×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

196 comments

Kdawson (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19873019)

Does it seem strange to anyone else that the last several front page stories in a row have been posted by kdawson? Who is kdawson anyways?

An explanation (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19873169)

Kdawson clearly killed the other editors, and is now posting all stories. If you see anyone else posting, it's actually kdawson using their account. Look for more dupes, April Fool's Day jokes, and Slashvertisements soon.

Re:An explanation (1)

FreakyLefty (803946) | more than 6 years ago | (#19874921)

Gullible fool. Having learnt from all the murder tips given in the recent Hans Reiser stories CmdrTaco has obviously killed the other editors and is using kdawson's account to leave a false trail. You'll know it's true when kdawson posts a moving and heartfelt eulogy to Taco.

You must be new here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19873347)

Does it seem strange to anyone else that the last several front page stories in a row have been posted by kdawson? Who is kdawson anyways?
1)No
2)He's an editor
3)???
4)PROFIT!!!

Or something like that.

Netcraft... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19873049)

mistermark's failed hard drive only further confirms that BSD is, in fact, dying.

OK (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19873051)

WTF
IsA
NAS
?

Re:OK (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19873075)

Network Attached Storage

TY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19874525)

Why that got modded as troll I dunno.

Re:OK (0, Offtopic)

Whiteox (919863) | more than 6 years ago | (#19874701)

You mean everybody who's got a computer hooked to another with a network cable has a nas? Geez! And I thought I didn't have one!

Pretty In-depth (1)

GizmoToy (450886) | more than 6 years ago | (#19873067)

Wow, that was a pretty in-depth how-to. It even has a mechanism (via cron) to notify you within 15 minutes if a drive fails. This sounds like a pretty interesting solution. I think I may have to give it a try with a spare box I have laying around. Thanks mistermark. I'm impressed.

Re:Pretty In-depth (2, Interesting)

ComputerSlicer23 (516509) | more than 6 years ago | (#19873373)


I'm shocked the raid tools for OpenBSD aren't better then that. Not a dig at it, OpenBSD generally prides itself on exceptional tools. OpenSSH, CARP (their replacement for VRRPD), their firewall tools and everything else. Linux has a system call that can be used to monitor the status of a RAID array. It can kick off an arbitrary command, including starting up recovery and/or e-mail alerts. Technically the system call doesn't, but the mdadm tools that use the system call can.


I really hope somebody replies telling me, I'm an idiot and that OpenBSD has exactly such tools. Well and they really exist, as opposed to the clever slashdot behavior of telling me I'm an idiot and be completely wrong.


Kirby

Re:Pretty In-depth (1)

Bottlemaster (449635) | more than 6 years ago | (#19873739)

I'm shocked the raid tools for OpenBSD aren't better then that. Not a dig at it, OpenBSD generally prides itself on exceptional tools. OpenSSH, CARP (their replacement for VRRPD), their firewall tools and everything else. Linux has a system call that can be used to monitor the status of a RAID array. It can kick off an arbitrary command, including starting up recovery and/or e-mail alerts. Technically the system call doesn't, but the mdadm tools that use the system call can.
What?

OpenBSD:
Provides a command line utility to check the status of a RAID (surely this status info is obtained via syscalls)
TFA demonstrates how to use this command line utility with cron(8) and mail(1) to send email alerts if there is a failure

Linux:
Provides a syscall to check the status of a RAID
You reference the Linux way of using a daemon that... reimplements cron(8) and can use mail(1) or something to send email alerts if there is a failure

I'm really having trouble following your logic. How is an approach that uses a standard Unix utility (cron) instead of a non-portable daemon (mdadm) shockingly unexceptional?

Re:Pretty In-depth (1)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#19873981)

Is it just me, or is there something that needs rethinking in the statement: "How is an approach that uses a standard Unix utility... shockingly unexceptional"? (emphasis mine) Either the phrasing was unintentional, or one person on this site is having problems understanding "exceptional".

By-the-by, most simple functions can be performed via webmin or some other admin tool, in a way that is platform-agnostic to the user. Well, when the module is written correctly, that is. A number are very poor. However, unless you are doing something that requires specific platform awareness, it should be for the tool to do things in the most effective way for a specific platform.

Administrators - ideally - should know principles, methodologies and other higher-level detail, except when low-level detail adds something of value. Which happens and there's no escaping it. When such low-level detail is needed, you WANT to know the syscalls, the user/kernel sockets, the virtual filesystems that provide direct access to kernel parameters. When you are doing high-level operations, you absolutely do NOT want to be messing at that level. You can't possibly hope to keep a heterogeneous network going if you have to micromanage each platform.

(In fact, most corp networks are very homogeneous because their admins are inept enough TO micromanage and therefore CANNOT cope with having multiple platforms. Remember, no homogeneous system - however good - will ever have the best solution to any of the problems before it. It will be a compromise on everything. Heterogeneous networks can always have optimal solutions for everything, requiring only that you use abstract thinking and abstract mechanisms for all the generic stuff.)

Re:Pretty In-depth (1)

Depili (749436) | more than 6 years ago | (#19874569)

The difference is that mdadm on linux gets notified for drive failures via a system call and thus doesn't need to poll the status and act like cron...

Re:Pretty In-depth (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#19874845)

From the mdadm man page:

MONITOR MODE
...
This usage causes mdadm to periodically poll a number of md arrays and
to report on any events noticed. mdadm will never exit once it decides
that there are arrays to be checked, so it should normally be run in
the background.

What a moron (0, Flamebait)

pugdk (697845) | more than 6 years ago | (#19873531)

I somehow forgot to do filesystem-checks on the 'virtual' encrypted filesystem and exactly there were a lot of errors to repair (and that caused the machine to hang and/or go back to the debugger even when copying to it). So, as a lesson, if the shit really hit the fan and your machine acts up like mine did (for the first time in 2+ years), make sure you also fsck the svnd0c (in my case).


I mean seriously, the guy just now realized he should fsck his encrypted volume.... I would trust his howto as far as I could throw it. Why the hell did this make the slashdot frontpage? *sighs*

What an Arrogant Bastard (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19873621)

Oh and as the Mr Perfect of the universe you've never, EVER made a mistake or forgotten the obvious??

Some of you geeks can be such ego maniacs it's disgusting.
Since you're so fucking great why don't you write up a how-to and show us all how it's done?

Not really a very fair description (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 6 years ago | (#19874595)

So he made a few mistakes which you consider stupid. TBH, as soon as anyone says "NAS" without considering RAID and backups, I think they're on a path to pain.

But at the end of the day, no matter how many things you think about, no matter how much effort you go to, there is always something that gets missed. AFAICT, he's only got one power supply and no UPS on there, and on any large filesystem I'd consider journalling (or Soft Updates on OpenBSD) a must these days.

