Slashdot Mirror
OpenBSD 3.1 Released
Telent writes "OpenBSD 3.1 is out. I've been using a -current snapshot from April as my desktop, and this is truly an amazing release with lots of new PF tricks, improved driver support, and many other cool things. Get it from the master site at ftp.openbsd.org, or use a mirror when possible. Even the release art kicks butt. Enjoy!"
Congratulations OpenBSD team. Thanks for another great release.
I guess this was posted in response to this?
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
Has anyone looked at the MicroBSD project yet?
It's based upon an OpenBSD-current kernel (so you get PF and all the great OpenBSD stuff), with FreeBSD tools, an hardened installation, custom additions and ports, a stripped-down base, etc.
{{.sig}}
then change the liscense. it seems to be the only logical answer you coward.
I want 2D games back.
Windows went past 3.1 years ago. But still it is ahead of Linux which is only at 2.4 or something. Mac is already up to ten!
ps -aux | grep "bsd" | kill -9
Sure, why not. You can't kill the undead.
truly an amazing release with lots of new PF tricks
I've been toying with the idea of using OpenBSD on a P75 as a wired-to-wireless network bridge. Essentially, I want to be able to have data go from my desktop machine, to this bridging computer, to a wireless AP, to the machines on the wired network that the AP is hooked up to.
Unfortunately, I've got no experience with IPF or PF, since all of my NAT needs are taken care of by a cheap-o Linksys router.
Anyone have a link for good introductory material on doing something like this?
--saint
You misspelled "license" numbskull.
You can't grab the 3.1 release fromt he FTPs just yet. As Todd Miller said on misc@:
"The files have been transferring to the main ftp mirror since last night. Once that is done they will move to the secondary mirrors and the email announcement will be sent out."
I still get "permission denied" when tryign to access the 3.1 directory. Of course this is an entirely different story if you've ordered the CDs.
3.1 still hasn't been officially announced:
So, check back soon.
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
I demand that the BSD logo be outlawed.
the much improved ports collection. Check the errata though, as some issues were found after the cd's went to press.
Just go to https://https.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/order for international orders or for European orders https://https.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/order.eu
The new artwork really ROCKS!
I just installed 3.0 last night.
Can't fight the Systemagic, Über tragic, Can't fight the Systemagic....
I have an old Pentium 166 w/ 64MB and S3 virge video card lying around which I might use to play around with this stuff. Assuming no X Windows, will this be adequate to run OpenBSD without swapping to the harddrive much?
For about the past year or so it seems that every BSD story has something to do with ow much it sucks, dying, etc. I especially like the rampant reposting of the same comment about how "netcraft confirms it" even when the top uptime holders run BSD.
Is this just a tactic so that the BSDs don't become trendy like what happened to linux, or do people really seriously believe that BSD is that bad?
I for one love BSD, both free and open, haven't tried net yet. I love it so much in fact, when I went to San Fran last time I made sure I drove by Berkley so I could see where it was concieved.
Long Live BSD!!!
I can run Linux with X-Windows on my P-133MMX Laptop w/80MB (fvwm2) you should be able to do the same on your P-166.
Personally, I can see FreeBSD moving more into the embedded space (as evidenced by WindRiver), as it has a smaller overall footprint than Linux, seems (warning unscientific speculation ahead) to have a slightly more robust VM,and has more "out-of-the-box" security.
One more thing, don't forget that MS has threatened to build a reference implementation of .NET for FreeBSD. (slam away!)
I have a 486 DX 33 with 24mb ram running as a firewall/router for the cable modem in my house and it work great. Only problem is that to upgrade the current uptime of 49 days is going to have to go...
I wonder why there isn't any ISO images to download. I mean for someone who doesn't have credit card and live far away from North America, ISO images seems like the best alternative.
Well done OpenBSD!
:-)
Any of you who haven't already, give it a go and watch you don't get hooked
I got the released CD through the mail a few days ago. Could be because I live near where the main distributor is based.
This allowed me to spend the weekend upgrading the servers over to 3.1. The process was painless, the pre-compiled packages from ports allowed me to speed a few things up and within seconds I had everything patched against the errata and ready to go.
I would like to point out that this is the first release where ports.tar.gz works without a problem. Normally I am forced to download ports or even src.tar.gz because they refuse to be decompressed.
However, I am not looking forward my 2.9 firewall to 3.1. Since OpenBSD 3.x releases no longer support IPF, I need to have the new FP ruleset in place before I do anything serious on that machine.
This actually doesn't supprise me. Since MS is making an .NET implementation for MacOSX. Going from OSX (FreeBSD derrivative on Mach) to FreeBSD would be fairly trivial.
From OSOpinion: Reaffirming its support for the Macintosh platform and opening a bevy of new options for Apple's corporate direction, Microsoft this week is expected to announce its plans for implementing the .NET platform on the Mac OS.
FreeBSD 4.5 x86 might be fine, but for the Alpha platform it's garbage.
I am using OpenBSD on my alpha boxes now because they are actually release quality, unlike FreeBSD.
You didnt use bold correctly. Well, at all. *BSD is dying posts only work when there is lotsa emphasis .
You must work for M$. Apparently you don't know anything about quality operating systems. You are probably a person with mental disabilties and can't use an operating system that is useful for anything more than email and looking at dirty pictures on the internet.
This story really should have been posted with a blowfish icon. BSD != daemon... FreeBSD = daemon, when a user comments on the release art, please check it first, thus you might achieve accuracy, which is zen.
PS for those who don't like reading the long version: READ THIS FIRST: OpenBSD has nothing to do with the daemon, it's a FISHY!
...
FISHY FISHY FISHY! WOOHOO!
ok I'm done now
a bit more about me http://www.advogato.org/person/trelane/ or my private page http://trelane.net
What, these little things? Aren't you glad some trolls don't make their homepage goatse.cx or this particular Japanese pr0n?
STOP ME BEFORE I POST AGAIN!
People have already pointed out that you should buy the CD's to support the project but if you're like me, you do both. Create custom CD's using the instructions here.
