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 4.1 Released

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the hot-bits dept.

Operating Systems 218

adstro writes to quote from the BSD mailing list: "We are pleased to announce the official release of OpenBSD 4.1. This is our 21st release on CD-ROM (and 22nd via FTP). We remain proud of OpenBSD's record of ten years with only two remote holes in the default install. As in our previous releases, 4.1 provides significant improvements, including new features, in nearly all areas of the system."

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

who cares? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18953477)

_d8b____________________d8b_______d8,
_?88____________________88P______`8P
__88b__________________d88
__888888b__.d888b,_d888888________88b_.d888b,
__88P_`?8b_?8b,___d8P'_?88________88P_?8b,
_d88,__d88___`?8b_88b__,88b______d88____`?8b
d88'`?88P'`?888P'_`?88P'`88b____d88'_`?888P'

______d8b________________________d8b
______88P________________________88P
_____d88________________________d88
_d888888___d8888b_d888b8b___d888888
d8P'_?88__d8b_,dPd8P'_?88__d8P'_?88
88b__,88b_88b____88b__,88b_88b__,88b
`?88P'`88b`?888P'`?88P'`88b`?88P'`88b

DIGGaz are NIGGaz (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18953535)

white man always oppressin black man

Re:DIGGaz are NIGGaz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18953609)

Thief [slashdot.org] !

Re:DIGGaz are NIGGaz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18953869)

We prefer the less prejorative term "infrinja".

Re:who cares? (1, Funny)

Marcion (876801) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953553)

Why do we care, because now people can use the code hex09f91102... oh have we moved on already?

No idea, they make a nice SSH program though.

Re:who cares? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18953785)

Well, if that is the case then I must be that kid in the movies because I see dead OSs on lots of my servers.

Having a little trouble (-1, Offtopic)

Rumagent (86695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953489)

Can someone help me? The driver for my wireless network card seems to be broken.

Re:Having a little trouble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18953627)

Digg dies, OpenBSD is alive.

Go quickly to the gunstore for the rapture approaches and you are likely to be eaten by a grue.

Re:Having a little trouble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18953921)

That would be a gruesome way to die.

Just curious... (5, Interesting)

darnok (650458) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953491)

My OpenBSD firewall box is several years old now (version 3.x), just keeps working and probably will until the 8yo hardware finally dies. Although I'm interested in the features in 4.1, and congratulate the developers on what'll doubtless be another good release, ultimately I'll probably stick with my existing setup. I *love* OpenBSD, for precisely one reason; it does what it's supposed to, and in my experience it *never* fails. However, I'm very unlikely to upgrade to any new version; why change something that works perfectly?

For those of you using OpenBSD, how many of you are in a similar situation?

Re:Just curious... (1)

TodMinuit (1026042) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953615)

I recently upgraded my firewall from a 3.x to 4.0 because the version I was running had a bug that didn't allow ALTQ rules to be unloaded from pf.

Now, the standard kernel is too big. Programs keep running out of memory. The machine is from, like, 1993. It's a 75MHz Pentium with 16MB of RAM.

Oops.

Re:Just curious... (1)

udippel (562132) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954021)

The machine is from, like, 1993. It's a 75MHz Pentium with 16MB of RAM.

Just drop by, I'll have another 16MB of EDO RAM for you; and you'll be fine (the 75 MHz Pentium is very much okay, even on 4.X).

Re:Just curious... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954359)

Have you tried building a new kernel? The default is intended to support most hardware. For a limited platform, I would recommend that you make an absolutely minimal kernel config and use that; I do for a Geode box I own, and it's a 266MHz chip with 64MB of RAM...

Re:Just curious... (1)

SlashV (1069110) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953651)

Same here. I run 3.7 on my box and leave it that way. Particularly since upgrading seems like a bit of a pain(I have never done it, but the instructions for it sound like trouble).
However, I do wonder whether not upgrading has security implications..

Re:Just curious... (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953679)

I do wonder whether not upgrading has security implications..
You wonder? You wonder? Of course it has security implications.

Sheesh.

Re:Just curious... (4, Insightful)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953825)

You wonder? You wonder? Of course it has security implications.
I think you are missing this :

We remain proud of OpenBSD's record of ten years with only two remote holes in the default install.
and the fact that openBSD doesn't use the linux/windows "security" paradigm of "write software quickly, find security bugs, fix them ASAP". Their strategy is instead to be secure out of the box, at the price of a slower pace of development and less features.

I am quite happy with linux right now. But I know that the day I will run a critical application/server, I will either use openBSD or maybe a stable debian but not a recent linux.

