Slashdot Mirror
Absolute OpenBSD
OpenBSD is not your average open source operating system, and consequently it does not have an average user community supporting it on the Internet. Absolute OpenBSD (AOB) by Michael W. Lucas, bills itself as "the definitive guide to OpenBSD." In addition to detailing the operating system (OS), Lucas does a wonderful job of illustrating and preparing new users for the different community surrounding OpenBSD.
A book like AOB is going to introduce many new users to OpenBSD, and it would be a disservice both to the existing community and the newcomers to not explain OpenBSD's culture. Thus, the first two chapters discuss the OpenBSD philosophy and also show the user how to become self-supporting when it is time to solve problems rather than flooding the mailing lists with easily answerable questions.
Critics may feel OpenBSD's rugged individualism is an indictment of its usability, but then they may be better served by a different OS.
The next few chapters focus on the installation of OpenBSD. AOB covers both dedicated and multi-boot installations. Most serious users will likely choose the dedicated installation, however Lucas points out that may not be an option for someone looking to sample OpenBSD, or for those users who wish to share a common data partition. Both types are covered, allowing the reader to decide which is most appropriate. Important installation caveats are also mentioned, such as OpenBSD's requirement that its root partition must be completely contained within the first 8 gigabytes of the hard drive. Although OpenBSD supports several different hardware platforms, when specifics are required Lucas focuses on the i386 platform. Lucas does a good job explaining the concepts, so users of non-Intel hardware should have minimal difficulty installing on their particular hardware.
Following the installation discussion, Chapter 6 covers OpenBSD's booting process and its /etc/rc scripts. Lucas' explanations go beyond simply itemizing these different aspects, choosing instead to provide the reader with the reasons a certain option may be needed. Expert users will already know when they wish to boot in single-user mode, but others will appreciate the discussion on how to boot alternate kernels, run fsck, and boot from alternate hard disks.
OpenBSD is promoted as a secure OS, and AOB is diligent in covering this aspect. File flags and securelevels are introduced and discussed. Lucas does a good job explaining what they do and what acceptable scenarios would be for their application. OpenBSD's systrace utility is explained in detail. Writing systrace policies, generating them using the policy-generation tool, and obtaining predefined policies from the Internet is described in depth.
OpenBSD administrative information receives attention as well. Chapters 11 and 12 cover configuring and building custom kernels. The treatment in Chapter 13 of compiling ports and installing packages is very helpful-- and in fact necessary for those looking to install essential utilities such as fortune.
OpenBSD's ports system was originally adapted from that in FreeBSD, and users of that OS may see some similarities. Users from a different background will appreciate the primer.
Three chapters of AOB are devoted to OpenBSD's in-kernel packet filter, pf. This is arguably one of OpenBSD's best features, and Lucas suitably spends a lot of time discussing it. Chapter 17 covers basic pf usage, such as explaining pf's configuration file, tables, and macros. In addition, Lucas takes a timeout to also explain pf's suitability for particular tasks. Chapter 18 describes advanced applications of pf, including network address translation, load balancing, and bandwidth management. Chapter 19 concludes with managing live pf execution. Correctly managing a live firewall on-the-fly is important for sites requiring high uptime, and Lucas does well in explaining the various methods available for logging, viewing statistics, and rule management. Wrapping up, AOB also describes how to configure authenticated pf access by authorized users. "pf" has a lot of power, and spreading the material over 3 chapters worked well in presenting the reader with information at a manageable rate.
One of the strengths of an OS-specific book such as AOB is that the material covered benefits from a more focused approach. If it doesn't apply to OpenBSD, it doesn't need to be covered. Lucas has an experienced background in system administration, and this experience shines through well in the material. His remarks about the dangers of a system with open access via RPC seem especially prophetic in light of current events -- and not mindless ranting.
Overall, AOB is a well-written book that hits its market squarely on target. Those new to OpenBSD will appreciate the comprehensive approach that takes them from concept to functional execution. Existing and advanced users will benefit from the discussion of OpenBSD-specific topics such as the security features and pf administration. Lucas does well in his attempt to increase the number of those who would be practical paranoids.Marius's turn: Reviewer Marius Aamodt Eriksen also liked some aspects of Absolute OpenBSD, but found more faults in it; his critique may help you decide whether this book is for you (and he disagrees about the match between the book and its audience). He writes:
The book covers a very broad area, but it lacks depth in some parts. Perhaps my biggest problem with Absolute OpenBSD is that it should have focused more the features that make OpenBSD unique: its security features. For example, it does not cover IPsec. Many of the various security features of OpenBSD are mentioned, but few are covered in much detail.