You can build a system in which nothing is missed, and it always works no matter what happens. But then you're talking realtime mirroring across at least two sites, gigabit links between the sites and regular DR tests to make sure everything works as intended. A little more sophisticated than your average /. article.

One link in the chain... (3, Insightful)

Architect_sasyr (938685) | more than 6 years ago | (#19873085)

One step in the long process. Kudo's and gratitude for putting this up, it will certainly make my process easier.

I wonder, are there any full HOWTO's on this? 802.1x and IPSec both come to mind. The protection is useless if the server is powered on of course.

Re:One link in the chain... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19873415)

The word is "kudos". Saying "kudo's" means "beloning to kudo" which I don't think you meant. You also wouldn't say "congratulation's" since you don't mean "belonging to congratulation" -- plural forms of words never use apostrophes. In other words, it's not: plural form's of word's never use apostrophe's.

Now, if you're in grade 5 then I can understand the confusion. If you're a high school student or beyond then there really is no excuse for making such basic errors in grammar.

Re:One link in the chain... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19873677)

i play xbox with my brother sometimes... its very cool... my brother is 30 years old hes pretty smart... he has 45 iq its the same as heis shoe size.. pretu good considaring 100 is full.... nentendo is cool but wii is beter... i am masetr chief from halo... bcz when i played halo for the second time i knew what was going too happen befor eit happend... so im takeru... its pretty cooll... sonic is cool... i dont like tails though bcz hes sonics girlfrend... i want2 be sonics girlfrend.... sonic is so fast and handsome its increddibnle... sometimes... together... my mom and dad are brother and sister... its prety cool i gess... i herd its prety normal in america.... they love eachother like a father and daugher... theyr so cute together... together... sometimes... xbox... my brother is in wheel chair... but hes cool because hes smart... yea... the boy in the basements said he isnt smart and he say bad thing about my dad... but its no mater... he is chained up... in basement... together... xbox... yea... maybe... xbox is pretty cool bcz they its like games... together... sometimes... i hear screaming from basement... dosnt mater... the boy there is happey.... yea...

Re:One link in the chain... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19873787)

>>he has 45 iq its the same as heis shoe size

Lemme guess, he's the smart one in your family?

Re:One link in the chain... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19874313)

Or the OP is not from US of A, so has never attended 'high school' and has no clue what 'grade 5' is.
Maybe the OP's first language is not English?
Get a clue.

Re:One link in the chain... (5, Insightful)

Yggdrasil42 (662251) | more than 6 years ago | (#19874323)

Thanks for clarifying the OP's error, but why the patronizing tone?
Most people on the planet don't speak English natively, and a large part of the Slashdot population is from that group.

Since you can't tell if the OP does or does not belong in that group, being a little less harsh would make the world a nicer place. Why not start there?

*BSD is Dying (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19873101)

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

Re:*BSD is Dying (0, Offtopic)

mdemonic (988470) | more than 6 years ago | (#19873323)

**BITE**

Netcraft should know since they run fbsd themselves
You have pasted this troll before, have you not?

*BSD Troll-in-One returns! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19873735)

All the *BSD is dying posts are contained in this one post. If you have mod points, please mod this up so that everybody will know that *BSD is dying! No need to post your own, as it will only be redundant!

Oh, and if I've missed any, please add your troll as a reply and I'll include it in the next Troll-in-one.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

The *BSD Wailing Song

What's left for me to see
In my ship I sailed so far
What can the answer be
Don't know what the questions are.
And after all I've done
Still I cannot feel the sun
Tell me save me
In the end our lost souls must repent.
I must know it is for certain
Can it be the final curtain
As long as the wind will blow
I'll be searching high and low.
Who knows what's really true
They say the end is so near
Why are we all so cruel
We just fill ourselves with fear.
And heaven and hell will turn
All that we love shall burn
Hear me trust me
In the end our lost sould must repent.
I must know it is for certain
Can it be the final curtain
As long as the wind will blow
I'll be searching high and low
Final curtain
Final curtain


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

  • flask of ripe urine
    pressed to bsd lips
    bsd drink up


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you BSD fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a BSD box (a PIII 800 w/512 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this BSD box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even Emacs Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various BSD machines, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a BSD box that has run faster than its Windows counterpart, despite the BSD machines faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 800 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that BSD is a "superior" machine.

BSD addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a BSD over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

It is common knowledge that *BSD is dying. Almost everyone knows that ever hapless *BSD is mired in an irrecoverable and mortifying tangle of fatal trouble. It is perhaps anybody's guess as to which *BSD is the worst off of an admittedly suffering *BSD community. The numbers continue to decline for *BSD but FreeBSD may be hurting the most. Look at the numbers. The erosion of user base for FreeBSD continues in a head spinning downward spiral.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of BSD 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 marketing 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 hobbyist dilettante dabblers. In truth, for all practical purposes *BSD is already dead. It is a dead man walking.

Fact: *BSD is dying

_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

It doesn't matter, no matter how many time you try to recesitate *BSD, it's just doesn't matter. It's a plain and simple truth, *BSD is dying.

_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

Click here [planetquake.com] [planetquake.com] to see the most appropriate case mod for a *BSD system.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

If you can also print out your word processor documents on mummy-wraps, you've got it made.

Start by calling HP and asking for the special *BSD-compatible inkjet printer that shoots out embalming fluid instead of ink.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

I, for one, would like to welcome our dead operating system overlords.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

1. You can not play games on it.
2. It cannot be used by my grandma.
3. It lacks a GUI of any note.
4. There is no support available for it.
5. It is an assortment of fragmented OSes.
6. It cannot be run on the x86 platform.
7. You have to compile everything and know C.
8. Support for the latest hardware is always poor.
9. It is incompatiable with GNU/Linux.
10.It is dying.



_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

Sure, we all know that *BSD is a failure , but why? Why did *BSD fail? Once you get past the fact that *BSD is fragmented between a myriad of incompatible kernels, there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems. *BSD experienced moderate success about 15 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. We all know *BSD keeps losing market share but why? Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players? Or is it larger than their troubled personas?

The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

Elegy For *BSD

I am a *BSD user
and I try hard to be brave
That is a tall order
*BSD's foot is in the grave.

I tap at my toy keyboard
and whistle a happy tune
but keeping happy's so hard,
*BSD died so soon.

Each day I wake and softly sob
Nightfall finds me crying
Not only am I a zit faced slob
but *BSD is dying.



_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

  • Gaping holes filled

  • Rotting corpse obsolete code
    BSD end near



_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

BSD gets it's skeleton smashed at OSnews!

Trolls, here is some inspiration for future BSD trolls [osnews.com] [osnews.com]

P.S, I deleted my freebsd partition last night and installed Linux back on it!


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

Do people still actually USE FreeBSD? Wasn't it rendered obsolete by Linux YEARS ago?