I think OpenBSD would be much better off providing ISO images for download. A realize OSS isn't a popularity contest but they could probably get a lot more funding with increased popularity so they wouldn't have to depend on CD sales. FTP download is nice, but most people are accustomed to using ISO images plus there are many occasions where installs are taking place on a system without net access. The major Linux distros wouldn't be nearly as popular if they didn't provide ISO images.
The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BS 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.
I used to think the same thing, but then I did a little searching on Groups.Google.Com and foud out that it is very easy to make your own ISO. You can get the latest snapshot... All you have to do is download the latest binary files from the OpenBSD FTP snapshot directory... Then use freeware cdrecord to do the change. I use a command like this on my Windows 2000 and Windows XP systems: Download the i386 to c:\OpenBSD\snapshot-05192002\i386\ and run mkisofs. c:\cdrecord\mkisofs -v -r -T -J -V "OpenBSD-i386-31" -b 3.1/i386/cdrom31.fs -c boot.catalog -o c:/OpenBSD/OpenBSD-i386-31-snap.iso -x c:/OpenBSD/OpenBSD-i3 86-31-snap.iso c:/OpenBSD/snapshot-05192002/ Obviously you have to mess with the paths a bit for your syste, but it isn't that hard. Creates a 130MB ISO, burn it with Nero (or something else) and boot. With Nero, make sure you do "full disc" and "finalize" options when burning the options. Again, check groups.google.com and search "openbsd mkisofs".
With the rapidly advancing nature of other BSD variants, it makes one wonder why Apple chose to use its own Darwin as the basis for OS X.... with OpenBSD, they could have much easier compatibility with existing Unix applications! 'das all.
I have a remote server that I would like to install freebsd onto. Is it possible to do an ftp install remotely w/o a boot floppy or a cd-rom?
Thanks
That's a choice of the BSD teams. MS is, despite their many, many, many other shortcomings, doing absolutely nothing wrong when they use BSD code in Windows.
The philosophies of the BSD and Linux crowds (or, more specifically the BSD License vs. the GPL) are radically different. In the BSD world, people are more than happy to anonymously contribute code in the hopes that it might improve other projects, proprietary or not. The GPL crowd, while also wanting to improve the quality of other projects, is unwilling to allow their code to be used in anything *but* GPLed code (with LGPL exceptions, of course). I am not going to make a judgement call on which is better (at least not on /.) but I think it is imperative that people understand that difference before flaming companies for using BSD code in their proprietary projects... because the BSD people (the ones who actually *wrote* it) don't give a flying fuck... why should you?
You guys this OS is still up only because people buy the cd version of it. This is the only way they get money. So, please buy a cd.
It would be nice if an OS would take sendmail out of their default install and try something else more secure and with better config files, such as postfix. For an OS all about "security," you'd think they'd get rid of sendmail. Maybe we can look forward to this in 3.2?
You have some great code by its the license. Why do you no GPL LGPL the code or at least parts that do not need to be BSD. BSD license is not very nice when someone yanks their code from the code base and makes it non free. How would you like it if someone gave you a gift "code" and then 6 months later took the gift back "code". Granted most coders do not do this but some do. Another thing your model of having a board of directors leaves a lot to be desired as much has been written by those leaving the FreeBSD core team feeling that it turned in to Political infighting and not enough coding. Do you not think this model of BSD has to change to reflect the new economy and the internet being a distributed entity. People code for linux because their contributions are appreciated and their is none of lets check with the board directors shit. Flame Suit On :) I know how hot under the collar you BSD coders can get when the little penguin has a different viewpoint but since penguins are from a cold place its always nice once in awhile to have a chat with a little devil like you just enough to warm and toasty. Linux scales from the wrist watch to the supercomputer can BSD do all that :)
I see it says "Sparc64" anyone test this on a SunBlade yet?
That's because MS LOVES the BSD license. They can take code w/o giving any credit. So they support the BSDs because they've gleened so much from it.That's one of the bad things about the BSD license.
If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
You can filter esp with FreeBSD? Man! If I had known when I set up my Linux server, maybe all these angry minds around me might not be crashing the server!
As soon as Mozilla runs natively under OpenBSD, it will be the best OS around
There isn't much like the scent of a fresh harddisk
The BSD-s are dying senator, we must do something quickly !
"Today it is a good day to die"
What was the version that used the same Packet Filtering that the major Unixes use?
Atto
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
There is no reason why M$ would only use code like from the BSDs. They could just as easily 'barrow' code from GNU projects, without anybody knowing. As long as M$'s software's closed source, there isn't a thing you can do about it. You would need to see the code to even have a case.
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, thre 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 knw *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 glom 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.
Okay, now it's official. Here's the announcement:
To: announce@openbsd.org
Subject: OpenBSD 3.1 Released!
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 15:03:44 -0600
From: "Todd C. Miller" <Todd.Miller@courtesan.com>
- OpenBSD 3.1 RELEASED -
May 19, 2002.
It is our pleasure to officially announce the release of OpenBSD
3.1. This year OpenBSD turns 7 years old. In celebration of this
milestone, we invite you to enjoy our 11th release on CD-ROM (and
12th via FTP). We continue to celebrate OpenBSD's record of four
years without a remote hole in the default install. Just like all
of our previous releases, 3.1 provides significant improvements,
including new features, in nearly all areas of the system:
- Improved hardware support (http://www.OpenBSD.org/plat.html)
o Much improved support for UltraSPARC hardware. More models are
supported and X11 works on all supported models.
o Improved 802.11b support, including a host-based access point
mode for Prism chipsets (i.e. wireless bridging). It is now
possible to completely configure a wireless interface using ifconfig.
o The hardware crypto drivers now work on all PCI platforms.
o Major macppc improvements including a brand new pmap module
that cut 'make build' time by over an hour.
o Tekram TRM-S1040 based PCI SCSI controllers are now supported.
o Creative SB Live! cards are now supported.
o HiFn 7811 is now supported by the hifn driver. A long-standing
bug causing PCI aborts has also been fixed in the hifn driver.
o Kernel support for Altivec on the macppc platform.