Michael Lucas' writing style is quite relaxed and informal. However, this often gets in the way of content. The numerous rants about how Windows security sucks simply get irritating. It is distracting from the focus of the book and simply unneccessary. Also, the tangents on TCP/IP and various other underlying technologies likewise deviate from the focus of the book. Lucas also does not hesitate to express personal opinions and views on a range of subjects. Though I typically have no problems with authors expressing their views, Lucas' tend to be unfounded and not well argued; they too are simply distracting. At times, it almost felt like Lucas was trying to put down less experienced people, teaching them lessons they "should know." I cannot imagine that this is what the typical audience of the book are looking for.
Absolute OpenBSD makes little effort to cover the various architectures that are supported by OpenBSD. The install section only covers i386; though probably not an issue for most users, it would be nice to have a more complete reference.
Otherwise, I would consider the contents of the book to be quite complete, and most definitely sufficient to provide a good introduction to OpenBSD and many of its neat features. An entire chapter is devoted to how to find more help, covering the various documentation, man pages and mailing lists. This is an excellent idea, and makes up for most of the (content) shortcomings of the book.
The PF (Packet Filter) section was very good; it covered a very broad set of features that PF provides, while carrying sufficient technical detail. The examples were very illustrative and appropriate for the text.
I spotted a few technical errors while reading the book. The editing also seems a bit rushed: in addition to the technical errors, there a number of typos. Unfortunately, there isn't an errata section on the book's website; I strongly recommend Lucas and his publisher make one available.
My biggest problem with Absolute OpenBSD is that it is not true to its audience. I imagine that the audience is one which would like to know how to do something in OpenBSD without being told how "real system administrators" do it, or how much Microsoft sucks. My recommendation to Lucas would be to write Absolute System Administration and leave it out of Absolute OpenBSD. I do not mean to sound harsh, merely critical. The book has very many good sides, and by many counts is an excellent reference for people looking to migrate to OpenBSD. I would not have any problems recommending it to anyone who wanted to migrate to OpenBSD or see what it's about -- just be wary of the distractions.
You can purchase Absolute OpenBSD from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
$12 cheaper at Amazon!!! That's 30%!!!
A) The book
or
B) Sex with CmdrTaco's personal mare?
I find it interesting that /. always has links to Barnes & Noble - why not Amazon or Bookpool?
Not a troll - just curious.
But I met both of them, and they seemed perfectly nice.
"Obsolete OpenBSD".
Well, either way...
Amazon: $27.97
Barne$ and Noble 37.95
He writes for Slate now
I'm going to spoil the enjoyment and give out the ending of the book. The last chapter ends by a dramatic sentence:
"Red ink flows like a river of blood".
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
mod this goatse troll down
Do you travel to foriegn lands and tell them to speak your language? No, you learn their's. You obviously learned how to use Linux language, so learn BSD's language.
I'm not drunk, I just have a speech impediment. And a stomach virus. And an inner ear infection.
The link is copyright infringement.
Hmm... the modbots must be out. That only took about a minute to get modded down. Let me test something:
hot grits in pants.
Goatsex-man hurts my eyes hurt!
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Thanks to froogle!
Online documentation is usually of little help if you are setting up a new system from scratch. Also useless if you are trying to figure out how to connect to the 'net. And since you've written half the book already, why not just finish it?
:)
Also, sometimes it's just easier to use off-line references (books, mags, etc) I'm sure just about every bit of information in my collection of OO and C++ books is available in some form online, but does that mean I should get rid off them? Of course not.
Oh, and in case IHBT, oh well
I'd get laughed at if I complained about the lack of Smitty for Linux.
On second thoughts, I'd get laughed at for wanting smitty on any OS.
Here is a good guide to setting up a nat / firewall with openBSD. The page says openBSD 2.9, but I did it with 3.3 easily. Just put what they say to put in /etc/nat.conf into your /etc/pf.conf file. The default install doesn't include emacs, so you'll have to suffer through vi.
Jeff: Critics may feel OpenBSD's rugged individualism is an indictment of its usability, but then they may be better served by a different OS.
Marius: At times, it almost felt like Lucas was trying to put down less experienced people, teaching them lessons they "should know." I cannot imagine that this is what the typical audience of the book are looking for.
