Slashdot Mirror
OpenBSD: Hackers Meet Soldiers
BSDForums writes "OpenBSD has a well-deserved reputation for fanatical security. Why is the U.S. military funding it? What do you get out of it? Cameron Laird and George Peter Staplin investigate and talk to Theo de Raadt, the creator, overseer, and taskmaster of the OpenBSD project!"
Why not? They've tried it with Windows nt, which didn't work, so maybe there's more trust in open systems since then.
I think NetBSD falls more into that catagory.
I remember hearing a good explanation of there "roles".
This isn't exact, but close enough.
FreeBSD, a sportscar. Hauls ass.
NetBSD, a hummer (or a jeep). Can go anywhere.
OpenBSD, a tank. I'd feel safe in one.
Anyone know who originally explained it similar to this? I'd like the original quote.
For those of you interested in this topic, you should also be aware of RedHat's DII COE (Common Operating Environment) kernel available at DISA. The kernel is available at http://diicoe.disa.mil/coe/kpc/linuxpc.html
The creation of DII COE kernel for RedHat implies that there may be some pressure to accept GNOME as a valid component of the Joint Technical Architecture (JTA).
In other words, the military bureaucracy is beginning to accept the fact that linux is part of the modern computing landscape. (Watching the wheels of military technology turn is like watching grass grow)
Although OpenBSD has recently gotten a reputition for being ubersecure, and thus this article about how it has been getting funds from DARPA, it is by no means unique. It seems that this perception of OBSD has come from its ability to do encrypted swap, and encryption in most faculties; however, it blatently neglects disk based security.
I'd like to point out that DARPA is also funding the FreeBSD project, specifically enabling the development of FBSD 5.0's geom/gbde functions, which enable a fully modular disk access system, and transparent drive encryption. Really cool features, and it looks like once the code gets a stronger review from the crypto community it should really open up the possibilites for securing FBSD.
**AA: a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes
Contributions to BSD don't really help us as much. . .
Speak for yourself - those of us who run BSD on our production servers find contributions useful.
If you pay a little attention to what the OpenBSD core team says and does, you'd realize that there is little-to-no danger that government funding will take the project in any directions but those stated in the project goals.
The government won't let us distribute our own crypto freely, but they fund foreigners to make cryptography, to distribute to the whole world?
I run Debian, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD. Debian is not even close to the simplicity of OpenBSD. In particular Debian suffers from a lack of a true default (complete) install. OpenBSD's default install is "everything you want in a *nix and nothing more." FreeBSD has a few more nice to have features. By comparision Debian is quite complex. Debian's philosophy of choice, choice, and more choice has its place (and is the reason I use it). However a side effect is that the Debian team won't come out and package up a default system that is well integrated and contains the basic unix tools and servers. OpenBSD has a smaller footprint then Debian for the same basic functionality because OpenBSD does not have all the support files Debian needs to seemlessly work with any of the 56 mailservers packaged in debs.
All three systems are equally easy to administer due to ports and apt-get. I do find that Debian is easier to keep current as apt-get/dpkg does a better job of upgradeing from one version to the next. Some admin basic admin tasks are easier under OpenBSD/FreeBSD as there is just less cruff to deal with. I prefer *BSD on my servers as I can "install and forget." I prefer Debian/testing on my workstations as it combines a good mix of current software and stability.
If you like Gentoo (which I also use) switch to FreeBSD. The packages in FreeBSD ports are better then Gentoo's ebuilds. FreeBSD aims for stability. Gentoo has a tendancy to apply too many bleeding edge patches. FreeBSD does have a completely different way of manageing the source, so it will take some getting used to.
If I remember correctly, OpenBSD development was based in Canada (in part) because encryption code was considered a munition and thus the US government refused to allow it's export (while it was allowed from Canada).
Now the military (who were probably the source of these rules) are paying for the continued development of a technology that the forced out of the country on security grounds.
Convoluted enough for you???
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.