- Major improvements in the pf packet filter:
o Significant performance improvements due to additional optimizations
based on detailed benchmarks. Filter rule evaluation cost
(which occurs for every packet that isn't passed statefully)
is reduced by about 70%.
o Stateful filtering (including address translation and redirection)
for arbitrary IP protocols other than TCP, UDP and ICMP, for
instance GRE (used for IPsec/PPTP).
o Configurable memory limits (preventing memory exhaustion).
'pfctl -m' can set an upper bound on the number of simultaneous
states or fragments.
o authpf(8), an authenticating gateway user shell, modifies filter
rules when a user logs in, controlling network access at the user
level.
o New 'fastroute', 'route-to' and 'dup-to' options allow pf to
route packets independently of the system routing table. This
can be used to e.g., implement source-based routing or to
duplicate packets to an IDS or logging host.
o Parser improvements allow further reduction of rule set complexity
('no nat', rdr port ranges, and more).
o Rule labels simplify usage of counters for accounting ('pass in
from any to any port www label http_requests').
o The 'no-route' keyword in filter rules matches packets with non-
routable addresses. E.g., 'block in quick from no-route to any'
blocks packets from non-routable source addresses.
o tcpdump(8) expressions can filter pf logs on pf-specific fields.
E.g. 'tcpdump -i pflog0 action block' prints only blocked packets.
o Additional ioctls for adding and removing state entries (used by
proxies, authpf(8) and pfctl(8)).
- Ever-improving security (http://www.OpenBSD.org/security.html)
o More fixes for potential signal handler races. Work is ongoing in
this area to fix the signal handlers in all programs, not just
privileged ones.
o sshd now supports a privilege separation mode where all incoming
network traffic takes place in an unprivileged process.
o A number of memory leaks that could lead to denial of service
attacks have been plugged.
o Several other security issues fixed throughout the system, many
of which were identified by members of the OpenBSD team themselves.
Please see http://www.OpenBSD.org/errata30.html for more details
on what was fixed.
- New subsystems included with 3.1
o A version of the venerable spell program is now included.
o Generic macros for manipulating splay trees and red-black trees.
o Support for extended attributes in the filesystem.
- Many other bugs fixed (http://www.OpenBSD.org/plus30.html)
- The "ports" tree is greatly improved (http://www.OpenBSD.org/ports.html)
o The 3.1 CD-ROMs ship with many more pre-built packages for the
common architectures. The FTP site contains hundreds more
packages (for the important architectures) which we could not
fit onto the CD-ROMs.
- Many subsystems improved and updated since the last release:
o A long-standing bug in the i386 MBR that caused a hang on boot
with some machines has been fixed.
o Better sizing of kernel buffers, based on amount physical memory.
o Other memory-related limits are tunable without recompiling a
lernel via config -e.
o Improved behavior of the virtual memory system in low-memory
situations.
o ALTQ is supported by more ethernet drivers and now works on
bridged interfaces.
o Loadable kernel modules are now supported on ELF platforms.
o The 2 gigabyte file size limit has been removed from mmap(2),
vnd(4), savecore(8), dump(8), restore(8), and rcp(1).
o XFree86 updated to 4.2.0.
o sendmail updated to 8.12.2.
o Latest KAME IPv6
o KTH Heimdal-0.4e
o OpenSSH 3.2
If you'd like to see a list of what has changed between OpenBSD 3.0
and 3.1, look at
http://www.OpenBSD.org/plus31.html
Even though the list is a summary of the most important changes
made to OpenBSD, it still is a very very long list.
This is our twelfth OpenBSD release, and the eleventh release which
is available on CD-ROM. Our releases have been spaced six months
apart, and we plan to continue this timing.
- SECURITY AND ERRATA
We provide patches for known security threats and other important
issues discovered after each CD release. As usual, between the
creation of the OpenBSD 3.1 FTP/CD-ROM binaries and the actual 3.1
release date, our team found and fixed some new reliability problems
(note: most are minor, and in subsystems that are not enabled by
default). Our continued research into security means we will find
new security problems and we always provide patches as soon as
possible. Therefore, we advise regular visits to
http://www.OpenBSD.org/security.html
and
http://www.OpenBSD.org/errata.html
Security patch announcements are sent to the security-announce@OpenBSD.org
mailing list. For information on OpenBSD mailing lists, please see:
http://www.OpenBSD.org/mail.html
- CD-ROM SALES
OpenBSD 3.1 is also available on CD-ROM. The 3-CD set costs $40USD
(EUR 45) and is available via mail order and from a number of
contacts around the world. The set includes a colorful booklet
which carefully explains the installation of OpenBSD. A new set
of cute little stickers are also included (sorry, but our FTP mirror
sites do not support STP, the Sticker Transfer Protocol). As an
added bonus, the second CD contains an exclusive audio track by Ty
Semaka, http://www.thedevils.com/.
Profits from CD sales are the primary income source for the OpenBSD
project in essence selling these CD-ROM units ensures that OpenBSD
will continue to make another release six months from now.
The OpenBSD 3.1 CD-ROMs are bootable on the following six platforms:
o i386
o alpha
o sparc
o sparc64 (UltraSPARC)
o macppc
o hp300*
* The m68k-based platforms, including hp300, are located on a fourth
CD that is not included in the official CD-ROM package. You can
download the ISO image for the fourth CD as described below.
(Other platforms must boot from floppy, network, or other method).
For more information on ordering CD-ROMs, see:
http://www.OpenBSD.org/orders.html
The above web page lists a number of places where OpenBSD CD-ROMs
can be purchased from. For our default mail order, go directly to:
https://https.OpenBSD.org/cgi-bin/order
or, for European orders:
https://https.OpenBSD.org/cgi-bin/order.eu
All of our developers strongly urge you to buy a CD-ROM and support
our future efforts. As well, donations to the project are highly
appreciated, as described in more detail at:
http://www.OpenBSD.org/goals.html#funding
Due to space restrictions and our desire not to raise the cost of
the CD-ROM, the Motorola 68k-based platforms are located on a
fourth CD that is not included in the official CD-ROM package.
