Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

OpenBSD 3.0 Release, Interview with Theo

Posted by michael on from the wuftpd-not-installed-by-default dept.

mvw writes: "Here is an interview with OpenBSD's Theo de Raadt. Interesting is his comment on Soft Updates and the comparison to the rivaling Journaling file systems technology. Further he links to a very interesting paper by some Soft Updates researchers." And although OpenBSD 3.0 has an "official" release date of December 1 for whatever reason, it seems to be available by FTP or CD already. Lots of changes since 2.9.

4 of 307 comments (clear)

  1. Release Date by Accipiter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And although OpenBSD 3.0 has an "official" release date of December 1 for whatever reason, it seems to be available by FTP or CD already.

    Probably because they want to avoid a fiasco like the last tremendous release mess that michael caused.

    It's not uncommon for "official" releases to be after the initial release. It's like when a large department store has a "GRAND OPENING". In many cases, the GRAND OPENING is about a week after the store actually opens. Or if the store opens during the week, the GRAND OPENING will be on that weekend.

    --

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
    (If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't. :P)

  2. Re:MandrakeBSD? by Arandir · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The installer can still ask the same questions, but in a more user friendly manner.

    Why does a "more user friendly" installer have to be a GUI? What is there about a GUI that makes things easier? I've asked this question before in other forums, but I've never gotten a straight answer.

    To be sure, there are many advantages to a GUI, but I don't see where "user friendly" has anything to do with it.

    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  3. Re:MandrakeBSD? by Pope+Slackman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Besides, adding GUI doesn't necessarily represent a "dumbing down" of the product. The installer can still ask the same questions, but in a more user friendly manner.

    I see that as being a pointless waste of effort.
    Why would it be good to work on a graphical installer (which entails difficult and failure-prone things such as video device detection) that does exactly the same think as a console installer?
    The only benefit is that it would look prettier - installation would still remain just as "difficult"[1].
    The utilitarian console installer works fine, and I see no reason waste man-hours on changing it, when that same time could be spent improving important things.
    Cute graphical installers are just frippery.

    C-X C-S
    [1] Difficult in quotes because I've done several OpenBSD installs and never found it to be any more difficult to install than Linux or NT.

  4. Re:This is a very good thing! by Autonomous+Cow · · Score: 2, Interesting


    yum. sorry, I can't resist.

    1) logging to paper; so the cracker can't totally erase his trail

    2) backup to paper; so you have some recourse if your system config is massively hosed AND your magnetic media is toast

    and, wait for it...
    3) SWAPPING to paper; because you can! (just point your swapfile at /dev/ocr ) and more importantly, to score extra points on the C purity test.

    --
    The Autonomous Cow. Moo.