Slashdot Mirror
OpenBSD Packet Filter Ported To NetBSD, FreeBSD
honold writes "just read this on deadly.org (from Pyun YongHyeon):
"Hello there.
I have ported pf to FreeBSD 5.0 Currently it works well, though many nice features of pf not tested. I have ported to make FreeBSD users know there is an another excellent stateful packet filter with BSD license. URL is the following.
ftp://ftp.kr.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD-kr/misc/pf_fr eebsd_0.3.tar.bz2
Thanks."
netbsd has a port as well
Where are you, Linux?"
This shows which OS will survive. BSD is like a roach...
It's a story so boring that even the trolls won't touch it. LMFAO.
"Where are you, Linux?" I'm not sure I understand the question; Linux has had packet filtering for years now...
I'm going to take up the challenge here of explaining why this is interesting. Since November of 2002, OpenBSD's pf has had support for load balancing. RedHat's $2499 Premium Edition of their Enterprise distro features Piranha load balancing which was derived from the Linux High Availability project.
So what the OpenBSD pf project is giving you is enterprise-class high availability and load-balance clustering for a tiny fraction of the price. With a handful of cheap dotcom-throw-away x86 servers, a small company or mildly well-capitalized individual can personally build a multi-datacenter-fault-tolerant clustering setup that will rival Fortune 500 uptime ratings.
In other words, the pf project's list of accomplishments is starting to read like a ToDo list for RedHat's Enterprise Linux development team.
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
Yes, they are behind the stick, again...
When porting pf was first proposed on the FreeBSD mailing lists, the general opinion was that it would be a Bad Idea. pf may be great, but having two firewalls built into FreeBSD has caused much confusion in the past.
Remember, perfection comes not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
I've been waiting for this for sooo long.
Alas, it's lagging behind OpenBSD's PF
From the TO DO section of the readme:
merge new features from OpenBSD 3.3 pf
- traffic shaping using ALTQ
- load balancing between multiple routes
- prevention up-link saturation for xDSL users
Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
This may be a little offtopic as it applies to firewalls and not BSD, bear with me.
Why all the different firewalls programs, do they function differently, perform different functions?
Different target user or target networks?
They all seem to be trying to do the exact same thing? Why the variety?
Yes, they are behind the stick, again...
They are always in front of the "stick," bent over & ready to go.
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 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.
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
[ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]
When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.
Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.
FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.
It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.
So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.
Discussion
I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.
From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.
There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.
Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.
Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?
Shouts
To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.
To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. It