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

BSD you grow in the ghetto, living second rate
And your eyes will sing a song of deep hate.
The places you play and where you stay
Looks like one great big alley way.
You'll admire all the numberbook takers,
Thugs, BSD pimps and pushers, and the big money makers.



_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

Roy Horn of the famous "Siegfried and Roy" magic ensemble was interviewed today from his hospital bed. Mr. Horn is recovering from a life threatening tiger attack. When asked about his condition Roy had this to say,

Don't worry. I'm doing OK. I'll be fine. However, on the other hand, *BSD is dying .

Hang in there Roy. We're all pulling for you!


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

That BSD daemon is so hot, I just want to suck his dick while jerking myself off and then bend him over and stick my dick in his tight red asshole. The fact that I'm an excellent artist only makes matters worse, since I tend to draw him during my Math class in sexually explicit positions instead of taking notes like I should, and I think people are noticing because they give me odd looks and this one guy even asked me if I was gay. Can somebody help me get rid of these urges? I'm sure they're perfectly healthy (hey, what slashdotter *hasn't* had a crush on another guy) but it's starting to intrude on my social life and I'd rather it not. Thanxz, AC


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

Why you'd want to run an OS designed and coded by niggers is beyond me.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

What's left for me to see
In my ship I sailed so far
What can the answer be
Don't know what the questions are.
And after all I've done
Still I cannot feel the sun
Tell me save me
In the end our lost souls must repent.
I must know it is for certain
Can it be the final curtain
As long as the wind will blow
I'll be searching high and low.
Who knows what's really true
They say the end is so near
Why are we all so cruel
We just fill ourselves with fear.
And heaven and hell will turn
All that we love shall burn
Hear me trust me
In the end our lost sould must repent.
I must know it is for certain
Can it be the final curtain
As long as the wind will blow
I'll be searching high and low
Final curtain
Final curtain



_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

Although it is true that BSD is dying, there are some helpful steps you can take ease your sorrow:

  • deal with the inevitable.
  • grieve for your loss.
  • move on.


Never let your emotions get mixed up with something as silly as a computer operating system. It isn't healthy. So BSD fails. Big whoop. Deal with it and move on.

Hope this helps.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

Four new security advisories about *BSD:

1) If something dead bites you, you will turn into a zombie yourself (see "Dawn of the Dead")

2) Children should not play with dead things.

3) Storing your *BSD distro install CD in formaldehyde will preserve the necrotic tissues from further rot.

4) Funerals can cost $4000. Don't forget to factor this in if you decide to go with *BSD.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

What We Can Learn From BSD
By Chinese Karma Whore [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org], Version 1.0

Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. As we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.

Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.

These early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of internal conflicts that would mar BSD's progress. In 1992, AT&T filed suit against Berkeley Software, claiming that proprietary code agreements had been haphazardly violated. In the same year, BSD filed countersuit, reciprocating bad intentions and fueling internal rivalry. While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents [theos.com] [theos.com] on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.

As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became worse and worse. As we all know, incompatibilities between each BSD distribution make code sharing an arduous task. Research conducted at MIT [mit.edu] [mit.edu] found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study. [rice.edu] [rice.edu]

Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar [tuxedo.org] [tuxedo.org], rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones in software development. BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.

The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become bureaucratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.

_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

It is official; Netcraft confirms: The BSD dies.

A crippling impact of the bomb community of the BSDS, as IDC that confirmed
the market part, which is already besieged by the BSD left to the case however
another time, now for low smaller of than a break of 1 per cent of all users.
Come into the jumps of a new examination of Netcraft, that it obviously that
indicated the BSD lost more part of the market, hiving this message to
strengthen which we knew everything to the long. The BSD pulls down into
disarray complete, as fail absolutely last illustrated in the test exactly
described of the new network connection of the Admin system fittingly.

They do not need to be, a Kreskin for forecasting the future of the BSDS. The
letter of the hand is in the wall: The BSD confronts a bald future. In the
fact, which it not no future into everything for BSD because the BSD has,
dies. The things regard after the BSD very badly. So much starting from us
is already cliente, the BSD continues losing the market part. The red ink
flows as river of the blood.

FreeBSD is in the danger more from them all and loses 93% its coworker it
core. The sudden and only obviously vacation the long coworkers Jordao Hubbard
de FreeBSD of the time and the Serveunterstreichens Mikrophonsmith the point.
There the doubt any any more does not conserve time everything during many:
FreeBSD dies.

We go remaining, it the facts and regarding the numbers.

The leader Theo de OpenBSD indicates that it has 7000 users OpenBSD. Much
using NetBSD, which it has? We go seeing. The number of OpenBSD against
posts of NetBSD in the USENET is approximately in a relation of 5 the 1.
Consequently 1400 of NetBSD a 7000/5. The posts of BSD/OS have in the USENET
approximately to use are on half of the expenditure of the posts of NetBSD.
Consequently it has approximately 700 users BSD/OS. A new article used
approximately FreeBSD in 80 per cent the market of the BSDS. Consequently
it has (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 users FreeBSD. That is continuous with the
number of post the USENET de FreeBSD.

The problems tributary that had abysmal nut, vendas and therefore for in
front, FreeBSD it to the left the business and it examination on for BSDI that
in an educated manner, which is also nonfunctioning venda, which another one
disturbed now the BSDI, its however turned Corpse for another Hauscharnel.
All main examinations show that the BSD sank firmly in the market part. The
BSD is very ill and its prospects on a long-term basis surviving much makes
not blind. If the BSD must survive by the fact that it is dilettante between
amateurs of. The BSD continues spoiling. Wunderswims briefly of one could
conserve it on this moment the time. For all practical purposes the BSD is
nonfunctioning.

Fact: The BSD dies

_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

Danger Will Robinson - TOO MANY BUGS

Do not even attempt to install and use *BSD UNLESS you have done a full backup. The bugs in this are not fixed yet and you could lose EVERYTHING. Backup is a must. A word to the wise ...


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

When it comes to the subject of operating systems, most of us can agree on at least one thing, and that is the simple plain truth that *BSD is dying. But the deeper question is why? Why did *BSD fail?

Once you get past the fact that *BSD is fragmented between a myriad of incompatible kernels, there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems. *BSD experienced moderate success about 15 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. We all know *BSD keeps losing market share but why? Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players? Or is it larger than their troubled personas?

The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful *BSD community. That hope is long gone, replaced by an inconsolable despair. A mournful and plaintive nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.

_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

PROOF THAT *BSD INFRINGES SCO COPYRIGHTS

As you all know, Microsoft has recently paid license fees to the SCO group for Unix intellectual property in order to be legally allowed to distributed their services for Unix product. Since it is clear that this product is a derivative work of *BSD, this means that Microsoft must have decided that distribution of this work without a proper SCO license would be a legal risk. Now, no one is more protective of their own profitability than Microsoft, so you can be sure they wouldn't fork over a dime to anyone unless they absolutely had to. Therefore, anyone must accept that *BSD is clearly infringing SCO copyrights, and all *BSD users should begin negotiations with SCO for license fees immediately.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

FreeBSD is getting its sorry ass kicked from here to eternity.

