MicroBSD 0.6RC2 Released

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by michael on Thursday January 2, 2003 @04:44AM from the size-is-everything dept.

RooTchO writes "Included in this release is the new Extended Security Features, Improved/Additional sysctl parameters. New binaries in this release are: pfradix, pfsyncd, aclctl, netacl, getfacl, setfacl and cgdconfig. We have added chrooted sshd, apache, bind. Special files to also see are /etc/sysctl.conf, /etc/acl.conf and /etc/sshd/sshd_conf. And many new other goodies :)))"

30 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

What is it? by Samus · 2003-01-02 05:36 · Score: 1

I hate going to a site about software and its a slash style setup. I would say its a kludge to shoe horn what should be a brochure type site into a slash style site but kludges work.
Having said that could someone explain a bit about microbsd and what it is compared to something like freebsd? Is this something where I would use in an embedded style application or what? I've got some home projects in mind where a small light standards based os would be beneficial.

--
In Republican America phones tap you.
1. Re:What is it? by LumpyCartman · 2003-01-02 05:47 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  http://www.microbsd.net/doc/handbook/nutshell.html
2. Re:What is it? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-02 09:47 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  It's small, lean and from what I've seen has the best of all BSD's incorporated into it.
  
  Best of all, it's BSD licenced rather than the restrictive GPL.
3. Re:What is it? by evil_pb · 2003-01-02 10:36 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I believe for the embedded apps you want something more like PicoBSD. I think there are even small embedded systems being sold with that, but I'm not 100% sure. Their site should have a list of compatible hardware however.
"Actual Release" or an "Almost release"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-02 10:00 · Score: 1, Funny

So is this an "Actual Release" or an "Almost release"? Gets so confusing these days ;o)
1. Re:"Actual Release" or an "Almost release"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-02 10:41 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  This is Release Candidate 2, hopefully the last before the 0.6 Final....
Linkz for the Lazee by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-02 11:36 · Score: 0

http://www.microbsd.net/doc/handbook/nutshell.html
Re:What is it? Where is it.... by 8BitWimp · 2003-01-02 12:24 · Score: 1

it's here: http://people.freebsd.org/~picobsd/picobsd.html
we dont need yaBSD. by mnmn · 2003-01-03 02:25 · Score: 2

Yet Another BSD??

IT claims securiy. I thought OpenBSD did fine. It claims small footprint. I though NetBSD did that job. It claims best features of Freebsd+Net+Open but I didnt find the token ring driver in it...

FreeBSD unifying with NetBSD and OpenBSD would be news, but this really isnt.

Look Ma! I glued this to that, and have a new OS. At the risk of sounding like a troll, I'll say this isnt a useful OS and its goals arent convincing at least to me. These developers can better spend their time enhancing the existing BSD's and moving features from one BSD to another. That wouldnt make news but would be more useful.

--
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
1. Re:we dont need yaBSD. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-03 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  For some reason I don't think the authors of MicroBSD care about your opinion.
2. Re:we dont need yaBSD. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-03 08:31 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  For some reason I don't think the authors of MicroBSD care about your opinion.
  
  True enough, however I think that person was essentially on the money. These energies are probably better spent on enhancing one of the existing BSDs. As both a BSD user and contributor, I know I would prefer to see the forks of BSD stop and either stay as they are, or unify for mutual benefit... than wither on the vine as these separate projects.
  
  But then part of me says that's just how it goes. People might have philosophical differences between themselves and the core developers of the existing BSDs, so they make their own fork to satisfy themselves... if not to serve people like them.
  
  We can only hope that the BSDs learn how to do more code-sharing than they have been. And hope that the developers become more friendly and find new ways to encourage people to make code contributions.
  
  I'm not suggesting that they should all homogenize, but they should try to offer the same features, perhaps presented and managed differently. Then people can pick the best subjective fit for them, and it doesn't matter which one they choose, because it's BSD, and they all more or less universally do the same exact thing...
  
  That'd be the perfect-picture scenario, but alas.
  