Re:Just curious... (-1, Troll)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953855)

I think you are missing this:

You're an idiot.

Re:Just curious... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18953933)

Takes one to know one

Re:Just curious... (1)

empaler (130732) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953999)

This isn't any other OS. This is BSD. Renowned for security implementation.

Re:Just curious... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18954153)

running 4.0 on a p166 w/32 of EDO

generally, I just keep a copy of all the files I change in /home/update/{etc,var,...}

and simply back this up prior to the uprade,
reinstall 'new' (not upgrade), make sure my ethernet if's didn't change somehow,
and just diff & cp until I'm up to date.

usually takes about 1-2 hours each release, since I've really only touched
pf.conf, rc.conf, hostname.if, and a few others.

for the guy with the 16MB: just rebuild the kernel with less drivers, etc..
might take 6 hours, but hey, it will still compile, right?

Re:Just curious... (2, Insightful)

asninn (1071320) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953859)

However, I'm very unlikely to upgrade to any new version; why change something that works perfectly?

Because holes continue to be found in every version and because old versions do not receive fixes anymore. There's only been two remote holes, of course, but there's an emphasis on both "remote" *and* "holes" here - and also an emphasis on "root", which unfortunately isn't even included in the slogan.

In other words, if you don't upgrade unless/until a new remote root exploit is found, you still have to worry about local users rooting your box (and don't forget that there typically are users like "www" etc. even when no actual person besides you has an account on the box; not a big problem for a firewall, most likely, but servers in general aren't automatically safe), and you still have to worry about remote priviledge escalation, remote denials of service and the like, too.

That's not to say that OpenBSD is not a very secure system, but the slogan is somewhat misleading (it's marketing, after all!), and not keeping a system up to date with security patches is never a good idea.

Re:Just curious... (1)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954423)

Because holes continue to be found

Yea, both of them. And in this case, I'm not using that as a sarcastic reference to a low number, there really have only been two.

Re:Just curious... (4, Insightful)

udippel (562132) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954571)

And in this case, I'm not using that as a sarcastic reference to a low number, there really have only been two.

Hmm, sorry, two what ? Two remotely exploitable holes in the default install, or two users running the default install ?
(For those not in the know: the default install has - drums rolling - ssh enabled. And SMTP on 127.0.0.1. That's it. Over. No http, no ftp, no pop, nothing else.)

Don't get me wrong, I'm a great OpenBSD fan and run it on my 3 production machines. Still, personally I consider that statement about the two holes more embarassing than impressive.

Re:Just curious... (1)

toadlife (301863) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953939)

"it does what it's supposed to, and in my experience it *never* fails"

That was my experience too, until I accidentally typed `postsuper -r all|postfix reload` instead of `postsuper -r all;postfix reload` on my Open BSD 3.5/postfix box. It caused a Kernel panic.

Other than that, the box ran without a problem for 2.5 years straight.

Re:Just curious... (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954293)

That was my experience too, until I accidentally typed `postsuper -r all|postfix reload` instead of `postsuper -r all;postfix reload` on my Open BSD 3.5/postfix box. It caused a Kernel panic.

If that's what actually happened (ie: you didn't coincidentally get hit by a cosmic ray at exactly the same time) it's a pretty serious bug. Is it repeatable ?

Re:Just curious... (0, Flamebait)

kv9 (697238) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954161)

However, I'm very unlikely to upgrade to any new version; why change something that works perfectly?

nice troll. to add support for more platforms, new devices, new tools (hoststated niceness [openbsd.org] ), bufixes, etc [openbsd.org] . are you the only OpenBSD user? do you expect progress to stop just because you're happy with the current state of things?

+5, Interesting my foot and other foot. good job, mods.

Re:Just curious... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954383)

I disagree that the grandparent is a troll. To some extent, I agree with him. I don't rush to deploy OpenBSD updates, because the system got to a state where I consider that it does everything I want from a (server) OS some time ago. Of course, new features are nice. I don't want to imply that they should stop developing them, and I do often see new things I might find a use for, but my OpenBSD installs currently work and work very well. I find updates from some other Free Software projects a lot more exciting, ironically, because they don't yet do everything I want them to.

Re:Just curious... (1)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954439)

He's running a firewall you dolt. Since when do you need support for a new graphics chipset on a firewall? If it supports your eth cards than that's it. You don't need anything else. At all.

Re:Just curious... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954543)

Rather limited view.
You also need to provide some positive feedback to the system that produced your rock-solid product.
Get a poster or t-shirt, if not the new version.
One need not love Theo, but he's worthy of respect and support.