That sucka be dead.

Also, the FreeBSD release engineering team consists of ten to twenty individually caged chimpanzees with WebTVs that are captured, infected with rabies, and replaced promptly upon death. If no chimpanzees are available, a core team member interested in streamlining the bureaucracy is used.

Deal with it. This is the truth.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

BSD is dead
Dead Dead Dead Dead Dead Dead Dead
It's quite dead


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

Just goes to prove BSD is dying. Nobody fucking cares enough about it to post something relevant. In fact, if it weren't for us trolls this topic would have a grand total of one comment (as of Oct 11, 12:30 AM central time)

If you BSD die-hards still aren't getting the truth about BSD, consider this:

1. Is BSD being improved at a faster rate than Linux? (no, as if FreeBSD has a multibillion dollar company like IBM backing it with 3,000 developers - ha!)

2. Are the number of BSD users increasing?
(clearly not, and i'm talking about real BSD not Mac OS X bastardised UNIX)

3. What do most open source developers use (LINUX, nerds, LINUX)

You cannot escape the truth! BSD will be dead in 5 years! I guarantee it!

This post brought to you by a Truthmaster (aka a Linux user)


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

Why does this section still exist?

Isn't it entirely disrespectful to the dead? We don't have a bobhope.slashdot.org now do we? Get some manners people.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

Question - What do you call a gathering of BSD developers?
Answer - a funeral.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

BSD and AIDS

This just in: homosexuality among *BSD users has skyrocketed. The cause is yet to be determined, however most sources indicate that it has something to do with *BSD users comforting each other in an strictly unusual way, to be quite a frank about it, gay sex. On Monday *BSD was giving a sad prognosis, it was dying. It probably won't have much longer to live. So when news broke out hell broke loose. Jimmy an avid *BSD user had this to say:

"When I heard this news I was utterly devastated, so I went to my friend Darl, who is also a *BSD user. He didn't yet know of the unfortunate, and he didn't take it well. He broke down in tears, this is the second blow to him in a week, he found out that he contracted AIDS from a Black homosexual prostitute on the street one day. I said to Darl, 'well you know something *BSD is dying, and well, I'm going to die with it.'

I pulled down my pants and bent over, Darl took care of the rest. I don't know if I have yet to get AIDS, but we have gay anal sex everyday, without any lubricant for maximum ripage. The *BSD mailing list I joined reports the same thing happening among the other *BSD users. We are all planning on having one massive gay orgy on Saturday, so if you want to go out and be with *BSD up in heaven, come join us."

Well you've heard it folks from a true *BSD user. They have all turned gay because of these unfortunate happenings.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

It is with a heavy heart that we must report that Bob "I'm still dead" Hope has gone on to join the "B" team. As you all may know, BSD has been part of the "B" team for quite some time.

The Year of Our Lord 2003 has been a particularly bad year for the "B"s,

  • Bob Hope
  • Buddy Ebsen
  • Buddy Hackett
  • Barry White
  • BSD
This honored list of dead is but a small token of adieu from the many fans of the deceased.
These dead were truly some American Icons. They will be missed.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

Lights out, pard.

Somewhere, in a lonely hospital room,

*BSD is dying


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

Hello. Your friendly neighborhood slasdotter here to let you know that BSD IS DEAD. Dead dead dead dead dead. You hear me? Dead. Very dead. Deadder than a doornail. Dead as Richard Nixon. That's how dead it is.

Now can we PLEASE move along and start talking about important tapiocas? Things like: "What color does Linus Torvalds paint his toenails?" This is Slashdot, [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org] right?


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

POS

Another BSD...tsk, tsk, tsk...that's all we need. ugh.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

BSD can suck my hairy cock

I mean who gives a flying fuck about it all.

Install something halfway good.

Hint: Use Tux's OS

P.S. *BSD is dying.

Zealot Out.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

BSD: Feeding tube re-iserted

Oct. 23 -- BSD resumed receiving life-sustaining care yesterday in a Florida hospital room, but many experts said there is virtually no hope that it will ever recover, despite it fan boy's desperate hopes.

"IF IT'S over a year, BSD's not ever going to get up," said Fred Plum, a professor emeritus at Weill Cornell College in New York. "You'd just don't see it. It just doesn't happen."

BSD, 39, has been in a persistent vegetative state since its heart stopped for unknown reasons in 1990. A feeding tube in BSD's stomach was removed this past Wednesday after its husband, Theo De Ratt, who said his wife had told him she (BSD) would not want to be kept alive under such circumstances, won a long series of court battles to have life-sustaining nourishment withdrawn so she (BSD) could die.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

It's fucking dying SHIT ON ME! It's official - Netcraft has fucking confirmed: *BSD is dying

Yet another cunting bombshell hit the "community" of *BSD asswipes when IDC recently confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of one single puny fucking percent of all servers. Coming hot on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more fucking market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is ingesting itself backwards, disappearing up its very own shitter, as fittingly exemplified by coming a piss poor dead last [samag.com] [samag.com] [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a cock-sucking Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] [amazingkreskin.com] [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 fucking future at all for *BSD because that sorded, shit-filled, mutated testicle of an operating system is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink splashes across the accounting documents like a series of exploding bloodfarts. FreeBSD munches the most ass of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD cuntwipes Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying and its rotting corpse smells worse than a maggot, vomit, shit and piss cocktail.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the fucking numbers, shall we? OK!

OpenBSD wanker Theo states that there are a pathetic 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Oh, God, let's fucking see... The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore it's turd-suckingly obvious that 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, by simple fucking arithmetic, there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. Surprise fucking surprise, this is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of those arseholes at Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD showed themselves to be a bunch of retarded tossers, went out of business and were taken over by BSDI who sell another special needs OS. Now BSDI is also a miserable failure, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house... pathetic.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily fucking declined in market share. *BSD is where it belongs, at death's door and its long term survival prospects are almost non-fucking-existant. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among moronic, dilettante shitheads. *BSD continues to Chew Satan's Dick And Fuck The Baby Jesus Up The Pooper. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD IS A FUCKING USELESS WASTE OF BITS AND IS DYING LIKE THE DOG THAT IT IS. IT MAKES ME SICK JUST THINKING ABOUT IT.

_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*

THE DEAD BSD SKETCH

Cast:
Mr. Praline: John Cleese
Shop Owner: Michael Palin

A customer enters an operating system shop.

