Slashdot Mirror
OpenBSD 3.2 Readies For Release, pf Matures
An anonymous reader writes "Just over a year ago, OpenBSD creator Theo de Raadt ripped ipfilter out of the OpenBSD code leaving "the world's most secure OS" temporarily without a packet filter. Here's an interesting interview with Daniel Hartmeier, author of pf, the stateful packet filter developed as a replacement. Now just over a year old, it sounds like pf has already become a serious contendor in the world of stateful packet filtering. This interview is of particular relevance with OpenBSD 3.2 to be released on Friday, 11/1."
BSD IS DYING TROLL WE NEED YOU
why why why wont you come out and play bsd is dying troll why must you hide come out and frolick in a bsd related story
2nd worst troll ever.
can you spell that out for me? I'm having trouble following you.
So, is this shit dying or what?!
What exactly is wrong with a Saturday release?
www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
have you ever been kissed by a girl like this?
It isn't the Most Secure OS... It had a recent remote exploit!
Meanwhile Mac OS 8.x and 9.x (not the unix OS X) has NEVER ever had a remote exploit.
Consult bugtraq if you doubt this!
Running MacOS and a commercial webserver and you are immune from remote exploits as evidenced by FACTS based on historical evidence.
No mac server in history is exploitable without first getting in through a local unix server or other means.
And the very few recent defecements attributed on macos were in fact Mac OS X, not the secure Mac OS.
lack of a root user, lack of a shell, usage of byte length specified "pascal style" strings, and other security choises and coincidences make macs the most secure OS.
OpenBSD had a recent exploit therefore the MAC OS (9.2.2 and earlier) wins the securtiy crown.
BSD is dead.
they're releasing it november 1st, you insensitive clod.
F-R-I-D-A-Y.
FreeBSD trolls are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their core trollers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD trolls Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD trolls are dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 OpenBSD is dying trolls. How many NetBSD is dying trolls are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD trolls on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD trolls. *BSD is dying trolls on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 *BSD is dying trolls. A recent article put FreeBSD with an 80 percent marketshare of *BSD is dying trolls. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD trolls. This is consistent with the number of *BSD is dying Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek; troll, flamebait, and offtopic mods; and so on, *BSD trolls went out of business and were taken over by goatse.cx, who peddle another troubled troll. Now The Receiver is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD trolls have steadily declined in market share. *BSD trolls are very sick and there long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD trolls are to survive at all it will be among troll dilettante dabblers. *BSD trolls continue to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save them at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD trolls are dead.
Fact: *BSD trolls are dying.
Interesting? hello, moderators, it's called "google", perhaps you've heard of it?
Great job! I had problems viewing these in the past with Mozilla (I can't afford a real OS like Windows, and the industry standard, Internet Explorer, doesn't work under Linux), but they seem to be fixed now. Thanks!
I am a Computer Information Systems Professional at a major Fortune 500 corporation. Very recently the head of our IT department decided that we were going to switch every one of our networks over to Windows XP Professional. We had previously been running OpenBSD on all our quad processor Xeons. Some of them had had uptimes approaching a year! My personal favourite, Gerbil, had been running without a reboot for three years.
One day one of those Microsoft shills that you often read about on The Register came by for a visit. I grew very suspicious about what was going on when my boss and the Microsoft representative walked by my desk, and entered the server room. I could hear muffled voices through the closed door. The Microsoft representative was asking what we were running on our servers! My worst fears had come true. I sat at my desk for the rest of the day, silently awaiting the bad news. The news did not come until the next day. It was worse than I had feared. We were to be a Microsoft only shop from that day on! I could not believe it. The Microsoft representative had told my boss that the operating and support costs would actually go down. And my boss had fully bought into it, hook, line, and sinker.
Tough times hit our company in the last month, and we were forced to lay off a few of the less experienced IS/IT workers. One of them took this rather hard. As a last minute attempt at corporate sabotage, he decided to change all of the Computer Administrator passwords on a few of the XP Professional boxes sitting around in the server room. This caused absolute havoc, as Dell had failed to send along administrator passwords for the new boxes. Our company could not make use of these computers for three days. It took Dell that long to get us the administrator passwords. It is strictly because of Microsoft's poor implementation of a multi-user computing environment that our company lost three days of productivity.
Needless to say, I had our quad Xeons back running OpenBSD by the end of the week. Gerbil is back on its way to another glorious 3 years of uptime.
mod this troll down
So why now? 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 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.
Hey, although you might not be comfortable with the thought, most people agree that OpenBSD is dying. That is an honest assessment. You really can't argue with the truth, no matter how much the truth might hurt. Truth exists independent of your personal feelings. So suck it up, put your chin up and move on. The death of OpenBSD is not the end of the world. It certainly doesn't have to be the end of your world.
What?! Speak up Billy. Don't cover you mouth when you speak.
I didn't know Theo was a butt pirate!
because it makes more sense. month, then day. increasing specificity.
I think it doesn't make more sense, because as you say, the year is on the end.
DDMMYYYY makes a lot more sense than MMDDYYYY.
Medium significance, lower significance and then higher significance makes little sense.
Of course, the most logical approach is, YYYYMMDD, with significance than follows closer the way we count.
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
Because that's how we speak in 'Merica. When someone asks me when I'll visit next, I say "November second", and not "second of November".
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Of course, the most logical approach is, YYYYMMDD, with significance than follows closer the way we count.
Not only is this the most logical approach, it's the standard approach. ISO 8601 to be exact. Not only is it logical, but it is also very computer friendly since sorting datestamps that are in this format is easy: an ascending sort is a chronological sort.
Mozilla
I think it's because it's closer to how we talk. We say "November 11th, 2002" not "2002, November 11th" or typically "11th of November, 2002" (unlike those pesky Brits.)
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!