Re:Just curious... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18954323)

I'm running 3.7 mainly because I don't feel like reinstalling :) Though I might give 4.1 a try... CPU is a 2.4ghz P4 with 1/2 a gig of ram, so it should be fine. (One of those slickdeals dell server deals from about 4 or 5 yrs ago) But 3.7 does all the routing/firewalling I need. Only complaint with it is some altq issues, but for the last 3 years it's handled two outside network connections brilliantly (I miss being @ the university with a cable modem.) Oh well, such is life. I'll upgrade eventually (erm, fresh install) if I can just find the time... maybe after I finish season 5 of angel & season 8 of buffy...

Re:Just curious... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18954433)

"I *love* OpenBSD, for precisely one reason; it does what it's supposed to" - by darnok (650458) on Wednesday May 02, @03:49AM (#18953491)

Which is about 1/10th of what Windows Server 2003 SP #2 can do, period.

(Simply because Microsoft's product line is larger and device support is larger as well from 3rd party vendors, as well as the possible base of applications present for Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, vs. OpenBSD (or Linux, or any other original BellLabs UNIX derivants)).

Also, since Windows is the MOST USED operating system there is under the sun, on personal computers (not counting big iron midrange/mainframes, or even mobile devices)?

That said & aside??

I.E.-> Where are your chances greater of gaining employment, since computer usage and expertise is often a demanded requirement by employers nowadays for many jobs??

With Linux/UNIX/BSD/MacOS X (all unix variants etc. et al), OR, on the most used OS there is in Windows (the most widely used OS there is on the most widely used cpu hardware platform there is, & thus, has the greatest surface area present in computing)???

Sure, UNIX family derivants are NOT "going away"! They've been around nearly 40 years (1969 to present, after the MIT MULTICS PROJECT, which even Bell Labs original UNIX has roots in) now and have much refinement into them than Windows NT-based OS' do (more than twice the time NT-based OS have in them in fact).

However, but UNIX and all its derivants are not nearly as flexible!

(Though many are EXTREMELY stable (Linux being the 'worst of the lot' here, but it makes sense - to beat Windows? You have to become LIKE Windows basically and support a wide base of hardwares))

E.G.-> Witness AIX as my case-in-point on this note. IBM demands you use their hardwares they certify for it, whereas on a PC using Windows (or Linux, to a lesser extent), you can use an INCREDIBLE MIX of diff. vendors hardwares and they work, & usually quite well), nor as ubiquitous, as Windows family derivants are!

In networked environs though? You do not see a 'wide mix' of hardwares blended into client nodes in client-server environs, not if the network admins and CIO have any sense. Keep it uniform, for support purposes is the general trend. This point I am making is about PC's, the world over in general.

This is where IBM is coming from when they have you run a SPECIFIC MIX of hardware certified to run well on AIX basically.

Conversely, you can achieve this kind of stability using Windows, if you get a WHQL driverset applied to hardwares your uniform network client-server environs uses also.

Anyways, That is the way it is (and has been, for nearly 15 years now), even though Linux (the most flexible of them all imo in both terms of varied 3rd party vendor support and wares available for it vs. other UNIX knock-offs/variants) runs on more hardware platforms than just x86 (again, which is what x86 is: It the most widely used computing hardware/cpu platform there is)).

Above all: I am NOT trying to "bust on you" solely, because you are NOT attacking Windows directly as is often the case here at /. , so please - do not take it that way.

I am just making a point is all, albeit in your thread reply (because it is near the top of this post about OpenBSD) but not directed YOUR way, exclusively.

(Feel free to debate my points above, by ALL means, because that is what this is about: I, and yourself, will only get stronger for it, being able to see "how the other 1/2 thinks" in their rebuttal points!)

Personally, on a closing note:

I was SURPRISED to see that any BSD derivant (Bell Labs UNIX knock-offs all, as far as UNIX clones go) has ANY "remote execution holes" possible on it @ all.

I say that, because it is often said, especially here on /. , that (more or less) "BSD IS THE MOST SECURE OS THERE IS"!

(Perhaps OpenBSD does not qualify on that account, vs. original BSD, so enlighten/correct me here, if needed).

Thus, it seems that Windows is NOT the only OS out there for personal computers that has exploits possible, largely because of IE, and scripting in Java/JavaScript as well as ActiveX usage and the fact it is the widest target used.

It is just that Windows IS constantly stated on slashdot that it is (more-or-less) less secure by many Bell Labs UNIX (+ knockoffs/clones of UNIX in Linux/MacOS X/BSD) afficianados.