An ISO image for this CD may be downloaded from:
ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD-ISO/3.1-CD4.iso
This CD contains the amiga, hp300, mac68k and mvme68k install sets
as well as the m68k packages. The CD is bootable on the hp300.
Note that not all ftp mirrors will carry the CD image.
- T-SHIRT SALES
The project continues to expand its funding base by selling t-shirts
and polo shirts. And our users like them too. We have a variety
of shirts available, with the new and old designs, from our web
ordering system at:
https://https.OpenBSD.org/cgi-bin/order
The new 3.1 t-shirt is not available at this time but will be
available shortly.
- FTP INSTALLS -
If you choose not to buy an OpenBSD CD-ROM, OpenBSD can be easily
installed via FTP. Typically you need a single small piece of boot
media (e.g., a boot floppy) and then the rest of the files can be
installed from a number of locations, including directly off the
Internet. Follow this simple set of instructions to ensure that
you find all of the documentation you will need while performing
an install via FTP. With the CD-ROMs, the necessary documentation
is easier to find.
1) Read either of the following two files for a list of ftp
mirrors which provide OpenBSD, then choose one near you:
http://www.OpenBSD.org/ftp.html
ftp://ftp.OpenBSD.org/pub/OpenBSD/3.1/ftplist
2) Connect to that ftp mirror site and go into the directory
pub/OpenBSD/3.1/ which contains these files and directories.
This is a list of what you will see:
Changelogs/ alpha/ macppc/ sparc64/
HARDWARE amiga/ mvme68k/ src.tar.gz
PACKAGES ftplist packages/ srcsys.tar.gz
PORTS hp300/ ports.tar.gz tools/
README i386/ root.mail vax/
XF4.tar.gz mac68k/ sparc/
It is quite likely that you will want at LEAST the following
files which apply to all the architectures OpenBSD supports.
README - generic README
HARDWARE - list of hardware we support
PORTS - description of our "ports" tree
PACKAGES - description of pre-compiled packages
root.mail - a copy of root's mail at initial login.
(This is really worthwhile reading).
3) Read the README file. It is short, and a quick read will make
sure you understand what else you need to fetch.
4) Next, go into the directory that applies to your architecture,
for example, i386. This is a list of what you will see:
CKSUM INSTALL.os2br comp31.tgz man31.tgz
INSTALL.ata INSTALL.pt etc31.tgz misc31.tgz
INSTALL.chs MD5 floppy31.fs xbase31.tgz
INSTALL.dbr base31.tgz floppyB31.fs xfont31.tgz
INSTALL.i386 bsd floppyC31.fs xserv31.tgz
INSTALL.linux bsd.rd game31.tgz xshare31.tgz
INSTALL.mbr cdrom31.fs index.txt
If you are new to OpenBSD, fetch _at least_ the file INSTALL.i386
and the appropriate floppy*.fs file. Consult the INSTALL.i386
file if you don't know which of the floppy images you need (or
simply fetch all of them).
5) If you are an expert, follow the instructions in the file called
README; otherwise, use the more complete instructions in the
file called INSTALL.i386. INSTALL.i386 may tell you that you
need to fetch other files.
6) Just in case, take a peek at:
http://www.OpenBSD.org/errata.html
This is the page where we talk about the mistakes we made while
creating the 3.1 release, or the significant bugs we fixed
post-release which we think our users should have fixes for.
Patches and workarounds are clearly described there.
Note: If you end up needing to write a raw floppy using Windows,
you can use "fdimage.exe" located in the pub/OpenBSD/3.1/tools
directory to do so.
- XFree86 FOR MOST ARCHITECTURES -
XFree86 has been integrated more closely into the system. This
release contains XFree86 4.2.0. Most of our architectures ship
with XFree86, including sparc, sparc64 and macppc. During installation,
you can install XFree86 quite easily. Be sure to try out xdm(1)
and see how we have customized it for OpenBSD.
On the i386 platform a few older X servers are included from XFree86
3.3.6. These can be used for cards that are not supported by XFree86
4.2.0 or where XFree86 4.2.0 support is buggy. Please read the
/usr/X11R6/README file for post-installation information.
- PORTS TREE -
The OpenBSD ports tree contains automated instructions for building
third party software. The software has been verified to build and
run on the various OpenBSD architectures. The 3.1 ports collection,
including many of the distribution files, is included on the 3-CD
set. Please see PORTS file for more information.
Note: some of the most popular ports, e.g., the Apache web server
and several X applications, come standard with OpenBSD. Also, many
popular ports have been pre-compiled for those who do not desire
to build their own binaries (see PACKAGES, below).
- BINARY PACKAGES WE PROVIDE -
A large number of binary packages are provided. Please see PACKAGES
file (ftp://ftp.OpenBSD.org/pub/OpenBSD/PACKAGES) for more details.
- SYSTEM SOURCE CODE -
The CD-ROMs contain source code for all the subsystems explained
above, and the README (ftp://ftp.OpenBSD.org/pub/OpenBSD/README)
file explains how to deal with these source files. For those who
are doing an FTP install, the source code for all four subsystems
can be found in the pub/OpenBSD/3.1/ directory:
XF4.tar.gz ports.tar.gz src.tar.gz srcsys.tar.gz
- THANKS -
OpenBSD 3.1 includes artwork and CD artistic layout by Ty Semaka,
who also is featured in an audio track on the OpenBSD 3.1 CD set.
Ports tree and package building by Christian Weisgerber, David Lebel,
Marc Espie, Peter Valchev and Miod Vallat.
System builds by Theo de Raadt, Niklas Hallqvist, Todd Fries and Bob Beck.
ISO-9660 filesystem layout by Theo de Raadt.
We would like to thank all of the people who sent in bug reports, bug
fixes, donation cheques, and hardware that we use. We would also like
to thank those who pre-ordered the 3.1 CD-ROM or bought our previous
CD-ROMs. Those who did not support us financially have still helped
us with our goal of improving the quality of the software.