DYING!dYing!DyINg! dying! dYInG! dyinG! DyinG! dYINg! dyING! DYing! DyInG! dYiNg! DYiNG! dYInG! DYing! DyING!dYING! dYInG! DYING! dyING! DYing! DyInG! DYING! dYing! DyINg! dying! dYInG! dYING! dYInG! DYING!dyING! dYing! DyINg! dying! dYInG! DYing! DyInG! dYiNg! DYiNG! dYInG! DYing! DyING! dYING!DYING! dyInG! DyING! DYINg! dYing! DyINg! dying! dYInG! dyinG! DyinG! dYING! dYINg! dyING! DYing! DyInG! dYiNg! DYiNG! DYING! dYinG! dYInG! DYing!DyING! dYING! dYInG! DYING! dyING! DYing! DyInG! DYING! dYing! DyINg! dying! dYInG! dyInG! DYING! dYing! DyINg! dying! dYInG! dyinG! DyinG! dYINg! dyING! DYing! DyInG!dYiNg! DYiNG! dYInG! DYing! DyING! dYING! dYInG! DYING! dyING! DYing!DyInG! DYING! dYing! DyINg! dying! dYInG! dYING! dYInG! DYING! dyING! dYing! DyINg! dying! dYInG! DYing! DyInG! dYiNg! DYiNG! dYInG! DYing! DyING! dYING! DYING! dyInG! DyING! DYINg! dYing! DyINg! dying! dYInG! dyinG! DyinG! dYING! dYINg! dyING! DYing! DyInG!dYiNg! DYiNG! DYING! dYinG! dYInG! DYing! DyING!dYING! dYInG! DYING! dyING! DYing! DyInG! DYING! dYing! DyINg! dying! dYInG! dyInG! DYING! dYing! DyINg! dying! dYInG! dyinG! DyinG! dYINg! dyING! DYing! DyInG! dYiNg! DYiNG! dYInG! DYing! DyING! dYING! dYInG! DYING! dyING! DYing! DyInG! DYING! dYing! DyINg! dying! dYInG! dYING! dYInG! DYING! dyING!dYing! DyINg! dying! dYInG! DYing! DyInG! dYiNg! DYiNG! dYInG! DYing! DyING! dYING! DYING! dyInG! DyING! DYINg! dYing! DyINg! dying! dYInG! dyinG! DyinG! dYING! dYINg! dyING! DYing! DyInG! dYiNg! DYiNG! DYING! dYinG! dYInG! DYing! DyING! dYING! dYInG! DYING! dyING! DYing! DyInG! DYING! dYing! DyINg! dying! dYInG! dyInG! DYING! dYing! DyINg! dying! dYInG! dyinG!DyinG! dYINg! dyING! DYing! DyInG! dYiNg! DYiNG! dYInG! DYing! DyING! dYING! dYInG! DYING! dyING! DYing! DyInG! DYING!dYing! DyINg! dying! dYInG! dYING! dYInG! DYING! dyING! dYing! DyINg! dying! dYInG! DYing!DyInG! dYiNg! DYiNG! dYInG! DYing! DyING! dYING! DYING! dyInG! DyING! DYINg! dYing! DyINg! dying! dYInG! dyinG! DyinG!dYING! dYINg! dyING! DYing! DyInG! dYiNg! DYiNG! DYING! dYinG! dYInG!DYing! DyING! dYING! dYInG! DYING! dyING! DYing! DyInG! DYING! dYing! DyINg! dying! dYInG! dyInG! DYING! dYing! DyINg! dying! dYInG! dyinG! DyinG! dYINg! dyING! DYing! DyInG! dYiNg! DYiNG! dYInG! DYing! DyING!dYING! dYInG! DYING! dyING! DYing! DyInG! dYING! DYING! dyInG! DyING! DYINg! dYing! DyINg! dying! dYInG! dyinG! DyinG! dYING! dYINg! dyING! DYing! DyInG! dYiNg! DYiNG! DYING! dYinG! dYInG! DYing! DyING! dYING! dYInG!DYING! dyING! DYing! DyInG! DYING! dYing! DyINg! dying! dYInG! dyInG! DYING! dYing! DyINg! dying! dYInG! dyinG! DyinG! dYINg! dyING! DYing! DyInG! dYiNg! DYiNG! dYInG! DYing! DyING! dYING! dYInG! DYING! dyING! DYing! DyInG! DYING!dYing! DyINg! dying! dYInG! dYING! dYInG! DYING! dyING! dYing! DyINg! dying! dYInG! DYing! DyInG! dYiNg! DYiNG! dYInG!DYing! DyING! dYING! DYING! dyInG! DyING! DYINg! dYing! DyINg! dying! dYInG! dyinG! DyinG!dYING! dYINg! dyING! DYing! DyInG! dYiNg! DYiNG! DYING! dYinG! dYInG! DYing! DyING! dYING! dYInG! DYING! dyING! DYing! DyInG! DYING! dYing! DyINg! dying! dYInG! dyInG!
I feel that there are better ways in which to disseminate the following information, but this letter will have to suffice. If you disagree with my claim that Coach Mother Fucker's disciples must be worn out from the acrobatics they have to perform to keep Coach Fucker from turning on them, too, then read no further. He is blinded by greed, but given the way things are these days, we must remember that even when the facts don't fit, he sometimes tries to use them anyway. He still maintains, for instance, that he is the one who will lead us to our great shining future. In order to solve the big problems with him, we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must discuss the programmatic foundations of his short-sighted op-ed pieces in detail. With all due respect, Coach Fucker constantly insists that he is a perpetual victim of injustice. But he contradicts himself when he says that his complaints enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness.
I may not
Subject says it all.