Mr. Praline: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint. (The owner does not respond.)
Mr. Praline: 'Ello, Miss?
Owner: What do you mean "miss"?
Mr. Praline: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
Owner: We're closin' for lunch.
Mr. Praline: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this operating system what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.
Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, *BSD...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?
Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. It's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
Owner: No, no, it's uh,...it's resting.
Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead operating system when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Owner: No no it's not dead, it's, it's restin'! Remarkable OS, *BSD, idn'it, ay? Beautiful kernel!
Mr. Praline: The kernel don't enter into it. It's stone dead.
Owner: Nononono, no, no! It's resting!
Mr. Praline: All right then, if it's restin', I'll wake it up! (bashes at the keyboard) 'Ello, Mister *BSD! I've got a lovely fresh kernel update for you if you show...

(owner hits the keys)

Owner: There, it spewed some debug output to the command line!
Mr. Praline: No, it didn't, that was you hitting the keys!
Owner: I never!!
Mr. Praline: Yes, you did!
Owner: I never, never did anything...
Mr. Praline: (yelling and typing into the console repeatedly) 'ELLO COMMAND PROMPT!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock cron job!

(Rips out hard drive from computer case and thumps it on the counter. Shoves it back inside the case and reboots the system - blank screen.)

Mr. Praline: Now that's what I call a dead operating system.
Owner: No, no.....No, it's stunned!
Mr. Praline: STUNNED?!?
Owner: Yeah! You stunned it, just as it was finishing an I/O task! *BSD stuns easily, major.
Mr. Praline: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That operating system is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of responsiveness was due to it bein' in the process of recompiling itself after a particularly comprehensive code update.
Owner: Well, it's...it's, ah...probably pining for some dilettante dabbling.
Mr. Praline: PININ' for some DILETTANTE DABBLING?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that? Look, why did it fall flat on its back the moment I started Emacs?
Owner: *BSD prefers swapping everything out to the hard drive! Remarkable variant, id'nit, squire? Lovely kernel!
Mr. Praline: Look, I took the liberty of examining the system when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been printing any text at all to the screen was because of all the WORRYING COMPILER WARNINGS encountered while it was being rebuilt.

(pause)

Owner: Well, o'course it was spitting out those warnings! If I hadn't updated the kernel with an unstable development build, you might have had your FTP server compromised, and VOOM! Bye bye to your business.
Mr. Praline: "Server"?!? Mate, this OS wouldn't "serve" if you put four million volts through it! It's bleedin' demised!
Owner: No no! It's pining!
Mr. Praline: It's not pinin'! It's passed on! This OS is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! [lemis.com] It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! The numbers continue to decline for *BSD but FreeBSD may be hurting the most. All major marketing surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is extremely sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among hobbyist dilettante dabblers. In truth, for all practical purposes *BSD is already dead. It is a dead man walking.*BSD's foot is in the grave.Development of *BSD nowadays is mired by bylaws, committees, reports and milestones. Technically, the *BSD project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips the ability of the developers to deliver. There's no simple solution to this. Why would anyone choose to use a *BSD over other faster, more stable systems? We can all agree that *BSD is a failure. Yet why did *BSD fail? Once you get past the fact that *BSD is fragmented between myriad incompatible kernels, there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems. *BSD experienced moderate success about 15 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. We all know *BSD keeps losing market share but why? Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players? Or is it larger than their troubled personalities? The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD. Fact: *BSD is an ex-operating system!!

(pause)

Owner: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek behind the counter) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back of the shop, and uh, we're right out of UNIX variants.
Mr. Praline: I see. I see, I get the picture.
Owner: I got Microsoft Windows XP Professional.

(pause)

Mr. Praline: Pray, is it difficult to setup, use and maintain?
Owner: Nnnnot really.
Mr. Praline: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?
Owner: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)
Mr. Praline: Well.

(pause)

Owner: (quietly) D'you.... d'you want to come back to my place?
Mr. Praline: (looks around) Yeah, all right, sure.

_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*

It's not pinin'. It's passed on. This OS is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet its maker. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile. *BSD is an ex-operating system.

Yes but... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19873129)

Yes but... does it run on Linux?

Re:Yes but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19874019)

>Yes but... does it run on Linux?
Of course it [VMware] runs BSD!

Been looking for something like this (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 6 years ago | (#19873131)

Although, since the OS is just there to boot and allow access to data, I was thinking of using a 1GB CF card to put the OS on. I like the RAID 1 setup the instructions are easy to follow, but how about other RAIDs?

Re:Been looking for something like this (1)

I kan Spl (614759) | more than 6 years ago | (#19873329)

Most decent BIOSs know how to boot from a flash drive, or if you want to be fancy you can get a PCI to Flash card with a boot prom.

Just don't put any swap on the CF card, they are limited to 10k writes/block before they start failing. If any swap winds up being used for FS caches (it will) your OS boot device will only last 2-5 years at most.

Re:Been looking for something like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19873629)

"I was thinking of using a 1GB CF card to put the OS on..."

If you are talking about OBSD as an OS on that CF, then a 64MB CF is more than enough unless, of course, you need for more space.

Use UnRaid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19873697)

A fine alternative is UnRaid (just Google it). Boots from a USB stick. It is basically RAID w/o striping, with 1 parity drive for up to 13 data drives. Lose 1 drive and it will rebuild and recover using parity. And if you have a catastrophic failure, instead of losing all data like RAID, you only lose the data on the failed drives and the others are fine.

And your drives can be different sizes, so you can add capacity in any amount (i.e. whats on sale).

Re:Use UnRaid (1)

pe1chl (90186) | more than 6 years ago | (#19873939)

It looks like what I want, especially the spin-down of unused drives and the separate use of each disk.
What I like less is the mandatory use of ReiserFS. Any idea if they plan to support other filesystems?

Do you have actual experience with this product?

Re:Been looking for something like this (3, Interesting)

JayAEU (33022) | more than 6 years ago | (#19873705)

Just make sure you don't follow TFA's recommendation regarding the choice of identical drives for the RAID array, which would make the whole point of redundancy moot.

Identical drives are just that, identical. This means that they also are very likely to fail at the same time or may not survive a RAID reconstruction process to rebuild the other failed drive.

My advice would be to make them identical only in size and maybe the interface, but for the love of God, do pick different manufacturers and production months for the drives.

Re:Been looking for something like this (1)

jdowland (764773) | more than 6 years ago | (#19874893)

Is it not the case that you need to get identical sector sizes, too?

Re:Been looking for something like this (1)

JayAEU (33022) | more than 6 years ago | (#19875097)

Is it not the case that you need to get identical sector sizes, too?


Not really, the physical sector size only matters when doing a hardware RAID, but even then, most modern controllers cope quite well with different disk.

Some people claim that identical sector sizes help performance somewhat, but so far, I haven't been able to reproduce any evidence for this.