Our developers are:
Aaron Campbell, Angelos D. Keromytis, Anil Madhavapeddy, Artur Grabowski,
Ben Lindstrom, Bob Beck, Brad Smith, Brandon Creighton, Brian Caswell,
Brian Somers, Bruno Rohee, Camiel Dobbelaar, Chris Cappuccio,
Christian Weisgerber, Constantine Sapuntzakis, Dale Rahn, Damien Miller,
Dan Harnett, Daniel Hartmeier, David B Terrell, David Lebel,
David Leonard, Dug Song, Eric Jackson, Federico G. Schwindt,
Grigoriy Orlov, Hakan Olsson, Hans Insulander, Heikki Korpela,
Horacio Menezo Ganau, Hugh Graham, Ian Darwin, Jakob Schlyter,
Jan-Uwe Finck, Jason Ish, Jason Peel, Jason Wright, Jean-Baptiste Marchand,
Jean-Jacques Bernard-Gundol, Jim Rees, Joshua Stein,
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino, Kenjiro Cho, Kenneth R Westerback,
Kevin Lo, Kevin Steves, Kjell Wooding, Louis Bertrand, Marc Espie,
Marco S Hyman, Mark Grimes, Markus Friedl, Mats O Jansson, Matt Behrens,
Matt Smart, Matthew Jacob, Matthieu Herrb, Michael Shalayeff,
Michael T. Stolarchuk, Mike Frantzen, Mike Pechkin, Miod Vallat
Nathan Binkert, Nick Holland, Niels Provos, Niklas Hallqvist,
Oleg Safiullin, Paul Janzen, Peter Galbavy, Peter Stromberg,
Peter Valchev, Reinhard J. Sammer, Shell Hin-lik Hung, Steve Murphree,
Thierry Deval, Theo de Raadt, Thorsten Lockert, Tobias Weingartner,
Todd C. Miller, Todd T. Fries, Wim Vandeputte.
All but God can prove this sentence true.
Yes, your position regarding BSD license is quite acurate, but it is not complete.
What I mean is that, of course Microsoft can take advantage of BSD licensed code and of course that's what the real programmers of that code had in mind -thus licensing it through BSD.
What they migth haven't in mind is that this way Microsoft can not only take the code, but take it, make it popular (hey, it's a free implementation supported by a big company, isn't it?) and *then* sligthly modify it so it only really works on the Microsoft (TM) Implementation (TM). That's the way Microsoft works and that's *really* why they love BSD license: it is not because the "gifted code" (it a good gift, yes, but Microsoft has money and programmers enough to do it by itself with not too much pain), but because BSD code, and standards based upon them are controlable by them.
(Remember RTF, SMB/CIFS, Kerberos... under some conditions, even bind has problems with Windows clients that Windows DNS hasn't).
I will never trust my systems to Theo. He sux.
Because, as a working programmer, they are activley supporting a company which is committed to putting me out of work by pushing various legal and illegal tactics to make it hard for non-MS companies to survive. I do give a flying fuck about that, even if BSD programmers don't.
The GPL makes it difficult for programmers to make money from their code but BSD makes it impossible, in the long run, for any programmer to make money unless they have the gracious permission of people like Gates who have plenty of cash to buy government policy and national markets.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
It is official; Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.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
At least they'd have to live in fear of a disgruntled employee blowing the whistle. It's not much but it is something.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
There's one in every crowd...
There is nothing worse than a closeted homosexual that feels trapped in a culture that is intolerent of homosexuality.
You really need to talk to a mental health professional about your extreme anger, and self hatred, it's un-healthy for you, and those around you.
I can't be bothered to answer all of this, so here's the important (as I see them) points:
You have some great code by its the license. Why do you no GPL LGPL the code or at least parts that do not need to be BSD.
Because we *LIKE* BSDL.
BSD license is not very nice when someone yanks their code from the code base and makes it non free. How would you like it if someone gave you a gift "code" and then 6 months later took the gift back "code". Granted most coders do not do this but some do.
FUD. Code cannot be yanked from the code-base. You can't "un-license" code like that. I can take the code and add to it and sell it without revealing my source, but it will still exist in the *BSD code bases for all to see/use/whatever.
Explain how they will put you out of work? Seriously, get a job at Microsoft if your smart enough...
I heard that BSD was dying. Is this true?
Why is this post currently moderated as -1? I understand the child thread deserves -1, but this seems to be a legitimate question.
Don't floppies work?
By the release art, I would say they are maybe trying to appeal to the modern MTV watching suburban gangsta wannabe crowd? I just can't picture those people being intelligent enough for anything other than AOL and Windows.
And I just got finished installing OBSD 3.0... grrrr
www.samuraidreams.com - My Blog
www.samuraifiles.com - Get Some Videos Here
Do any of you know if the OpenBSD people have plans to replace blowfish with twofish in the kernel? What about Serpent and AES? Of all the people, I'm surprised that the OpenBSD people would be satisfied with "eh.. blowfish is good enough, why upgrade?".
Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
microsoft plans to play the various open source factions off against each other.
"Divisa et impera" as caesar said.
this must be the lamest "haxx0r script" I've ever ssn.. :-) ..
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
Does anyone know if an encrypted filesystem is availble for OpenBSD ? Seems like it still isn't. Except for the hacks like CFS... Is there an encrypted filesystem which is ready for *real* use out there ?
it's "divide et impera"
http://www.freebsd.org/news/status/report-feb-2002 -apr-2002.html#SMPng "Some of the current works in progress include locking for the kernel linker by Andrew Reiter and light-weight interrupt threads for the i386 by Bosko Milekic. Seigo Tanimura-san, Alfred Perlstein, and Jeffrey Hsu are also working on locking down various pieces of the networking stack. Alan Cox has started working on fixing the existing locking in the VM subsystem and moving bits of it out from under Giant. John Baldwin has written an implementation of turnstiles as well as adaptive mutexes in the jhb_lock Perforce branch. The adaptive mutexes appear to be stable on i386, alpha, and sparc64, but the turnstile code still contains several tricky lock order reversals. John also plans to commit the p_canfoo() API change to use td_ucred in the very near future and then finish the task of making ktrace(4) use a worker thread." http://daily.daemonnews.org/view_story.php3?story_ id=2891 Alan Cox works on SMPng? :
0 02 -apr-2002.html#SMPng
Jon Disnard nospam@fake.org Saturday, May 18 @ 2:24 pm
This snippet of text from the link bellow caught my eye
Alan Cox has started working on fixing the existing locking in the VM subsystem and moving bits of it out from under Giant.
http://www.freebsd.org/news/status/report-feb-2
So does Alan still work for Red Hat? Is this a case of the grass being greener on the other side of the fence?