... And yet this is the friendly face of OpenBSD towards its newbies. These line says it all about the OpenBSD culture, which is arguably the most hostile towards newbies of any of the major open source OSes. Requesting better usability means that you're an idiot who should use RedHat or one of those other "toy OSes." If you have a question that doesn't involve a honest need for a code change (for purposes other than usability), then you're a time-wasting moron who should've read more first. They don't just suffer no fools; they suffer nothing less than other true, dyed-in-the-wool experts on the system. I'll grant the system it's amazing technical merits, but the worst thing about OpenBSD is its vocal users.
.... how boring for a /.-dotter. But thx for the link, so now I may use this link as my "contact my page" to important and urgent proposals from Nigeria.
This is *the* book to get if you know a little about *NIX/*BSD and want to flesh out what you know. Maybe if I was some expert guru, I'd find the book's informalness and coverage over basics to be a distraction, but no book of this ilk is ever everything for everybody. I'd call this a sort of "middle knowledge" book: not for raw newbies, not for hardcore experts, but for a lot of people in between.
Part of the problem I have had with OpenBSD is a lot of people in the OpenBSD community are strict RTFMA about any help, and the book even mentions that OpenBSD people ARE a bit aloof, and even WHY this is (a good explanation, IMHO, without making OpenBSD people look like eltist snobs). I think if people are told, "Look, this is an OS *by* hard-core programmers who don't have time to answer 'WTF is pf scroood up R wat? LOL!!' or 'set up my sendmail for me, or I'll have a tantrum,' but want more intelligent questions about in-depth subjects," they'd be more understanding, and maybe start with FreeBSD, and work their way towards OpenBSD. Or do like I did, and found some more newbie-friendly OpenBSD people to share accomplishments with.
OpenBSD is a great complement to the *BSD family, and this book can really teach you a lot about how it works, the philosophy behind it, and why things are the way they are.
________________________________________________
www.punkalrus.com - OpenBSD user for over two years
That Lord_Slepnir guy is a moron. Here is a version that's more up to date and is 3.3 compatable. So ignore that first guy. You shouldn't trust him.
Two reasons:
...who suck.
A) Online resources specific to OpenBSD and not just the BSDs or UNIX in general suck.
B) You're less tempted to ask questions of the hateful league of OpenBSD users.
Well can you?
Q: Why can't it be more like Linux?
A: Because OpenBSD doesn't suck.
I prefer Skyy...
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
You're smoking crack, dude. I have an old P166MMX with OpenBSD 3.3 and Netscape 4.75 and it smokes my old P3 with Win2K. Not only that, it handles the load better too. In fact, the 'net browsing on the P166 is better than on my P4 with XP.
Easily fixed (on a net connection):
Sorry, wrong button...
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
The default install doesn't include emacs, so you'll have to suffer through vi.
Or just make it available as a Samba mount, and use notepad on your favorite windows box...
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
My first Unix system was on BSDI box, way before Linux. Since then I have always loved BSD. I have used Linux but I don't like Linux because of different distributions, lack of standards. If I go from a SuSE to a RedHat or to a Slackware box, the environment/file layout and all change. Whereas in BSD, it is always the same. BSDs ports collection is very superior to Linux's rpm and co, and it has existed for a long time. Its wonderful to just cd /usr/ports/package and make install. My main workstation at home is an OpenBSD box, it plays my mp3s, plays movies, I can instant messenger from it, burn my CDs, sync to my palm pilot, use my iomega drive, browse the web, read pdf files, graphics with the gimp, and accomplish every single task I want. Tomorrow, if I wanted to upgrade, I don't have to get a CD, just a simple cd command and make, and my system is up to date with the latest packages. When I sampled Linux, one of the most annoying thing was upgrading, yes, whilst I can upgrade to the latest kernel, I miss out on the latest packages, so I always had to find the latest CD. I use BSD because it is very SOLID and MATURE not cuz I am trying to be elite. At the same time, I worry less about security too! Even the home user has a lot to worry about in security, I keep my diary(private life) on my computer, I keep my non published work on my system, I keep a DB of all my contact info on my system, I even keep some of my passwords on my system, I have lots of my personal code(Intellectual property) on my system. If my system gets compromisied, It will be a very huge personal loss, I rather have my haus burn down than loss my personal data or have someone steal it. ._segmond
That's like asking why doesn't everybody drive the same car?
The BSD license is more attractive to some, while others prefer the GPL. Each OS has strengths, and people use them for many different reasons.