Re:Been looking for something like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19875081)

Remind me I should never hire you. Many enterprise level arrays require (for firmware reasons and testing validation) that the drives be identical. If all drives of a certain lot died on a specific day, I think people would notice. The purpose of RAID is to be able to survive a drive failure.

needs usability (3, Interesting)

r00t (33219) | more than 6 years ago | (#19873191)

Right from the initial install, by default, this should work.

Encrypted backups should be default and easy, with reminders.

You need multiple keys: whole-system, per-user, and swap. The swap key gets replaced at boot with something random.

Ultimately, it needs mandatory encryption. This would exclude OpenBSD; you need a mandatory policy framework like SE Linux to make it happen. Mandatory encryption means that normal users are prohibited from removing data from the machine without first encrypting it in an approved way. This most likely solves part of the backup problem. It also reduces the insider threat, while still allowing transfer of data between secure machines.

Nice PHB thinking there. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19873767)

Forcing people to encrypt the data before copying it off the machine doesn't do anything. They can still go ahead and decrypt it on their laptop and leave it like that since its more convenient. You can't solve social problems with technical solutions. The sooner you learn that the sooner you stop making people's lives difficult for no reason.

Re:needs usability (1)

dleigh (994882) | more than 6 years ago | (#19873825)

This would exclude OpenBSD; you need a mandatory policy framework like SE Linux to make it happen. Mandatory encryption means that normal users are prohibited from removing data from the machine without first encrypting it in an approved way.

If you want to stick with a BSD-based system, FreeBSD has Mandatory Access Control [freebsd.org] support; there are projects to port the MAC framework to NetBSD and OSX.

Re:needs usability (2, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#19874033)

Mandatory encryption won't help a whole lot. Mandatory access controls that utilize encryption might help some - it doesn't protect off-site data but DOES limit the device you copy data onto, as the device must be authorized to hold the data. It is then the problem of the device as to how to protect things. Not perfect, but a major improvement, as it means Joe "The Spy" User can't copy onto an unauthorized device to decrypt later at Evil HQ, and Fred "The Idiot" Flintstone can't copy top secret DoD construction plans onto public FTP servers. As has happened, according to reports.

(The point of MAC is that MAC requires that there be explicit permission given by someone who has the authority to give that permission. It is not implicit, unlike DAC where anything not expressly prohibited is implicitly allowed.)

The encryption thing can be improved on a little, if it is not secret key -or- uses an OTP calculator that only resides on authorized machines. The latter is getting a little into security through obscurity, but still works to a degree if the calculator is any good and the underlying crypto is sufficiently strong. As async encryption is slow, you'd probably want a crypto accelerator, but there are countless such systems. Don't blame the algorithms if you don't want the solutions.

ZFS (1, Offtopic)

hitchhacker (122525) | more than 6 years ago | (#19873201)


Any idea if OpenBSD supports Sun's ZFS filesystem?

-metric

Re:ZFS (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#19873273)

No, but FreeBSD 7 and OpenSolaris do.

Re:ZFS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19873365)

Has anyone seen a guide on using OpenSolaris on something like a VIA epia processor with RAID-Z and ZFS?
I believe the 1.5GHz C7 would be more than adequate, and you could use something like a Jetway J7F4K1G5D board with gigabit ethernet and a 25W peak power consumption. Assuming ~10W per drive, you could put together an array of 4 non-homogeneous spare drives at an idle power consumption of 50W or so. You can put 4 drives on an epia board like above (2 SATA, 2 IDE) and probably another 4 or so using an SATA PCI card.

Re:ZFS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19874011)

I'm too lazy to dig up links right now, but I've read on the OpenSolaris forums that Raid-Z on ZFS really benefits from using a 64-bit CPU.

Re:ZFS (1)

LuSiDe (755770) | more than 6 years ago | (#19874571)

OpenSolaris has bad hardware support, and while Pawel did a terrific job the port for FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT isn't quite there yet. ZFS requires a lot of RAM and indeed 64-bit (FreeBSD/AMD64) is recommended. You'll need at least 1 GB RAM, with 512+ MB dedicated to ZFS. You'll need to fine-tune via sysctl.

The EPIA is nice but probably too slow for ZFS. At the vey least you can only use it as fileserver and will have to delegate other applications to other computers. Why not get a cheap, low-power dual-core AMD with EE (and SFF)? Mine (EE + SFF) has an idle of 10W and a TDP of 35W. I admit not as low-power as EPIA, but here that box is the only computer 24/7 on, and does a lot more than merely NAS.

Re:ZFS (1)

Nimrangul (599578) | more than 6 years ago | (#19873377)

I do have an idea, the answer is no. The timeframe for it's support is when Sun releases ZFS under an ISC-style licence.

USB drives?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19873253)

I can't believe that after developing such a nifty system, the author suggests it can be expanded with USB drives.

USB was o.k. last year, but with 20GB/sec effective transfer rate at most, it simply doesn't do a large modern HDD justice anymore. For me, the only justification for USB is convenience and everything small enough that it can be self-powered by USB, like some 2.5" HDDs.

Anyways, I would caution anyone from crippling their crypto box transfer rates with USB.

Re:USB drives?!? (3, Funny)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 6 years ago | (#19873483)

USB was o.k. last year, but with 20GB/sec effective transfer rate at most, it simply doesn't do a large modern HDD justice anymore.

    Jeeeeezus! Either I'm way behind the times, or your "GB" was meant to be perhaps a thousand times smaller.

Re:USB drives?!? (-1, Troll)

Grey_14 (570901) | more than 6 years ago | (#19874041)

Oh my God, Oh my God, Oh my God, You caught a *TYPO*!! ON THE INTERNET! You are my HERO, Can I have your autograph? Sign my arm! When is your next book "More Typo's I found on the Internet" coming out? I can't wait to read it! your work is always so interesting and useful!

...

Yeah sorry, It's late and nitpick stuff like this has been driving me nuts all week.

Re:USB drives?!? (5, Funny)

hmallett (531047) | more than 6 years ago | (#19874205)

When is your next book "More Typo's I found on the Internet" coming out?
It's late and nitpick stuff like this has been driving me nuts all week.

There shouldn't be an apostrophe in Typos...

Re:USB drives?!? (1)

node159 (636992) | more than 6 years ago | (#19874075)

Shit I don't know what crappy USB enclosures you're using, but dam man, get something decent.

Yawn... I prefer Ubuntu for this function (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19873255)

I've been doing encrypted Raid5 machines for years. XFS, on top of Loop-AES, on top of software Raid5 is the bomb. Add nfs-kernel-server and samba and you have a full service network server. It's pretty easy with Ubuntu, and now Feisty (with kernel 2.6.20) supports hot plug eSata, for fast backup to portable eSata disk drives. ZFS with encryption might conceivably replace the XFS/Loop-AES/Raid5 recipe someday, but at the current rate of progress, it looks to me like its a year away at least. If Seagate gets their act together, and starts shipping 1TB drives with hardware AES support, we might see a big jump in disk throughput. In any event, I use a headless file server with a frozen version of Dapper for the fileserver, and then run Feisty on a diskless machine that boots off the file server. If I need Windows, I just use VirtualBox on the diskless Feisty machine. And of course, it's all backed up offsite every night with rsync. Rsync is indeed our friend. So why would I need BSD again?