Reply to Comment View 1 Replys
Re: Alan Cox works on SMPng?
Garrett Rooney rooneg at electricjellyfish.net Saturday, May 18 @ 8:20 pm
It's a different Alan Cox. There is an Alan Cox that works on Linux, and an Alan Cox that
works on FreeBSD.
Reply to Comment View 1 Replys
One more crippling bombshell hit the already eleaguered *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 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 in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin 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.
ll 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. *BS 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
I'm a unix system admin intern working at a major university. Recently, I was asked to investigate replacing our aging SPARC and expensive AIX servers with one of the "free" unices, such as BS Dos, Lunix, and Minix.
Although they had worked admirably, we were upset with support from IBM. Recently, we had to swap CPUs, and we needed to relicense the Xlc, xlc, xlf, and xlp compilers! Also, the memory leaks from page-swapping buffer overruns were causing serious uptime issues. IBM's answer? Set up a chron script to reboot every night.
Anyhow, we determined that OpenBSDos would be the most suitable replacement, since they have an emphasis on security. We've currently setup a test-bed of 486Dx computers running parrallel and the performance is fairly good. If they included CDE, we'd switch in a heartbeat!
umm.. listen.. read about stuff before you make a fool of yourself. This FAQ explains everything about the copyright.
Common sense is not so common.
I used to do OpenBSD and NetBSd on a Max IIcx, but installed with an ethernet card. In the case of NetBSD, if you can boot the sysinstall image (this is still marked experimental, but the old Mac Installer really should be dropped), you can probably install via PLIP/SLIP (sysinstall doesn't support PPP on mac68k AFAIK)on the Mac's serial/parallel ports.
If not, you can just use the CD-ROM. Booting the sysinstall image will get you into a NetBSD/mac68k generic kernel and install environment, and it probably should pick up your SCSI CD-ROM just fine.
Nubus Apple Ethernet cards on EBay are sometimes cheap, and sometimes expensive - it's a tossup. If you manage to get two though, Macs make good little routers (don't try to push any more than two 10mbit lines), especially with that permanent power switch that old Macs have.
-- I'll cut you up so bad, you'll wish I'd never cut you up so bad!
One note for OpenBSD/NetBSD: if you use the Mac Booter/Installer - which is used by both OSes - you'll have to be very crafty with the partitions. Root can not be any larger than 1GB or so, and any other filesystems after that will probably have to be formatted and populated after the install is done.
-- I'll cut you up so bad, you'll wish I'd never cut you up so bad!
I don't know if you're trolling or just clueless... But here goes;
"I'm a unix system admin intern working at a major university. Recently, I was asked to investigate replacing our aging SPARC and expensive AIX servers with one of the "free" unices, such as BS Dos, Lunix, and Minix."
Uh, BS Dos? Most likely you're referring to BSD/OS, which is not free in any sense of the word. Or was this intentional? Because when I see `Lunix' and `Minix' mentioned as viable choices for replacing AIX and Solaris... Well, it's kind of funny.
"Although they had worked admirably, we were upset with support from IBM. Recently, we had to swap CPUs, and we needed to relicense the Xlc, xlc, xlf, and xlp compilers! Also, the memory leaks from page-swapping buffer overruns were causing serious uptime issues. IBM's answer? Set up a chron script to reboot every night."
The first part sounds like good ol' IBM. However, if you didn't upgrade to more CPUs, they most likely didn't need to issue a new license. If they replaced the motherboard or NVRAM chip perhaps... I don't know if you want me to believe that IBM told you to reboot with a `chron' job, but I will assume that you don't.
"Anyhow, we determined that OpenBSDos would be the most suitable replacement, since they have an emphasis on security. We've currently setup a test-bed of 486Dx computers running parrallel and the performance is fairly good. If they included CDE, we'd switch in a heartbeat!"
Once again, OpenBSDos... Is that supposed to be a funny joke that I can't seem to get?
If CDE is your only dependency, I you're lucky. Unfortunately, many times it requires a bit more than that. Such as a pesky little thing as byte ordering and other various caveats which must be properly ported. Also, much of the libs and headers from Solaris aren't compatible with AIX. And most certainly aren't compatible with OpenBSD. Well, Solaris may be a distant cousin, since SunOS 4.x was a BSD based UNIX. But in my experience, things aren't that easy to port. And once you port, you most likely will have to maintain the AIX version, the Solaris version and the OpenBSD (or whatever) version. This is always a pain; to figure out what Sun considers POSIX compliance (just check out string.h for example) and what OpenBSD thinks of the same.
OpenBSD is only at version 3.1, but FreeBSD is at 4.5! Why would I want to use OpenBSD?
I realize you have physical inadequacies, but most people your size just buy a porsche instead.
Just installed OpenBSD3.1, reboot, got "Bad Magic" and a halt.. hmm.
.
Anyone know who does the music for the OpenBSD releases?
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
Their general policy is to prevent anyone working in the software industry unless it's for them, Gates has actually said in a speech that he can't see why, in the future, anyone would produce software other than MS.
Seriously, get a job at Microsoft if your smart enough...
I noticed in university that, when MS came around to recruit people, the mediocre programmers were the only ones that went to see them. Part of being a good programer, or a good anything, is pride in your work. Since quality control is non-existant at MS it follows that they can only employ mediocre programmers.
And it's "if you're smart enough".
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
"FUD. Code cannot be yanked from the code-base. You can't "un-license" code like that. I can take the code and add to it and sell it without revealing my source, but it will still exist in the *BSD code bases for all to see/use/whatever."