OpenBSD security
NetBSD portability
RedHat Corporate acceptance
Mandrake User Friendly
Debian Strong ties to FSF
Gentoo Customization
Some people don't agree with those characterizations. People don't agree on many things. That's why there are choices.
As for whether it's worth having all these? It's survival of the fittest. If enough people don't like an support an OS/Distro, it will die.
-thoolihan
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
Actually I've been using OpenBSD extensively for about 4 years or so on a variety of systems and architectures. It is very stable, but I wouldn't say it is exceptionally so by 'ix standards. I've run into snags with virtually every new version that manifest on one machine or other. Annoyingly enough, problems often manifest on machines that worked perfectly for all previous versions of OBSD. However, the primary goal of the OpenBSD team is not, and never was uptime or uber-stability -- it is uber-network-security. On this point they have succeeded brillantly -- NetBSD has been no slouch in this area either -- but don't install them both in the same room or you could be injured in the cross-fire =)
There are no mountains in Kansas. Everybody knows that.
What is THIS?
All it does it copy some files... ??
No, no, no! That's "hot grits in Natalie Portman's pants"
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
I've been using OpenBSD on and off for a few years and have always found it works exactly as its meant to. Secure, tight fast. It might no have any/some support for things like SMP but then again its not aiming to..
It can all be summed up in that favourite sig.
"UNIX is userfriendly. Its just really careful in choosing its friends"
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
devil mascot = freebsd
blowfish mascot = openbsd
huh?
~dijjnn
Proud patriot and republican voter.
You are wrong about emacs. OpenBSD includes 'mg' by default. Otherwise known as microEmacs. It has 90% of the Emacs functionality you are likely to want, in only a tiny fraction of the space and memory requirements. It is also a bit of pet project, so they keep improving it. If you really need the GNU-All-conquorering,super-Mega-KitchenSinkInclude d-Emacs, just install it from ports (I'm a syntax highlighting addict myself -- but mg does very nicely in a pinch).
Just use the 'mg' that is part of the default install. mg is like a stripped down emacs.
It does have the stripped down emacs clone mg as part of the default install, so bad luck for you ;-)
It says in the review: ...such as OpenBSD's requirement that its root partition must be completely contained within the first 8 gigabytes of the hard drive.
I've just set up OpenBSD 3.3 on a not-very-critical server, and, not knowing about this limitation, I've just created one big root partition of about 58GB. It's ran fine for the past four days though. Am I likely to run into problems, or has something been changed since the book was published?
I know that there are good reasons for splitting your filesystem across multiple partitions, but is there a particular reason why I need to keep that root partition under 8GB in OpenBSD?
You might want to read my journal if you're interested in why people use OSS OSes. I use FreeBSD becuase it is a very robust, free, secure server operating system and I've come to know it very well. I choose it over Linux distributions because I like the BSD kernel much better, the filesystem layout, and myriad other reasons. There are many choices of software in Linux, BSD and other OSS OSes. I simply find that FreeBSD fits my needs more aptly than other choices. Your choice of operating system obviously has lots to do with your needs. Why do you use the OS you use?
www.sitetronics.com/wordpress
The word 'die' is not mentioned in the post, troll.
Big hint -- your machine isn't working properly --assuming there is nothing wrong with your machine, it probably has unsupported hardware that 'barely works' with BSD. If everyone experienced this, there would all be using NT4 =)
Although I've never used BSD (Open or Free), I did notice this page on netcraft.com the other day. Basically, the 50 web hosts with the longest uptimes are currently ALL running some form of BSD. Netcraft has some interesting things to say about BSD and its place in the market. There is also the lisence issue, but I'm sure some other slashdotters would be more than willing to fill you in on that.
Maybe partying will help...
It is common knowledge that *BSD is dying, that ever hapless *BSD is mired in an irrecoverable and mortifying tangle of fatal trouble. It is perhaps anybody's guess as to which *BSD is the worst off of an admittedly suffering *BSD community. The numbers continue to decline for *BSD but FreeBSD may be hurting the most. Look at the numbers. The erosion of user base for FreeBSD continues in a head spinning downward spiral.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of BSD 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 marketing surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is extremely sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among hobbyist dilettante dabblers. In truth, for all practical purposes *BSD is already dead. It is a dead man walking.
Fact: *BSD is dying
I prefer Irish Whiskey myself, but if you're going to have a Vodka while administering OpenBSD, I'm not gonna stop ya...