Re:Yawn... I prefer Ubuntu for this function (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19873325)

Could you write up/point me to a howto for this? I'm interested in setting up a similar system but would prefer sticking to ubuntu rather than moving to bsd.

Re:Yawn... I prefer Ubuntu for this function (2, Informative)

kwark (512736) | more than 6 years ago | (#19873965)

What! You are saying that Ubuntu doesn't do this on install? Even the Debian Installer has support for these kind of setups.

Don't use loop-aes anymore. (2, Informative)

Ayanami Rei (621112) | more than 6 years ago | (#19873571)

Use dm-crypt with LUKS in the aes-cbc-essiv:sha256 mode (should be the default). There are policy issues and known plaintext attacks against loop-AES unless you the multi-key setup which _isn't_ the default... by the times the issues were widely known people were using LUKS because key management is more flexible.

Use LUKS with a high iteration count as well (1)

DamnStupidElf (649844) | more than 6 years ago | (#19873753)

Since LUKS supports PKCS-5 style iterative hashing of the passphrase, it's a good idea to use that too. A million iterations only take a few seconds (10 on my 1.5Ghz Athlon) to compute at mount time, but make dictionary attacks a million times harder.

Re:Don't use loop-aes anymore. (1)

twistedcubic (577194) | more than 6 years ago | (#19874117)


There are policy issues and known plaintext attacks against loop-AES

Can you elaborate on this? How about a link? Are you slandering Loop-AES because of a personal grudge, or something else?

Re:Don't use loop-aes anymore. (1)

c0nehead (581714) | more than 6 years ago | (#19874599)

Re:Don't use loop-aes anymore. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19874713)

Any crypto system can be used in the wrong way, leaving it open to attack. Loop-AES is no different. You need to use 65 multi-key mode, of course. The file containing the 65 keys is encrypted again, using an iterated salt value, and a 20 character password. The USB key that holds *that* encrypted file (and associated scripts for mounting and checking the encrypted volumes) is encrypted *again*, using a different salt value and an iteration count that is so high it hurts. It takes my machines a full 2 minutes to run the 200 million iterations on the salt+20 character password to decrypt the USB key. This is because the guys with infinite resources have certainly built hardware accelerators (think arrays of FPGAs inside banks of Cray supercomputers) to do fast password searches. I figure they can do a key iteration at least 1K times faster than I can, and probably 1M times faster. But with a 200M iteration count, they are still screwed on a brute force search on a 20 character password, at least for the next 5 or 10 years. The LUKS encryption system looks interesting, but until I can benchmark it as substantially faster than loop-AES, I see no real reason to switch.

Re:Don't use loop-aes anymore. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19874657)

There are policy issues and known plaintext attacks against loop-AES

Can you elaborate on this? How about a link?
Only one I could find is that CryptoAPI (hence LUKS) and TrueCrypt supports LRW [wikipedia.org] whereas loop-AES does not.

Re:Yawn... I prefer Ubuntu for this function (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19874129)

raid5 in software is a cpu killer, but I'll leave that to you.

freenas... (4, Informative)

Tmack (593755) | more than 6 years ago | (#19873301)

Meh...

1. download FreeNAS [freenas.org]
2. install to USB/CF drive (it needs ~32Mb)
3. configure * reboot on the USB/CF drive (or if your mobo cant boot to those, maybe a CD or spare HD)
4. ?
5. Profit!

Tm

Re:freenas... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19874255)

I could not really find out whether FreeNAS supports encryption, but there is another FLOSS alternative: the CryptoBox project. It uses dmcrypt, is multi-user capable and has a nice Web GUI.


http://cryptobox.org/ [cryptobox.org]

Re:freenas... (1)

LuSiDe (755770) | more than 6 years ago | (#19874927)

I could not really find out whether FreeNAS supports encryption
Latest FreeNAS supports 'encryption' (ahem, i meant disk encryption) via GELI.

Re:freenas... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19874869)

Collecting Underpants!!

Already done (0, Flamebait)

DogDude (805747) | more than 6 years ago | (#19873309)

Well, it's already done. It's called FreeNas [freenas.org]. Typical OSS advocate. Re-inventing the wheel... yet again.

Re:Already done (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19873401)

Except that FreeNAS sucks rotten zombie balls, but other than that, yeah, it's just dandy, hurray for shitty options instead of good ones! Typical jagoff nobody on Slashdot, too stupid to know their ass from a hole in the ground, much less an proper tool for a job.

Re:Already done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19873447)

Oh, oh! Or we could just use Gentoo! Or a previously made hardware NAS! Dipshit. The man wants to use a specific system, not your random option, the one that suits his needs. Perhaps he takes security seriously? You really grind my gears, assholes like you, going around telling people what they should and shouldn't do, condecending to them.

Just because there is an already existing solution to a problem, does not mean that that is the solution to every problem. Do you snipe with a Desert Eagle? No? Well shit, it's a fucking gun isn't it? No need to go around reinventing the gun!

The man just made a highly detailed how-to for something quite complecated, and all you can do is be a whiney bitch. Christ, you need your internet membership revoked.

Re:Already done (1)

empaler (130732) | more than 6 years ago | (#19873917)

Just because there is an already existing solution to a problem, does not mean that that is the solution to every problem. Do you snipe with a Desert Eagle? No? Well shit, it's a fucking gun isn't it? No need to go around reinventing the gun!

The man just made a highly detailed how-to for something quite complecated, and all you can do is be a whiney bitch. Christ, you need your internet membership revoked.
You seriously owe me a cup of green tea. (I've had to reduce my coffee intake on the advice of my doctor)

Re:Already done (1)

davmoo (63521) | more than 6 years ago | (#19873459)

FreeNas does encryption now?

Re:Already done (2, Informative)

Architect_sasyr (938685) | more than 6 years ago | (#19873489)

It does not. If we read through the article we do find, however, that the author suggests FreeNAS for a NAS, OR CryptoBox [cryptobox.org] for hardware encryption. IMHO neither solution leads to the extension into a full blown server that the OpenBSD option gives.

My $0.02 AU

Re:Already done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19874725)

The question is do you want a full blown server? If you don't, for example because that is harder to manage, then you opt for a NAS solution as pointed out in this thread. If you do, would you perhaps be glad to let a server running Linux or FreeBSD + RAID + disk encryption instead? Why OpenBSD? Why would you trust OpenBSD to do that, while discounting FreeBSD or Linux? That is a far more interesting question IMO.