It is probably a great OS though (OpenBSD), and if it's heritage is BSD (original berkeley one), then it has probably the BEST IP STACK THERE IS UNDER THE SUN, and I will give it that much.

Fact is, Microsoft used BSD IP stack code as well afaik/iirc) seconding that motion!

Yea, but... (4, Funny)

Heembo (916647) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953515)

Yea, but does it run Linux? Oh wait....

Re:Yea, but... (2, Informative)

LizardKing (5245) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953827)

To which the stock answer is, yes OpenBSD does run Linux - Linunx binaries at any rate (linux_compat(8) [openbsd.org] ). I don't know about OpenBSD, but on NetBSD this works very well. Before a native JDK 1.4.2 was available for NetBSD I ran the Linux binaries of it under emulation.

I Am Not An Eigen Value !! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18953541)

I Am Not An Eigen Value !! I am a Googley Shill !!!

Beowulf ? (1)

BeoCluster (995566) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953545)

Can I make a Beowulf cluster of OpenBSD's boxes ?

Re:Beowulf ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18954479)

No, but in Soviet Russia you can make OpenBSD boxes out of a Beowulf Cluster.

2 remote holes in default install (2, Funny)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953549)

so does this mean when i install my bick OS which defaults to turning off your NIC's, i will be able to claim my security is better then anyones?

Downloads (4, Interesting)

dleigh (994882) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953551)

Why not a link to the .iso download page in the article?
(Yes, that was annoyed sarcasm). I'd rather donate to the project and download an image than get one shipped, I can't believe OpenBSD is still refusing to provide Official ISOs.

Re:Downloads (2, Insightful)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953563)

That's the one thing that's hindered my using it, too.

Keeping in mind who we're dealing with, though, I don't see it changing any time soon.

Re:Downloads (4, Informative)

astrashe (7452) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953579)

You can download a very small minimal iso and do a net install. I did it this evening -- the core system is pretty small, and comes down quickly. It's not as inconvenient as you might think.

md5sum of the iso (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18953605)

09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0 cd41.iso

Re: md5sum of the iso (0, Offtopic)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954119)

Bwahaha.

http://blog.digg.com/?p=74 [digg.com]

One more page in the 295,000+ [google.se] for the RIAA to send a DMCA takedown notice to.

Kind of reminds me of the end of Spartacus, except the bastards will run out of crosses this time.

Re:Downloads (1)

TodMinuit (1026042) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953623)

You can also download the installation packages, burn those to a CD, and that along with the installation CD to do an offline install.

Or you could burn the packages to a CD and then boot bsd.rd.

Re:Downloads (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953641)

i believe the whole point, is why should we have to dick around to do it in the first place

Re:Downloads (1)

TodMinuit (1026042) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953653)

Because OpenBSD create top-notch software and needs money to do so.

"So why don't they be a friggin' business already," you say. Well, because they want to be open source. "So why not do both?" They do.

If you don't like it, don't use it. Or create your own ISO and distribute it.

Re:Downloads (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18953739)

Because OpenBSD is elitist and you must pass this test to prove yourself "worthy" to use it.

If anyone thinks I'm trolling, they've never read the OpenBSD devl mailing list ...

Re:Downloads (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953701)

It's still making you jump through hoops for no obvious benefit. SuSe does something similar (or did last time I looked) it was enough to nudge me towards RH.

Re:Downloads (1)

paulatz (744216) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954351)

It's still making you jump through hoops for no obvious benefit. SuSe does something similar (or did last time I looked) it was enough to nudge me towards RH.

It have been a long time since you last looked...

Re:Downloads (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954105)

You can download a very small minimal iso and do a net install. I did it this evening -- the core system is pretty small, and comes down quickly. It's not as inconvenient as you might think.

Yeah, but if you do that you won't be able to stick your install CD into a music player any time you like and play the "Puffy Baba and the 40 Vendors" [openbsd.org] 4.1 song.

Re:Downloads (0, Flamebait)

Marcion (876801) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953587)

>I can't believe OpenBSD is still refusing to provide Official ISOs. Me neither, which is why they have no users. If you want to have to pay for an operating system before you even try it then you might as well run Windows. I tried once downloading the files via FTP was poorly documented (at least then), I got stuck with the editing the cylinder limit things and then I gave up and installed Linux.

Re:Downloads (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18953965)

saying they have no users is just not true. You might not be one of them, but that doesn't magically make all others disappear.