I've often wanted to set up a firewall using OpenBSD because it is secure out of box but every time I go and install it, I get frustrated because it is so different from Linux.
.config file, where are all the info pages, where is emacs, where are the rc.? directories and so on?
/etc/rc.conf, and a couple or three man pages?
Where is the kernel's
OpenBSD has got to be the simplest OS to configure for network infrastructure among all the OSes I've worked with (Windows, Solaris, Linux, OpenBSD). Firewall? NAT? In OpenBSD, what is that, three configuration files, including
Also, OpenBSD's manual pages are second to none.
Between the manual pages, the FAQ, and the on-line mailing list archives, almost always is there enough information either for a direct solution or an inferred one. And, usually the inferred solutions are only required for unusual configurations that the user got themselves into (e.g., trying to shoehhorn yet another OS onto a Sun workstation multi-boot config).
I think the best description of the BSD-derived systems out there is that their users tried the other systems first, and, then, choose BSD. The *BSDs are the Apple of the UNIX realm.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Troll alert I have seen your lame post before if you do not know how to process a dd then get another OS and shag your ass with lame windows buttons!
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Whoever modded the parent post down to -1 Offtopic is an idiot. It has complete relevance to the question! The above poster is trying to point out "it's a matter of choice and taste". It's also "a matter of need". Some people drive pickups because they need to haul stuff. some people have minivans because they have big families or the need to transport sizable groups of people otherwise.
/rant
I personally use FreeBSD because Linux didn't satisfy what I was looking for. To me, FreeBSD has all the things that many Linux distros have only a few of. A poster below mentions the reasons for choosing a number of different linux distros (redhat for corporate acceptance, gentoo for customization, etc) for me, FreeBSD has the customization of Gentoo, the stability of Debian, and just an overall feel that I prefer. I really do like Gentoo, but being on a dialup connection, when things fail to build for one reason or another, it's a pain to start over (because the bootstrap.sh fails or something) With FreeBSD I can start with as many binaries on my system as I want, and I can build from source from there. And if I decide I want to rebuild everything from source, so be it. it's a simple "make world" (or something similar. I haven't actually done it yet).
It's all a matter of choice or preference. Just because someone disagrees with THAT is no reason to mod the parent post as Offtopic.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled pants...
*slight crashing sound*
See? Your post didn't get modded down; mine, which added "Natalie Portman", did. If you wanna trigger the modbots you gotta use the right key words.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
Perhaps I missed it in the review, but what version of OpenBSD does the book cover?!
The default install doesn't include emacs, so you'll have to suffer through vi.
It *does* include mg, which is a lite version of emacs. Emacs-like but you can't use your dot.emacs files. If you want real emacs, install it from ports.
I haven't read the book yet, but this was one of the more informative reviews that I've read here.
Come on, if you're gonna s/Mac/BSD/gi, at least be creative about it. You did change G3 to PIII, but remember that BSD is an OS, while Mac is a hardware architecture, so phases like "the BSD machine's faster chip architecture" don't make sense anymore, and since it's free, there's no "cheaper."
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
There are very few things that make OpenBSD unique from other BSD OS's... security features like "IPSEC" are available in FreeBSD, NetBSD, and others as well. That certainly is not unique to OpenBSD. Cryptography is just as much a focus in FreeBSD development as it is for OpenBSD.
I don't feel that OpenBSD's status for being the "most secure OS" is anything but general FUD, and I have news for you all, before you call me bigoted towards FreeBSD.... I rely on OpenBSD for fully half of what I do. I have several internet connected OpenBSD boxes. An OS is only as secure as the person adminning it is clueful.
FreeBSD The Power to Serve
If enough people don't like an support an OS/Distro, it will die.
Helps partially explain Caldera (and Corel) employess crying over spilled milk.
I just wish more OS people had taken a class in Software Engineering.
-B
Let me count the ways...
I may be generalizing, but when you need hardware compatibility, go with Linux; when you require security, go with OpenBSD.
AFAIK, OpenBSD is the only UNIX(like) distribution with chroot Apache out of the box.
There are quite a few things that I don't like about OpenBSD, but I've learned to live with them.
This reminds me very much of the things I did before my first Linux installation in '96. I bought the book, "Red Hat Linux Unleashed", which just happened to have a RH 3.0.3 distro on one CD in a little envelope inside the cover. Skipping very few details, I read all 1100ish pages before even trying. I ran into enough troubles that I didn't regret the investment in time. As someone who hadn't taken any open systems courses in college, this was the way to go. It seems that a "paranoid operating system" would have all the same incentives in place for quite a few folks that were the situation was for me as a 100% Un*x newbie with DOS skills. YMMV of course.