Well you can fork code that's put out under the bsd licence and change that code's licence to a very unfriendly licence which may have terms which would not allow the comunity to use any changes or signifigant developments which were made within the forked code which was placed under the new licence.You can not un-licence the code but the licence permits forking and the making off modifications to licence terms.
_________________________________________________
Well you can fork code that's put out under the bsd licence and change that code's licence to a very unfriendly licence which may have terms which would not allow the comunity to use any changes or signifigant developments which were made within the forked code which was placed under the new licence.You can not un-licence the code but the licence permits forking and the making off modifications to licence terms.
Please go back and re-read what he wrote. He said the code could be *REMOVED* from the *BSD code base. This is clearly false.
Everything you have said is true, but irrelevent.
The original post was not about code-forking.
It claimed that code could be BDSL'd, then later the license could be changed, and the code removed from the *BSD code base. This is clearly false. This is clearly FUD.
True—nobody can remove the code from the codebase, but a software patent creates a chilling effect for distributing and improving that code. It's also unfortunate that the people who helped you develop that improved code won't necessarily get to share equally in all of the distributed improvements to that code. Software patents and purposefully incompatible derivatives (better known as "Embrace & Extend") can make the code a lot less valuable. Not everyone wants to treat software proprietors like charities.
Digital Citizen
Is this an indication of:
Linux is dying
Nobody cares about Linux point releases
Half the posts in this thread are 'BSD is dying'
People are more interested in BSD than Linux
Cowboy Neal
--
Reverse outsourcing: it's the future
Do you really think that Microsoft can't afford to write anything from the ground up?
Using BSDL code just propagates high-quality code. I'm all for this.
Those who license under the BSDL see allowing others to use their code as a feature, not a bug.
And it allows anyone, not just Microsoft, to use the code. I suspect there's far more small companies benefitted from this availability of code than Microsoft ever has.
I don't like Microsoft, but I don't hate them. Blind hatred of one company appears to want people to stop anyone having the use of code. This is illogical, especially when Microsoft is not actually using a great deal -- in fact, Apple has benefitted far more, and they're Microsoft's biggest competitor on the desktop...
Their general policy is to prevent anyone working in the software industry unless it's for them, Gates has actually said in a speech that he can't see why, in the future, anyone would produce software other than MS.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with BSD licensed code...
I'll repeat it again for the hard of thinking: the BSD license means helping people who are totally opposed to the bulk of programmers being able to make a living. It's not the intent of the BSD license but it is the effect.
Its like making bullets and giving them away for free to a room full of people only one of whom (MS) has a gun (monopoly). It's pretty obvious whose going to get shot.
Think once, think twice, think "don't help the bastard that's trying to kill you".
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
... which has nothing to do with BSDL'd code. A company could take, say, GPL code, write a replacement, add to it and patent the additional features, and you're in the same place.
This is an argument against software patents, and I agree. Software patents do not make sense. But it's nothing to do with BSDL. It's also unfortunate that the people who helped you develop that improved code won't necessarily get to share equally in all of the distributed improvements to that code.
Those that choose to write BSDL'd code know this. It's a feature, not a bug.
I still take the view that someone who builds upon others code is entitled to benefit from his own work - ie the additional code. Since the original code was freely given, I don't see a problem. No-one forces anyone to write BSDL'd code. Software patents and purposefully incompatible derivatives (better known as "Embrace & Extend") can make the code a lot less valuable.
The most famous examples of this are Kerberos and Samba. Kerberos was rewritten from the ground up to the IETF specification by M$, it's *NOT* the MIT licensed implementation, but their own. So, you've just argued aganst open standards...
Samba is a GPL'd project.
Again, where is the relevence to BSDL? Not everyone wants to treat software proprietors like charities.
No-one says everyone has to. I do not - and did not - say everyone must be forced to use "The One True License" (no, there's no such thing). I replied to a post asking why BSD was not GPL'd.
If you don't like what can happen with BSDL code, don't license it under the BSDL. It's as simple as that. But please stop complaining that others choose to. It's their code, it's their choice.
We finally got 512Kbps and 8 static IP's at work, and my first attempt at putting a RH71 box on the public Internet was rooted within 18 hours. This calls for OpenBSD. Rootkit that, kiddo. Forthuately I found it 4 hours after the syslog was restarted (SUn 4AM), there was absolutely nothing on it that isn't in the stock distro, and it was out in the DMZ connected to nothing in the firewall, so hahaha.
If I had more time, I'd have left it there and turn it into a honeypot, put some interesting fake info up and lure them in further, giving no clue that I know they're there.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Interesting, that, on the mailing lists, /. I think we _are_ there."
;-)
the question "Are we there yet?" has been
answered with "yes, since some people have
gotten the CDs, some mirrors the files and
it has been on
So, Slashdot seems to be a bit more current
than the official announcements. Nice
OTOH, I was running 3.1-current since shortly
after unlocking of the tree, which is weeks ago.
My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And
Sorry about that you are correct.However the bsd licence does in my opinion have its weak points as well as its strong ones, that is all I wished to say .
_________________________________________________
Holy fuck, people...
I can't believe that this old tried and true troll still managed to get such a response.
You people are fucking idiots!
Hanging on for uptimes is fun for a while. I have been running OpenBSD since 2.3. some machines have uptimes of over 450 days. I just get too busy to upgrade everything every new release. But if I fear a vulnerable exploit is leaving me open, I upgrade to -current. So go ahead, ditch the uptime, upgrade and start over. Then get some more machines and upgrade them all
IAAC (I Am A Cryptographer).
:)
First, please note what the subject says: Twofish, Serpent and AES/Rijndael aren't as trusted. That's not at all the same as saying they're not trusted.
They are all excellent ciphers as near as anyone in the field can tell, but they are all very new. Many people in the field (myself included) are deeply skeptical of all new algorithms. Blowfish, by comparison, is about ten years old and has no significant cryptanalytic attacks against it. This makes Blowfish preferred over AES in the eyes of many cryptographers. (This is also why so many of us drool over 3DES. While it's hideously slow and inefficient, 3DES has been turning brilliant cryptanalysts into alcoholic, burned-out wrecks for 25+ years. That's amazing.)