You don't have to pay them at all, you can just use the net install version. Editing the cylinders is something even the install cd's will let you do, and that is also my main problem with all BSD's; their install partitioners suck. Now i run FBSD, OBSD, and several linux variants, and all have their merits and drawbacks. None is 'generally better' than the other. Some are easier to install and maintain, others are easier to actually control. hardware-wise it's about 50-50 for me (linux has better usb support, but obsd did WAY better on the wifi side here) but of course, that's just my experience.

Re:Downloads (2, Interesting)

turing_m (1030530) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954107)

They have no users? They are currently on #52 in the page hit rank on distrowatch. Right below linspire.

Re:Downloads (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18953591)

Why don't people understand that the world of ISOs isn't practical
for EVERYTHING? They're not "refusing" anything, the OpenBSD people
provide an easy manner to obtain and install OpenBSD via ftp.

For beginners, and for people who don't understand try looking here:

http://www.openbsd101.com/ [openbsd101.com]

The above site is Linux user friendly.

Re:Downloads (0, Troll)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954117)

Targeted at Linux users you say? "If you've been using Linux for a few years and have chosen the command line lifestyle over a gui lifestyle then OpenBSD should interest you." WTF?

BSD is dead. As long as they have the antique command line tools.

Think whatever you want, but I cannot live w/o GNU command line. bash alone isn't sufficient - text-tools, file-tools are also important.

e.g. BSD's moronic find requires directory name - while GNU one picks current directory by default. All GNU tools support --help and --version - try to find common help displaying option in BSD variants. Not that BSD tools helps output is any useful anyway. Also BSD's ps suck big time. The stupid insistence on using 'more' instead of 'less' isn't helping either.

Also, it might surprise you, 'vi' is no more. Everybody had forgotten what it is - for good - and are using 'vim' instead. But the fact remain: BSD has no sane decent text editor preinstalled. Because POSIX 'vi' cannot be called 'sane' nor 'decent'.

GNU tools by themselves are already pretty old - and kind of outdated. BSD tools are just rotten dead. And with them to me whole BSD: kernel is good, shell around it - is dead.

Constructive note. BSD should align themselves with Debian or Gentoo. Yeah, I know BSD was first. But first doesn't mean better - and those who came after BSD had learned on its mistakes - while BSD remained in its slumber. BSD can learn from Debian it's excellent software management facilities (/etc/alternatives is just god send). From Gentoo BSD can learn how to build software easily in a user-friendly fashion: integrating cross compilation, ccache, distcc all for good fast build on any system.

Re:Downloads (2, Informative)

mindstormpt (728974) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954231)

Not that BSD tools helps output is any useful anyway.


On the other hand their manpages actually say something.

Re:Downloads (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954497)

Man pages which are displayed by BSD's unique 'more'. Thanks you very much.

If you are really into command line, then check out Gentoo. Right after installing you would get feeling that Gentoo devels are really using command line - since it is so well made and polished.

Re:Downloads (4, Informative)

evilviper (135110) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953725)

Why not a link to the .iso download page in the article?

For the same reason Linux kernels, and any other files aren't directly linked in /. articles.

Just for you: ftp://ftp5.usa.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/4.1/i386/cd 41.iso [openbsd.org]

I can't believe OpenBSD is still refusing to provide Official ISOs.

Creating an ISO is positively trivial. The file system layout is exactly the same as the FTP tree. Just be sure to make it bootable with mkisofs -b, or whatever "bootable" check-box your Win32 CD burner program has...

Not to mention that there are dozens of different ways to install, and a bootable CD is rarely the most convenient. FTP install is quite handy.

It's only for non-x86 systems that creating bootable CDs is somewhat difficult. And even there, I'd much rather create my own multiple system CD than download an x86 ISO, an Alpha ISO, a Sparc ISO, and burn each to several different (mostly-empty) CDs.

Re:Downloads (2, Informative)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954075)

Creating an ISO is positively trivial. The file system layout is exactly the same as the FTP tree. Just be sure to make it bootable with mkisofs -b, or whatever "bootable" check-box your Win32 CD burner program has...
If that's too challenging you can also burn the minimal ISO, and burn the install files to another CD. Boot up off the minimal ISO, then use the second CD as the source for the installation tarballs.

Re:Downloads (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954247)

Now that's a huge waste of CDs, and really no easier, since you still have to get the layout right, and the like.

Re:Downloads (2, Informative)

turing_m (1030530) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954097)

Or you could download everything in the ftp directory on another computer, host it locally, and install from there. Quicker and you don't waste a CDR.

Re:Downloads (2, Insightful)

LizardKing (5245) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953901)

Why don't you download the floppy boot images, do a net install and save having to waste a CDR?