OpenBSD runs on my machine without the problems you've mentioned. Does Netscape run as fast as IE on the same platform? Well .. no (and for some IE-designed sites, it is not even close). To say nothing of how long it takes Netscape to start up. However, Konqueror-Embedded is very fast, and Dillo is lightening fast. Mozilla, uhh ... makes very pretty screen-captures. But on another note, my OpenBSD machine didn't start shutting itself off yesterday. There are always tradeoffs....
If you can get it at a physical Barnes & Noble in your own town, you could easily save $12 in shipping.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
what is it that draws people to it? Is it 1337ism or what?
After fighting with Windows and Linux, using one of the BSDs can be almost as refreshing as a fresh cold beer right off the tap. All it takes is one look at OpenBSD, and its crisp clean frothy goodness beckons at you with its siren song of objective simplicity.
Why don't people all use Linux or all use BSD?
It suffices to say that there are dramatic, but often subtle, differences between GNU/Linux and BSD. For example, I would suspect that a proponent of BSD would also not be a proponent of RPM-based package management nor of the GNU "cross-platform" configuration managment tools.
If none of this makes sense to you, I suggest working with Windows for a while, then Red Hat Linux, then Slackware Linux, and then one of the BSDs (in that order). If you perceive a sense of progress from one phase to the next, then BSD is for you; if you percieve a regression, then, perhaps, you should stick with Windows.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
OpenBSD is pretty stable. I currently have half a dozen systems running with an uptime of 50 days, and I've had 200+ days on multiple boxes. It goes down for major system maintenance and that's about it. I've used it for internet-facing webservers and for mailservers.
--LP, ignoring the 'do not feed the trolls' sign
It is common knowledge that *BSD is dying, that ever hapless *BSD is mired in an irrecoverable and mortifying tangle of fatal trouble. It is perhaps anybody's guess as to which *BSD is the worst off of an admittedly suffering *BSD community. The numbers continue to decline for *BSD but FreeBSD may be hurting the most. Look at the numbers. The erosion of user base for FreeBSD continues in a head spinning downward spiral.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of BSD 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 marketing surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is extremely sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among hobbyist dilettante dabblers. In truth, for all practical purposes *BSD is already dead. It is a dead man walking.
Fact: *BSD is dying.
I can recommend Sam's Teach Yourself Absolute OpenBSD Annoyances for Dummies in 24 Hours Unleashed -HOWTO.
BSD had been alive for quite a while at this point - frequently running on Digital's VAX hardware and other hardware more suited to running multitasking operating systems. But BSD was the subject of a lawsuit amongst AT&T/USL, UC-Berkeley, and another commercial venture that wanted to sell BSD Unix but whose name escapes me. No one knew who owned BSD and whether the code was encumbered.
So when Linus began writing his own OS, he started from scratch rather than work from BSD's code base. Once the court cases were settled and BSD was declared free of IP encumbrance, Linux had already developed a head of steam.
The BSD community continued to develop BSD for their more traditional Unix hardware while Linux continued to grow in the PC market. Some BSD developers, however, did port back to the x86 architecture. Gradually the x86 based chips grew in power to rival the traditional Unix hardware and now the BSD and Linux systems are competing in the same marketplace.
Today the major differences between BSD and Linux are the developer communities. Linux has a very large community, hence it has more hardware support. The three main BSD (OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and NetBSD) communities are smaller and tighter knit. There may be a level of elitism, in that the BSD people tended to come from professional Unix backgrounds while the Linux culture was formed by people who played with computers in their basements. Imagine that there was a contest to build an ultra-light aircraft of certain capability. The BSD people are the team made up of Boeing Engineers and NASA scientists while the Linux people are the people that build kites, fly RC aircraft, and launch model rockets in their spare time.
That being said, the three flavors of BSD offer a lot to the community. FreeBSD is a rock solid general purpose OS. It is most notably the core of Apple's OS-X. The NetBSD community has focused on porting to every platform known to man. Rather than concentrate on special features, they make sure that virtually every modern processor and chipset can run NetBSD. The OpenBSD community has focused on security a properly administered OpenBSD server is probably more secure than just about any other system that can be put on the network. It has been several years since anyone has found a bug in OpenBSD that would allow someone to run arbitrary code as root.
