Slashdot Mirror

It would require a wireless video/display protocol, but I think that has been in development for a while now.

I think it's called X11, but seriously, OS X gained a native X server with Panther.

...X is unsupported hardware, non-existent game availability, complicated multimedia support or anything else that Linux has or is perceived to have problems doing...

See what he thinks about X? I stopped reading right there.

Oh, wait...

For example, Python has evolved into an extremely intuitive yet powerful programming language.
Perl was also fairly new in its time.
There's GNU Emacs which is one of the most powerful text editors in existence.
There's the Apache Webserver. Although webservers aren't new, I would hardly call Apache a copy of anything.
I'm not sure whether the first publicly-released blog software was open source, but I think it might have been.
OpenBSD was, AFAIK, the first secure-by-default modern Unix system.
Linux (the kernel) has also done (or been modified to do) several things not done before.
X11 started as a project out of MIT (which I would guess was open-source, even though the phrase hadn't been coined yet.)
GNU readline is also something that is exclusive to open source
I'd guess that ls --color was something new to free software, as well, just because I douby anyone with a pure profit motive would consider it worth the time to implement. :-)
The Debian Project has made several innovations in operating system integration.

Anyway, there are plenty of examples. You just have to look.

This memo demonstrates an important shift in their strategy: they are now in a position where they are competing against Linux on thedesktop, having lost many key battles on the server side. This means that, despite religious crusades and many rifts in the Open Source community, the competition between such projects as KDE, GNOME, and XFree86 has produced better products that are now able to compete on a level playing field with the Windows XP desktop. We know this only because Microsoft said so itself.

Eight years ago when I first started running Linux, I knew it wasn't ready for the desktop. During the internet gold rush of the late 1990s I knew it still wasn't ready for the desktop. But today it is. There is no turning back now - unless Microsoft manages to lock us out of our PCs they will have no chance to reverse the tide, and Windows will lose in the end.

We are a small Internet development shop, running a few servers and a mixed bag of development stations. Currently, there are three Linux boxen on our network, running the latest RedHat releases. We are looking to put in three more systems, for a total of 5 running some Linux/UNIX like OS.

• A MySQL server box
• A Firewall
• A Mail/Fileserver
• 2 Webservers running Apache / PHP(Zend)

When we perform this upgrade, we are willing to change operating systems if there is a demonstrable benefit. Due to recent slashdot postings we have started looking at OpenBSD as our server OS. Now, we do understand that RedHat is not the only Linux distribution available, but we don't really want to get into a Linux/Linux war here. We don;t mind changing if we should for technical reasons - but the Linux world seems more hip and vibrant, and we really like the penguin T-shirts we have... so if we can stay on Linux then we want to.

So far, we like what we hear about OpenBSD - but we don't know if the things we like are inherent in the relative designs of OpenBSD or if they are results of policy choices by the OpenBSD team. If they are the results of policy decisions, then with any luck a Linux distribution could be found that exhibited the same characteristics?

Features we like about OpenBSD:

• It seems like the release/testing cycle is extremely carefully controlled. While a freewheeling machine with lots of OpenSource code on the desktop is a good thing, for a server it seems that a smaller group exercising testing/release control is a more controlled system.
• The integrated crypto looks great, the one time use passwords look like a big winner here.
• There are a lot of references to OpenBSD's security and stability - but none with any specific examples or technical backing.
• The file layout on OpenBSD seems like a winner, it looks like things live in a well thought out and logical set up - not in a mishmash like RedHat.

Assumptions:

These systems will be running the server software they need, and X11 + (Gnome||KDE) for administration and so on. They will not be running the latest stuff from Linuxberg or a bunch of things that would be on a desktop OS. So we are going to try very hard not to introduce any instabilities. We aren't going to be compiling running games, sound drivers and the like that integrate directly into the kernel.

The questions are:

1. Is OpenBSD more secure in some fundamental way that a well maintained Linux distribution?
2. Is OpenBSD more stable than a well maintained Linux distribution?
3. Will the OpenSource software we normally need (firewall, Apache, PHP4, Perl, Python) and so on probably compile on OpenBSD?
4. Does OpenBSD have something like clustering support (Beowulf) and failover?
5. Is the performance of a well maintained OpenBSD system better than a well maintained Linux distribution?
6. Does Linux have anything like the one time use password system?
7. Does OpenBSD support multiple CPU's better then Linux?

Thanks for taking the time, and hopefully we can keep the flames down to nothing and talk about technical issues this time.

Linux.COM done in Microsoft FrontPage? does that seem strange to anyone else? Thats like X11.org using frontpage, or freshmeat Its crazy!