The reason official downloadable ISO images are not available is to encourage people to buy the prepackaged CDs. The revenue from these sales is a significant reason why OpenBSD continues to flourish, as people like Theo de Raadt have an income that allows them to work full time on the project. Hopefully this will prevent a monoculture of Linux on servers, which in some respects would be as bad as the monoculture of Windows on the desktop. Personally I don't need CDs, but if I was using OpenBSD (rather than a certain other BSD) then I would be doing net installs from a server on my own network, and making a donation.

Re:Downloads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18954109)

Excuse me. Did you just say "floppy boot images"? just now? in the year 2007?

I'm sorry, but the last time I owned a computer with a floppy drive was.. well I don't remember - it's been that long.

Re:Downloads (0)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954487)

Then use a usb thumb drive, still saving the CDR.

Re:Downloads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18953959)

> I can't believe OpenBSD is still refusing to provide Official ISOs.

That's because you're a drooling retard. Pay attention, fuckwit:

          http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq3.html#ISO [openbsd.org]

Re:Downloads (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953967)

They need the money! Do you buy each CD? I do... but I have made my own ISOs when I was low on cash. It's not hard at all.

I have a standing order that gives them 15€ a month. If more people would do that, perhaps they just might start posting ISOs. Other than that, they rely on the "sales". It how business works.

Re:Downloads (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954393)

The bootable CD / .tgz packages works very well for me.
One can choose to download only the parts one needs - i.e. no ports or no X
You can install via ftp, pxe, cdrom with tgz files on it

OpenBSD is the fastest installing fully bloated OS I've tried.

If you need to run Apache 1.x that comes as standard set up to run chrooted in /var/www which saves a bit of fannying about.

Re:Downloads (1)

udippel (562132) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954593)

milksucks ? Maybe. How about a coffee ? Or was the 'fully bloated' supposed to be funny ? Intentional ?

Re:Downloads (1)

ens0niq (883308) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954413)

As usual, you can find an unofficial - and of course unsupported by the OpenBSD dev team - i386 install ISO, and a short install guide (unfortunately just in hungarian language) at the Hungarian Unix Portal [hup.hu] .

Yea but.... (-1, Troll)

Heembo (916647) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953561)

...does it run Linux? Oh wait...

Re:Yea but.... (0, Offtopic)

Basehart (633304) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953629)

Yaay, it's raining here in Seattle :-)

Re:Yea but.... (1)

slugstone (307678) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953783)

It is not rainning in Sea... Oh never mind.

Re:Yea but.... (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953777)

...does it run Linux? Oh wait...

Of course it does.

It runs Linux binaries directly, like all the BSDs.

It also has Qemu, Bochs, BasiliskII, GXEmul, etc. in ports, on which Linux will no-doubt run.

Insert "In Soviet Russia" "Beowulf Cluster" "I read that as" "??? Profit" and any other completely mindless /. cliches.

Re:Yea but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18954087)

In Soviet Russia, Linux runs OpenBSD!

OpenBSD 4.1 Release Song (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18953637)

You mustn't exclude the OpenBSD 4.1 Release song from this article!

http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html [openbsd.org]
ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/songs/song41.mp3 [openbsd.org]

Re:OpenBSD 4.1 Release Song (1)

simong (32944) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954201)

Hmm, yes, I think I can sing that:

#Boo hoo, Linux won't share driver documentation with us, boo hoo boo hoo#

The last paragraph in the left hand column on that page is frankly nonsense. Linux has more driver support because there are more people working on driver support. I would like to see evidence of any kind that the OpenBSD community has been refused driver documentation which has been given to the Linux community.

Sad, but predictable (0, Troll)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953675)

I notice the usual contemptible morons have come out of the woodwork with the usual trollish garbage that they routinely attach to any article here referring to the BSDs.

I have to ask, Linux users...when are you going to stop making yourselves so easy to hate?

Re:Sad, but predictable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18953711)

October.

Re:Sad, but predictable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18953787)

Why do you assume they're Linux users? Linux users are too busy fighting with each other to worry about *BSD.

Re:Sad, but predictable (1)

catmistake (814204) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953883)

petrus4, I need your help. My BSD mentor has pretty much disowned me because a few weeks ago I installed Edgy on some old box I had lying around. (At the university I work for, outside of the user space, there is Windows, Solaris, and Linux servers. Linux is by far the most prevalent, and I figured it was time I stopped excluding myself from possible income sources.) What's the big deal? The penguinistas have become a lot less annoying in the last couple years about their cause, and Linux is progressing towards a stately adolescence. I guess what I'm asking is... where are the problems with linux that aren't in BSD? Is it lack of standardization? Or are there specific things that should work that were broken in linux? Why do hard-core admins scoff at linux?