Re:Already done (1)

Bottlemaster (449635) | more than 6 years ago | (#19873793)

Well, it's already done. It's called FreeNas [freenas.org]. Typical OSS advocate. Re-inventing the wheel... yet again.
Considering how much the BSDs share code with each other, it's worth considering how much OpenBSD reinvented and how much they shared with FreeBSD which allowed FreeNas to "already do" this

Re:Already done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19874485)

First of all, FreeNAS is FreeBSD, not OpenBSD. And second, don't you have some cheapass dogfood to feed to your ugly wife? What are you doing posting on Slashdot, YET AGAIN?

Pretty Useless (4, Insightful)

mvdwege (243851) | more than 6 years ago | (#19873471)

Seeing as that he uses per-volume encryption, this is pretty useless. It makes his 'server' pretty much a single-user NAS box, because as soon as another user gets an account to access the file server, they get access to the data.

Data encryption on a fileserver only makes sense if it is done on a per-user level. This is not News for Nerds, as this is basically just another implementation of how to encrypt your local disk.

Mart

Re:Pretty Useless (4, Insightful)

DamnStupidElf (649844) | more than 6 years ago | (#19873733)

Seeing as that he uses per-volume encryption, this is pretty useless. It makes his 'server' pretty much a single-user NAS box, because as soon as another user gets an account to access the file server, they get access to the data.

As long as the server remains physically secure, and assuming there aren't gaping root privilege holes in the security, the files on the disk are still protected by the file system permissions. As long as the users can trust the admin, they don't have to trust each other.

Data encryption on a fileserver only makes sense if it is done on a per-user level. This is not News for Nerds, as this is basically just another implementation of how to encrypt your local disk.

Databases with private information like credit card or social security numbers should be on encrypted disks. Not to protect against users, but to protect against the drive being replaced or stolen before it can be wiped (secure wiping is not necessarily secure either, especially as drive technology advances, since what was wiped 5 years ago may be easily readable now).

There's really no advantage to having a server encrypt and decrypt each user's data with a different key. The server will have to know all the keys to perform the decryption at least (public keys allow secure encryption without the server knowing the private key), so it's only as secure as encrypting the entire drive and then relying on filesystem permissions. Root will always be able to read any files that are encrypted/decrypted on the server itself. If clients encrypt their files before storing them on the server, then the server can safely store everything in plaintext.

Re:Pretty Useless (2, Insightful)

mvdwege (243851) | more than 6 years ago | (#19874169)

There is really no advantage to encrypting data if you have other means to restrict access to a server.

Volume encryption only makes sense if there is a significant risk of losing physical control over the volume, i.e. on portable media. If your hypothetical server with private information is not in a secure datacenter, you're doing something wrong.

So, considering that a fileserver will have some form of access control anyway (in case of this NAS box, the locks on his house), why encrypt the entire volume in the first place? The first insecure client that connects makes the whole exercise moot, not to mention giving out the key to multiple users. And if there is no access control, neither physical nor logical, then it is just a local disk connected to a network instead of directly to a (S)ATA/SCSI bus. And local disk encryption is old hat.

Mart

In Soviet Russia... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19874325)

The data encrypts you!

His system is great and all but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19873631)

I am still looking forward to windows home server. I know, I know its not open source and is from what many people here consider to be the evil empire. But, it does do things that I have not seen anyone in open source doing (the seemless backing up across as many external drives as you want for instance). Hopefully in the coming years some open source projects will get started to do what Home server will be doing.

Re:His system is great and all but... (1)

martin_henry (1032656) | more than 6 years ago | (#19873771)

you might have to settle for small business edition...there is no "home server" --> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsv ista/editions/default.mspx [microsoft.com]

Re:His system is great and all but... (1)

Zantetsuken (935350) | more than 6 years ago | (#19873985)

Not YET there isn't - as he said, he's looking *forward* to it. A quick Wikipedia or Google search using "Windows Home Server" [wikipedia.org] will get you your info...

Really though it won't be worth it at all - more than likely I'm thinking it will be retail only (HP, Dell, etc). Also, being Server '03, I'm guessing its gonna take a bit more power to run than what a cli install of Linux or BSD can make do with, meaning less options of older underpowered machines to use which can be found for dirt cheap...

Re:His system is great and all but... (2, Informative)

Kryten107 (1128675) | more than 6 years ago | (#19874035)

Hopefully in the coming years some open source projects will get started to do what Home server will be doing.
Take a look here: http://www.ubuntuhomeserver.org/ [ubuntuhomeserver.org] Yes, I know, it's Ubuntu, but the point is that there are some people in the community that are trying to make it happen. Almost all the necessary services exist, it's just a matter of gluing them together and slapping a decent GUI on it.

Re:His system is great and all but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19874449)

awesome, cheers for the link.

Suggestions (3, Informative)

LuSiDe (755770) | more than 6 years ago | (#19874439)

OpenBSD on a fileserver? Firewall, sure. Fileserver w/RAID and disk encryption, no way. I would leave that task to FreeBSD (FreeNAS) or Linux (CryptoBox, Openfiler). If you are desperate for encrypted FS + RAID you can use MD + LUKS (Linux) or GRAID5 + GELI (FreeBSD) those are all available via FreeNAS, CryptoBox, and Openfiles. Suffice to say both have proven their stability, have a rich set of features [wikipedia.org] (e.g. LRW), and are simple to set-up. The end-user NAS solutions are pretty sophisticated and have good web interfaces.

20 MB/sec is quite a shit performance IMO however if you don't use gigabit it'd be good enough. With GELI there is about 55% overhead compared to plain text. I haven't compared LUKS to plain text hence can't compare. On a side note, I doubt its useful to encrypt data you're receiving from distributed areas, nor that its useful to put such data in a RAID. A NAS doesn't run BitTorrent. If you're paranoid whereas you share your data over SMB, that might be the weakest point.

For our ricer folk, a nice, expensive RAID controller is necessary. For the smart people among this planet: do software XOR by getting an EE (or SFF) dual core AMD which are cheap and have a a low 10 idle W and have a low TDP (the SFF has 35W TDP). Get 4 Samsung SpinPoint T166 SATA (silent, low power, best bang for buck) and you have 1,5 TB RAID. All in all this costs about 650 EUR (probably less in USA) w/all hardware new including case, 2 * 1 GB RAM (2 * 0,5 GB would suffice too), and PSU. I should know, I bought and build such machine.

Forget ZFS for now. OpenSolaris has bad hardware support, and it is only partly ported on FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT where it isn't stable and a bug in it takes the whole system down. While it does have a rich set of features, it also doesn't support encryption yet, although the feature has been planned for a year and perhaps on FreeBSD it can be used together with GELI. Performance of ZFS is also not to write home about compared to GRAID5. ZFS isn't mature yet. Nor is FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT, ofcourse. It'll be part of FreeBSD 7.0 however, as an experimental feature.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...