A smart thing to do is to allow the OSs to play to their strengths. If I were setting up a corporate environment, I'd probably use OpenBSD based servers on the edge of my network as internet webservers, mailservers, etc. Inside my network, I'd probably use Linux for application and resource servers (file sharing, databases, etc) since a lot of commercial support form companies like IBM and Oracle is available for Linux. At the desktop, I'd probably use Linux as well, for the greater hardware support. However, if I had a significant MAC user community I might use FreeBSD instead of Linux.
If you are going to say stuff like this, perhaps you could point me to a mailing list post or something that proves your point? People don't request better usability, they say shit like "linux does x, why doesn't openbsd" cause they are too lazy to learn the openbsd way of doing things.
Yes, people get tired of newbies who have no desire to learn, and just want to use a linux system where uname says OpenBSD. So those people are told if they want linux, to use linux. Almost seems rational to me. What would you say if everyone kept asking on a linux distro list where the ports tree was, why they couldn't cvs update their system, where isakmpd went, how do you install pf on linux, etc?
I'm glad I made a good impression, though!
Like how to mount a native floppy. Stuff so basic it never occurred to anybody to put in an obvious form.
I usually put my questions in the form: "I know this is basic, and here's what steps I've taken to find the answer....any clues to share?"
I may have just lucked out or caught people at propitious times in their meds routine.
My big project at the moment is setting up some sparc boxes with the newest rev. with some lovely anti stack-smashing, not avail on x86.
...when the box gets h4ck3d?
there's no place like ~
Are SoftUpdates turned on? That vastly increases file write time. Are you copying between partitions? That will really slow things down. What flavor and version of *BSD are you running? Some versions/flavors are better than others. For what it's worth, in a very unscientific poll, I find NetBSD 1.6 to be the fastest on large file copies. What are the blocksizes like on the partition you are copying to? If they are too small that will also slow you down. Finally, I assume you are charging by the hour, and with that, you are fired. ;-)
I was born on a command line, no really... Used to make firewalls with RedHat, ohh the pain. OpenBSD offers more out of the box than most other OS's, If I need a Firewall I grab a copy and let the packets fly. Interesting note OBSD is the ONLY NIX that can do this, Invisible Firewall RedHat is based on Minix. BSD was around much longer than that, and ultimately they all came from Multics/UniCS, but how many here ever worked on PDP11? BSD also has the benifit of millons of slave labour hours from thousands of University Students. No other operating system can have that kind of claim. I'm happy to call OBSD a Canadian Product. You will love the blowfish!
Phew it's about time someone said that. ipchains/iptables is ridiculously hairy and overly complicated to set up. Compare that to pf, which in contrast is more secure, easier to set up, and uses plain English, easy-to-understand syntax in pf.conf.
The same post comes up with every *BSD article. The 17 meg file copy has taken at least 2 months.
Yeah, because FreeBSD has swap encryption right? And integrated propolice? And W^X too of course. Don't forget systrace. And they're obviously been auditing just as much as the openbsd guys, as you can tell from the number of exploits. Wanna count the number of suid binaries in OpenBSD and FreeBSD?
Of course an incompetant admin can make any machine insecure, that doesn't mean OpenBSD isn't more secure than FreeBSD.
Okay, I was going to say OS X is not FreeBSD based, but from Apple's mouth:
I'm confused. I didn't think "monolithic kernel" and "Mach" could be in the same system at the same time.
So OS X's kernel is based on 4.4BSD-Lite2, FreeBSD 4.4 and OSF/mk Mach 3. Um, yeah.
But at any rate I'm not sure you can call FreeBSD the core of OS X.
How are things out East, today? I'm sorry to say that your Red Sox are going to lose to my Oakland A's today. The Sox are past due for their August slump, you know. :)
If you want to support OpenBSD in order, you can order it directly from http://books.kd85.com/
KD85.com does all the shipping for Europe (also resells Soekris hardware http://soekris.kd85.com)
I think you meant pored.
they have one more guide newer Here it's the 3.1 version of that guide.
Slashdot used to maintain a link on the front page saying "Order your Amazon books here so that I can get a kickback" (or something similar). It was removed sometime around the Andover buyout.
I enjoyed Micheal Lucas' other book, "Absolute BSD", which mainly covers FreeBSD, very much.
It helps alot, even for things that are covered in the (excellent) FreeBSD handbook by giving another perspective.
I strongly recommend "Absolute BSD" - guess I might order myself a copy of "Absolute OpenBSD" soon.