Re:Sad, but predictable (0)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953983)

There's a lot of comments, (including on /. - see article on Dell shipping Ubuntu Linux), about 'Linux' being less suited to the server role than BSD, (requires daily reboots, lock up without reason..). Will these be fixed in the 'server' version of Ubuntu? We'll see...

Re:Sad, but predictable (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18954079)

'Linux' being less suited to the server role than BSD, (requires daily reboots, ...

With all respect, Sir, you are an idiot.

Re:Sad, but predictable (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18954141)

Requiring daily reboots? WTF?
Can you please state your source for this fantastic piece of information?

Re:Sad, but predictable (1)

delire (809063) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954171)

There's a lot of comments, (including on /. - see article on Dell shipping Ubuntu Linux), about 'Linux' being less suited to the server role than BSD, (requires daily reboots, lock up without reason..)

The BSD's are a fine family of OS's. This is widely understood now. There's no need to resort to baseless exaggeration to superficially elevate BSD's position in the mind of the reader, who will probably read your comment, in turn, as "the BSD's are so threatened by Linux that I will resort to back-handed absurdities".

You're above comment is contrary to the quiet confidence I'd expect any BSD user to have..

Best you climb back under the bridge I think.. You're safer there, and so are we.

Re:Sad, but predictable (1)

rindeee (530084) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954177)

Whuh?! There are lots of comments on /. about goatsecs too, but I doubt you would use that in support of your stance for/against the subject (I don't want to know). If you have a Linux server (or any server for that matter) that requires daily reboots and you can squarely blame it on the OS, why are you running that OS? I've numerous servers running BSD, Linux, OS X, Solaris and yes, even Windows, that are all quite stable and simply do not require reboots save for an occasional reboot on a Windows or OS X box after an update (do not like, but not a big deal if it's planned for). Sorry friend, but your statement is utter rubbish.

Re:Sad, but predictable (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954313)

I'll reply to the least offensive post. Why do people think that insulting others somehow makes their argument more compulsive?
The guy asked a question, I gave him a potential reason why people might think that way - look around, guys, I'm just reporting what others are saying. That does not mean that I AGREE with that.

For the record.

1. No, really not into Goatsecs.
2. The only server that I managed that needed frequent reboots was one running Windows NT that I 'inherited' - soon fixed that, (memory leak).

Yes, you can make any OS stable with enough work, you just need to get the right distro. and set it up right. But how many people know how to do that? Would you start with an Unbuntu 'desktop' ISO? Of course not.

Finally, it's well known that Linux is not yet ready to used be an 'enterprise' OS with heavy DB access...that may explain the original poster's colleagues' atitude.

Re:Sad, but predictable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18954113)

Linux is not mature enough to be used in production servers right now, but I hear the kernel 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0 will change this.

Re:Sad, but predictable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18954129)

The most important difference between BSD and Linux:
  • Linux is a success.
  • BSD is a failure.
Yes Virginia, BSD is dying. 'Nuff said.

Re:Sad, but predictable (1)

ettlz (639203) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954229)

Assuming the parent isn't a troll, it should be pointed out that it's much more complicated than this. BSD is not a failure and it is not dying: a considerable portion of webservers run on FreeBSD. OpenBSD is considered by many to be the de facto for routing, network services, etc. The fact is that Linux is more in the public eye now. I think this is because (1) there was all that legal wrangling over BSD in the early-mid 1990s, when Linux was starting to take off, that made the latter more attractive. (2) Linux thereby acquired a bigger "cult" following of disaffected, former Windows-using youths (like me!) who were looking for something different; they then grew to love it and the wonderful, larger world of UNIX. This, plus the much publicised Push for the Desktop amongst Linux distros (the likes of Ubuntu, Fedora and SuSE), has resulted in it getting much more mainstream media attention. There's nothing really sexy about servers.

Linux is a success, but it is very wrong to call BSD a "failure".

Re:Sad, but predictable (1)

ettlz (639203) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954147)

I have to ask, Linux users...when are you going to stop making yourselves so easy to hate?
Don't tar all Linux users with the same trollbrush. There are a very few people on both sides who like to stir the old Linux vs. BSD shit for absolutely no good reason other than to rile the "other side". A lot of us also use a BSD, like it, and see the virtues of both OS families without the need to sling mud. I use predominantly Linux on the desktop, not because I hate Windows, but because I genuinely like Fedora Core. Strange, eh?! I also use FreeBSD on my server because it's a good OS for that purpose and I dislike monoculture. Why fight?