Second, I am not aware of any cryptographer who recommends Serpent or Twofish over AES. When Rijndael won the AES selection, every cryppie in the world who wanted to make a name for himself started to throw himself at it. Hence, Serpent and Twofish have been exposed to much less cryptanalysis than AES/Rijndael. Serpent and Twofish aren't bad ciphers, but given the existence of AES, every responsible cryptographer I know strongly recommends AES over Twofish and Serpent.
Third, if I recall correctly, the OpenBSD people like Blowfish because Blowfish is about as agile as a brick. Attempting to break Blowfish by brute force is a really painful thing to think about, because setting up a new key is computationally expensive. By comparison, AES is a very agile cipher.
Fourth, it's true that AES is a blazingly fast cipher. But Blowfish is no slouch in this department, either.
So what you wind up with is Blowfish (a) is key-clumsy, which OpenBSD wants, (b) has survived almost a decade of rigorous cryptanalysis, (c) is quite fast.
OpenBSD wouldn't get any real benefit from switching to Blowfish. Why should they change?
Overall, I think you'll find we agree more than we disagree. There was never an issue of forcing someone to use a particular license for a work to which they hold the copyright. I have no issue with using any Free Software license because I want more Free Software to be written. To that end I want to help point out the consequences of picking one Free Software license over another. The issue of software patenting is a handy framework for explaining some of these consequences; copyleft offers another useful framework. But there is one example you give that doesn't quite illustrate the issue at hand.
It is quite apropos, but your example is set up to dodge the issue because you're not necessarily talking about making a derivative of a GPL'd work. Generally when someone writes a replacement for a program the program they wrote is a copyrighted work under their control. So obviously they can add to their program (and unfortunately patent their program) and gain all the power copyright and patent law offers them for that work. If it could be shown that this company wrote their replacement with the benefit of having seen GPL'd code, one might be able to argue that their replacement is actually a GPL derivative (ala George Harrison's infringement of "My Sweet Lord" to make "He's So Fine"; this is the subject of Lawrence Rosen's article on the last page of the December 2001 "Linux Journal" magazine, although the article centers on Microsoft's Shared Source, not GPL'd source code).
More to the point, the GNU GPL claims that patents on GPL'd code must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all. The BSD licenses (there is more than one) contain no language on patents at all.
Digital Citizen
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD Troll community when IDC confirmed that the "*BSD is dying" market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all slashdot readers. Coming on the heels of a recent slashdot post which plainly states that the "*BSD is dying" troll has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. The "*BSD is dying" troll is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Troll Admin comprehensive trolling test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict the "*BSD is dying" troll's future. The hand writing is on the wall: There may be no future at all for the "*BSD is dying" troll because the "*BSD is dying" troll is dying. Things are looking very bad for "*BSD is dying" troll. As many of us are already aware, the "*BSD is dying" troll continues to lose market share; red ink flows like a river of blood.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
Troll leader Anonymous Coward states that there are 7000 users of "BSD is dying troll". How many users of "Red Hat is dying" are there? Let's see. The number of "BSD is dying" versus "Red Hat is dying" posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 "Red Hat is dying" trolls. "Mandrake is dying" troll on Usenet are about half of the volume of "Red Hat is dying" trolls. Therefore there are about 700 users of "Mandrake is dying" troll. A recent article put "Debian is dying" troll at about 80 percent of the Linux market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 "Debian is dying" trolls. This is consistent with the number of "Debian is dying" Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of www.hotgrits.org, abysmal sales and so on, "Debian is dying" troll went out of business and was taken over by "Mandrake is dying" troll who sell another troubled troll.
Major marketing surveys show that the "*BSD is dying" troll has steadily declined in market share. "*BSD is dying" troll is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If the troll is to survive at all it will be among troll hobbyists and dilettantes. The "*BSD is dying" troll continue to falter. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all intents and purposes, the "*BSD is dying" troll is dead.
http://online.securityfocus.com/archive/1/269356/2 002-04-22/2002-04-28/0
1 /269356/2 002-04-22/2002-04-28/0
Five years without a remote hole in the default install!
This is NOT true!
---
Revision 1.39.4.1 / (download) - annotate - [select for diffs] , Thu May 16 21:45:31 2002 UTC (5 days, 17 hours ago) by miod
Branch: OPENBSD_2_9
Changes since 1.39: +6 -5 lines
Diff to previous 1.39 (colored) next main 1.40 (colored)
MFC, requested by millert, diff by itojun:
avoid buffer overrun on PASV from malicious server.
http://online.securityfocus.com/archive/
---
"Remote hole in the default install" means
that someone can break into your server from
a remote location.
Yes.
I ftp out to a ftp-server (which is modified, which I don't know).
Server responds with a long reply in the place of IP and port, pasv buffer will overflow.
Leading to remote code execution.
No ftp-server startet, but remote vulnerable just by ftp out. (no changes, still deafult install)
wInDoWz RuLeS!
-- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
People who are so damn worried about fags are just hiding that they love sucking dick but dont want their friends to find out they are dating the local priest. Hiding behind your dorky winbloze PC wont make you a man little boy... now shut up and swallow my hot load like a good little windoze bitch
Just because you liked getting raped doesn't mean normal people share your views
I'm sure they can afford to, but when did they ever write anything from the ground up?
Mostly they either rip off other people's code or buy up other products outright.
"Microsoft Convicted of Software Piracy
The French subsidiary of one of the world's most vocal opponents of software piracy has itself been convicted of pirating a French 3D animation program.
This is the first ruling in a dispute that dates back to 1995, when Microsoft bought Softimage, a 3D computer-generated image (CGI) specialist which produced software, violating the intellectual property of a small French software house.
The Commercial Court of Nanterre fined Microsoft France £285,000 in damage and interest for Software piracy. "It's a start," said Maitre Altermann, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, "although Microsoft continues to stall on the provisional execution of the judgment.
CW360 - November 30th 2001"
-- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
You already invaladated your self by admitting you use Windows ME!