-- I love the smell of Blue Screens in the morning.
Because it's not Linux. I'm sure that there are BSD'ers who have been saying "Why is Linux not more like BSD?" since Linux was first released.
Why can't we agree on one kind of a setup?
Because overly dogmatic and unecessary standards stifle innovation.
Open Source and Free Software is the primary defense against a monoculture in the operating system ecology. Standards are necessary for interoperability between different OSs and for reasonable levels of acceptability as far as programmability, security, and stability, are concerned, but there are areas that standards are uneccessary or intrusive, such as user interface.
The posix shell interface standard exists and is a good one, because it allows for cross platform scripting, but a desktop "standard" is uneccessary interference because there is no reason for every desktop to look and behave the same or have the same set of complicated dependancies.
The same applies for init methods and methods as each init scheme has it's own benefits and problems. If only one schema were used everywhere, then there'd be lttle to argue about and all of these brilliant system integrators and designers would get bored, and possibly log of of irc, leave thier mother's basements, and wreck havoc on the rest of civilization.
So, you see, it is these little differences that we depend on to keep the world safe for democracy.
Read, L
Get a new template, tis one is starting to wear rather thin.
Read, L
....you just need to:
/usr/ports/editors/emacs21
:-)
# cd
# make
# make install
or you could just be a pansy and use the pkg_add url that someone else posted to grab that yummy emacs21 binary.
But you don't get all of the elisp sources that way...you DO want the elisp sources, don't you?
It is common knowledge that *BSD is dying, that ever hapless *BSD is mired in an irrecoverable and mortifying tangle of fatal trouble. It is perhaps anybody's guess as to which *BSD is the worst off of an admittedly suffering *BSD community. The numbers continue to decline for *BSD but FreeBSD may be hurting the most. Look at the numbers. The loss of user base for FreeBSD continues in a head spinning downward spiral.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of BSD 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 marketing surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is extremely sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dilettante dabblers. In truth, for all practical purposes *BSD is already dead. It is a dead man walking.
Fact: *BSD is dying
It is common knowledge that *BSD is dying, that ever hapless *BSD is mired in an irrecoverable and mortifying tangle of fatal trouble. It is perhaps anybody's guess as to which *BSD is the worst off of an admittedly suffering *BSD community. The numbers continue to decline for *BSD but FreeBSD may be hurting the most. Look at the numbers. The loss of user base for FreeBSD continues in a head spinning downward spiral.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of BSD 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 marketing surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is extremely sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dilettante dabblers. In truth, for all practical purposes it is already dead. *BSD is a dead man walking.
Fact: *BSD is dying
*BSD is dying
Interesting fact: *BSD is dying
The default install has mg, an emacs-like editor with a neat hidden feature :)
It is common knowledge that *BSD is dying, that ever hapless *BSD is mired in an irrecoverable and mortifying tangle of fatal trouble. It is perhaps anybody's guess as to which *BSD is the worst off of an admittedly suffering *BSD community. The numbers continue to decline for *BSD but FreeBSD may be hurting the most. Look at the numbers. The loss of user base for FreeBSD continues in a head spinning downward spiral.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of BSD 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 marketing surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is extremely sick and its long term survival prospects are infinitesimally dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among hobbyist dilettante dabblers. In truth, for all practical purposes *BSD is already dead. It is a dead man walking.
Fact: *BSD is dying
Exactly!
OpenBSD is the only BSD or Linux distro that I actually download off the primary site. I even download Gentoo files off ftp.openbsd.org, as it's a mirror of Gentoo's repository.
It's not very far (network wise) from Shaw's internet backbone, and I regularly get download speeds of 350 k/s or more.
Any Western Canadians out there, give it a try! The server's in Edmonton, AB, it's also known as sunsite.ualberta.ca
God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
I'm pretty happy with it. I'm just getting into OpenBSD, and this book makes it pretty easy to get started on complicated things. It's not for people with no experience, but neither is OpenBSD.
When someone might yell at me, it has to be OpenBSD.
The numerous facts about how Windows security sucks gets pretty irritating too.
At the risk of bringing this back on topic...
Does Mr. Lucas address OpenBSD's compat_linux?
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq9.html
He does in the book's predecessor "Absolute (Free)BSD" and has a rocking article on compat_linux "the hard way" at OnLamp
MD
Is it dying like Apple has been dying for the last 15+ years? or is it dying like the humour value of your post?