  I'm hedging my bets on FreeBSD, particularly with the 5.x branch. The only thing the FreeBSD project needs is more platforms, and some improvements to the ports system. (Yes, I believe that they have been leapfrogged by Gentoo's implementation of ports).
Re:MicroBSD is dying? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-03 02:49 · Score: 0

More alive then you would know and staying that way it seems, they seems to have been doing this for over a year when 0.1 came out. I expect we will see more of them
Dead On Arrival by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-03 07:42 · Score: 0

*BSD is dying, microBSD is already dead.
Chrooted? by evilviper · 2003-01-03 07:59 · Score: 2

What is CHROOTED SSHD? Does that mean each user runs their own SSHD chrooted to their own home directory? That might screw things up.

Or was that refering to Privlidge Severation, and the author is clueless?

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
1. Re:Chrooted? by benjamindees · 2003-01-04 19:50 · Score: 2
  
  I assume it just means that sshd now drops root priviledges after it binds to it's network port. This enables it to run securely under a chroot jail, since running programs as root in a jail enables a hacker to be able to "break out" if he/she can exploit a security hole in the program, and defeats the purpose of using chroot.
  
  --
  "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
2. Re:Chrooted? by evilviper · 2003-01-05 10:02 · Score: 2
  
  Well if sshd drops privlidges after it binds to a privlidged port, it can't authenticate users, as it would have no access to passwords, and it can't give users access to their home directories, as it would be chrooted.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
3. Re:Chrooted? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-06 04:15 · Score: 0
  
  It would also be nice if you knew what you were talking about. Just because something isnt running as root, doesnt mean it cant authnticate. Do your homework before you open your mouth
4. Re:Chrooted? by evilviper · 2003-01-06 11:42 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, there are ways to check passwords without being root... I sincerely doubt that 99.9% of them would work if the user whom is trying to do the authentication is chrooted. At the very least, they would have to have an SUID executable to perform thauthentication, which would almost completely defeat the purpose of chrooting SSHd. Besides, sshd still wouldn't have access to user's home directories.
  
  Sounds like you need to do a little homework yourself.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
5. Re:Chrooted? by benjamindees · 2003-01-07 11:56 · Score: 2
  
  I would just point out that it does, in fact, seem possible to run ssh chroot as this document indicates. The user passwords and home directories would, of course, have to be included in the jail as well. It's not something that can be used for system administration, obviously.
  
  --
  "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Celebrate! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-03 11:04 · Score: 0

All the two people that use it threw a party.
1. Re:Celebrate! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-06 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  two people. Hrmmm over 5000 hits a,d 750 downloads in a few days, id say thats more then two people
ATTN: Web Pages That Suck by SecretAsianMan · 2003-01-03 11:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

Well, my 15-second perusal of their site has thoroughly convinced me to steer clear of their project. I can figure out the "BSD" part of the name, but what does "micro" mean? Is it for embedded machines? Is it a floppy distro? Is it just a small distro? Maybe it is BSD for microcomputers, and they don't know about Free/Net/OpenBSD.
The first thing I see when I go to the FreeBSD website is this:
FreeBSD is an advanced operating system for x86 compatible, DEC Alpha, and PC-98 architectures. It is derived from BSD UNIX, the version of UNIX developed at the University of California, Berkeley. It is developed and maintained by a large team of individuals. Additional platforms are in various stages of development.
In my 15-second perusal of the FreeBSD site, I get a good idea of what FreeBSD is. The only impression I get from the MicroBSD site is that they care more about blogwhoring than about writing any real software.
Frankly, branching a new distro for some petty reason (I'm going to assume that's what it is since it is so damn hard to find out) instead of contributing tools and patches to an existing BSD seems just a tad too reminiscent of that other large free OS community.

--
Washington, DC: It's like Hollywood for ugly people.
1. Re:ATTN: Web Pages That Suck by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-04 20:29 · Score: 0
  
  I can figure out the "BSD" part of the name, but what does "micro" mean?
  It was a coy reference to your penis size, you being Asian and all.
2. Re:ATTN: Web Pages That Suck by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-07 13:43 · Score: 0
  
  hahahahahahaha *choke* *choke* hahahhaaaaaaaaahaha
Now we have proof... by freestyle-fiend · 2003-01-03 12:22 · Score: 0

of reincarnation!
all these *BSD by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-04 19:44 · Score: 0

but is there a realtime BSD somewhere for download?