So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18953773)

How much of those significant improvements were lifted from GPLed software on the sly?

Re:So (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954191)

C'mon, we do not want to start the old song again. You know, most first Linux drivers were ported over from BSD.

Development of both BSD & Linux isn't commercialized - so word "lifted" is unfit here. It is more about "exchange of ideas" [canonical.org] ;)

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18954355)

You're reasoning with a troll. I think this means YHL.

Re:So (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18954367)

SHUT THE FUCK UP, NIGGER!

3 Years and Counting (2, Informative)

p0 (740290) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953907)

I setup an OpenBSD box about 3 years ago. It has multiple gigE's and processes a reasonably tough load of network traffic 24 hours a day, even today. It has never ever crashed! it is not just crash proof, it simply doesn't give any other problems of any kind whatsover, heck I dont even know what to write in this darned comment!

Thanks for this. OpenBSD is rock solid!

But... (5, Funny)

Arielholic (196983) | more than 7 years ago | (#18953945)

But.... does it have UAC?

*BSD is Dying (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18954053)

It is now official. Netcraft 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

Dealing with Loss of BSD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18954221)

Of course you mourn the demise of *BSD. It's only natural. Dealing with the death of an operating system close to you can be one of the most traumatic experiences of your life, and you're bound to go through a range of emotions. While you may be able to work through those feelings on your own, it's often helpful to talk to a friend, a family member, or a counselor. You might also seek out a support group for people who are grieving.

Grieving is a process, and it's totally normal to go through feelings of shock, sadness, anger even guilt. The healing process is different for everyone. It might take you six weeks to move on, or it might take you six years. Don't beat yourself up because you're not "over it" yet. It takes time to heal wounds.

So what else can you do to feel better? It might sound corny, but try writing a letter, making a collage, or planting a tree in memory of the operating system you've lost. Remembering and celebrating all the good things *BSD brought to your life might help give you some closure, and having a keepsake to honor *BSD may help you get through some tough times in the future when you'll be missing it.

It's true that life won't be the same without *BSD around. It may seem like you'll never feel better, but eventually you will. Take some comfort in the old saying, "Time heals all wounds," and remember that *BSD will always be with you in your heart.

No ISO policy (3, Informative)

PhotoGuy (189467) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954325)

While I hear great things about OpenBSD, and realize it is for a niche market where stability and security are the number one concern, it seems to me that more people would check it out and use it, if not for this policy:

"The OpenBSD project does not make the ISO images used to master the official CDs available for download. The reason is simply that we would like you to buy the CD sets to help fund ongoing OpenBSD development. The official OpenBSD CD-ROM layout is copyright Theo de Raadt. Theo does not permit people to redistribute images of the official OpenBSD CDs. As an incentive for people to buy the CD set, some extras are included in the package as well (artwork, stickers etc).

Note that only the CD layout is copyrighted, OpenBSD itself is free. Nothing precludes someone else from downloading OpenBSD and making their own CD. If for some reason you want to download a CD image, try searching the mailing list archives for possible sources. Of course, any OpenBSD ISO images available on the Internet either violate Theo de Raadt's copyright or are not official images. The source of an unofficial image may or may not be trustworthy; it is up to you to determine this for yourself."


Now, FTP installs are pretty slick in these days of prevalent high speed; still, it seems a bit silly and arbitrary to intentionally restrict ISO distribution, to try and sell a few discs. The people who are willing to pay, would buy regardless of a free ISO being available (corporations and IT departments like having the official discs, and such).

I guess more than anything, this policy stikes me as a bit of "attitude", which turns me off the distribution, more than the mild inconvenience of not having ISO's readily available.

Re:No ISO policy (4, Informative)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 7 years ago | (#18954457)

I understand your frustration with the policy and the attitude that it might imply but let me show you the other side of the story. The OpenBSD team works very hard to produce these releases and get little support in the form of donations from large companies that use pieces of the operating system. Theo De Raadt asked Sun for a donation for one of his hackathons and was not even given the time of day. He was not even answered which is tantamount to a 'no.' Given that OpenBSD provided extensive assistance to Sun in the integration of OpenSSH and voluntarily reported bugs in Sun's version (as well as others), I think it really would have been no skin off of Sun's back to provide a donation. The principle form of income for the project to function comes from sales of OpenBSD CD-ROMS. You could still make your own ISO, but please keep in mind the hard work of this project. Honestly, 50.00 is a drop in the bucket and you help keep the future of a good project stable.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?