Re:Packages? (2, Informative)

evilviper (135110) | about 7 years ago | (#18526145)

The *BSDs package management is better than any other I've seen, and far better than Slackware's pkgs, which don't manage dependencies at all... OpenBSD just doesn't use packages for the base system (dist sets instead), and doesn't provide updated binaries (for manpower reasons), only source.

Maintenance actually gets easier, the more machines you have. If you need to build from ports for some reason, you only have to do it once, and can distribute the generated packages across as many systems as you want. Ditto for updating the base system, you just have to build it, then you can make dist sets to distribute.

You're not even a good troll.

Re:Packages? (1)

mrsbrisby (60242) | about 7 years ago | (#18530961)

and far better than Slackware's pkgs, which don't manage dependencies at all...
Slackware's packages are truly horrible, but dependency tracking isn't very important.

Maintenance actually gets easier, the more machines you have. If you need to build from ports for some reason, you only have to do it once, and can distribute the generated packages across as many systems as you want.
Of course it should get easier. If maintenance got harder then nobody would use FreeBSD. You're missing the point. If I build the packages from source, then there's exactly _one person_ doing QA for my packages, and that's me. Obviously, if I use someone elses' packages, then I get to share their QA.

If I distribute the generated packages, and I am doing the QA, then I am doing things that almost every other packaging systems do for me. At least slackware users can share the QA to make sure the packages work.

Sharing cpu-time isn't the only think Linux users are sharing.

You're not even a good troll.
And you're the problem with FreeBSD. You keep saying "everything's fine here- no wait- everything is _superior_ here. No problems whatsoever. we're ready for prime time", when FreeBSD has some serious catching up to do.

Fortunately, other FreeBSD developers aren't as stupid as you, and are actually working to fix their flaws.

Re:Packages? (1)

evilviper (135110) | about 7 years ago | (#18538843)

If I build the packages from source, then there's exactly _one person_ doing QA for my packages, and that's me. Obviously, if I use someone elses' packages, then I get to share their QA.

You've completely and utterly ignored a key point:

"If you need to build from ports for some reason,"

FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD provide full packages of almost all of their ports (a few have licensing issues), just like Linux.

when FreeBSD has some serious catching up to do.

You haven't mentioned one single issue where FreeBSD is behind. You just blindly assert that they are, somewhere, somehow...

Prove it. Stop hiding behind vague statements that can't be pinned down.

*BSD is Dying (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18495137)

It is official. Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent 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 the Amazing 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. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

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 dilettante 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 dying

Where dreams are crushed. (2)

Lethyos (408045) | about 7 years ago | (#18495815)

This is the beauty of peer review, especially from a group as vicious as Slashdot. I imagine the author of this process was so pleased with himself and excited to share his ingenuity with the world, only to submit it here and have his ideas stomped, blasted, toasted, dragged through mud, and rendered to pieces. Not that I would suggest we do anything different, but sometimes I cannot help but to admire the crucible that is public forum.

OBSD patching explained to us mere mortals (1)

OpenBSD101 (1009477) | about 7 years ago | (#18498109)

From OpenBSD 101: http://www.openbsd101.com/patching.html [openbsd101.com]

Re:OBSD patching explained to us mere mortals (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18498653)

Oh goody, as if the story wasn't enough spam, but then you come along to add to it, why thank you, it's wonderful that you'd link such a rotten pile of GNUisms and stupid ideas, it's just what OpenBSD newbies need, to be told to do stupid shit.

Just like Gerardo Santana's work (3, Informative)

gwolf (26339) | about 7 years ago | (#18502567)

Gerardo Santana worked on a project implementing binary patches for OpenBSD [sourceforge.net] at least since 2001. His code is quite reliable, IIRC he basically lacked the needed machines to create the patches for all the OBSD officially supported architectures.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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