Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

OpenBSD 2.9 Released

Posted by michael on from the crispy-on-the-outside,-chewy-on-the-inside dept.

Well, the mirrors have had overnight to update, so I suppose we can announce that OpenBSD 2.9 is available. The release notes and changelog contain details of what has changed and improved. For our newer readers, OpenBSD is a BSD flavor that concentrates on security - they aim to be the most secure server operating system.

5 of 110 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Am I missing something? by IcePic · · Score: 5

    The release contains what was "-current" as of
    a few weeks ago. The CD burning factory needs more
    than a couple of seconds to burn all those CDs.

    At that time, the ipf thing hadn't started.
    The release is the same as the CD contents.
    Therefore, 2.9 has ipf.

    --
    -- I'm as unique as everyone else.
  2. IPF and OpenBSD 2.9 by wbb4 · · Score: 5

    To clarify some people's missinformation...

    IPF was removed from 2.9-CURRENT. This DOES NOT effect 2.9-RELEASE, from which CDs were mastered a month ago.

  3. Linux to BSD: Warnings by alexhmit01 · · Score: 5

    I switched from Linux to OpenBSD... not considering going back. However, really think carefully about the change, it is non-trivial.

    There are no binary patches. If there is a security whole, you can patch the source tree and rebuild. Alternatively you can shut down the services. There are patches to OpenBSD, and applying them requires more knowledge.

    Web support sucks. The FAQ, etc. provides some help, not much. Even USENET isn't THAT helpful. You need need to get used to reading man pages... a LOT.

    Init: rc style. I think that that the rc system is infinitely more manageable and sane in a BSD environment than a SysV environment, but YMMV.

    Community support. The mailling lists are key, but they are much less friendly. Advocacy isn't a priority. If there is a question answered somewhere in the documentation, you'll get told RTFM. If the docs aren't what you are looking for and need a different level of help (more/less tech than the man pages) you may or may not get it.

    Apache and mod_ssl are built in. The ports collection is solid. It may not be huge, but I've found just about everything I want there. Keeping ports up with the snapshots is a nice way to get up to date userland code.

    Kernel compilaton IS necessary for a server. If you put real iron on the box, or little iron, you'll need a custom kernel. The settings for OpenBSD are reasonable and will run all but the weakest machine. However, getting it to take advantage of more memory, etc., may require some tweaks.

    I love OpenBSD, but it is NOT Linux. There is no community bent on global domination. Lots of "Open Source" projects are Linux specific... fortunately its just the crappy ones. However, you'll find annoying issues like cronolog not compiling, no PHP Cache, etc. There is no commercial support.

    Unlike a Redhat, OpenBSD is not corporate, it's Theo's toy. As a result, they do what they want, not an attempt to appease customers. With a Redhat box, while some of your code is "scratching an itch," corporate coders can code what is needed.

    Realize that the Linux comforts will be lacking.

    If you are a sysadmin, check out OpenBSD. If you have a Linux box at home for playing with and think that you are l33t, stay away from OpenBSD with a 10' pole.

    Alex

    1. Re:Linux to BSD: Warnings by matroid · · Score: 5

      What Alex says is right on the nose (i.e. mod that comment up!). I too switched from Linux to OpenBSD at home almost 3 years ago, and have been using it for various projects at work for the past 2 years. This is what I've discovered:

      • Major security problems are few and far between (and usually not in the default install). I sleep a lot easier at night knowing that there's little chance my machines will be cracked.

      • Documentation is your best friend. Almost everything you need to know is in the FAQ or the man pages.

      • There is a general aura of pissiness from the community. You're expected to thoroughly research every problem before asking for their help. Like I said, the documentation is your best friend, not fellow OpenBSDers. This certainly encouraged me to be very self-sufficient, but I spent many an hour scouring documentation looking for help with undocumented problems.

      • The ports collection has gotten some 40,000% better since I first started using OpenBSD. Still, it's up to YOU to keep the ports current and patched.

      • Theo's attitude wears on me. Granted I usually agree with his decisions for the OS, I still feel that he's a powderkeg ready to blow, and I'll be left with an OS that I no longer love. As the above comment mentioned, Theo regards OpenBSD as his toy. His loyalties lie with himself, not with his userbase. That is, I'd classify him as a dictator, but I'm not sure he's so benevolent...

      In conclusion, I'd say trying OpenBSD is something every geek should do. But, admittedly, my loyalty to the OS (Theo) is waning, and I'm beginning to think FreeBSD might be a better choice.

      Whatever the case, I'm sure Theo doesn't give a good god-damn...

      Happy hacking,
      The 'roid

  4. Re:UNIX Vs. UNIX: by Auckerman · · Score: 5
    "Arguing over which UNIX is better is pointless because until you get to the source level they look, feel and behave about the same"

    This is just not true and shows how very little you know about Operating Systems strengths and weaknesses. Like Slashdot noted, OpenBSD is designed for security. They actively seek and destroy anything that could be used to compromise the system and the OpenBSD group has been very sucessful with this. That's a strength. Linux runs Q3A and UT, and thousands of scientific applications, those are strengths. IRIX has a superb OpenGL implementation. MacOS X has one of the best GUI's around. FreeBSD is fast.

    My point, the differences between Unixes are not in the source, but are much more obvious. Each development team has goals. Each goal shows through in the over all design of the OS and makes it so that each Unix does have a reason for existing in a world of generic Unixes.

    Now, on the question of which is better...Well, actually, it depends on your goals.....everyones goals are different. Some people have political agenda's (GPL vs. BSD), some people have specific needs (absolute securty at any price, playing games, or graphics performance), and some people just don't care and get what is easiest for them to use. There is no "best" only what is best for you, cause not a SINGLE unix distrib has an all round strength (though I would argue that if Apple integrated X-Win into Aqua, the combination of default security, Java2, OpenGL, Quicktime, BSD core services, et al would bring it close to being the strongest for all round uses, but hey, thats MY bias)

    --

    Burn Hollywood Burn