OpenBSD3.4 Shipping

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by timothy on Wednesday October 15, 2003 @01:07AM from the ahead-of-time dept.

skelley writes "As seen on deadly.org, OpenBSD 3.4 CDs have begin to ship. If you ordered one already, you should see a charge appear on your credit card (if that's how you paid) and you should expect to see your CD in the next few days to week (depending on where you are). The CDs are being shipped from Calgary. This is earlier than expected, but hey ... enjoy it!"

22 of 55 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Isn't that a mistake? by Noryungi · 2003-10-15 02:58 · Score: 1

I still can't order OpenBSD 3.4 throught its web site. Unless I am mistaken, I think this announcement was a little bit premature...

--
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
1. Re:Isn't that a mistake? by thelaw · 2003-10-15 03:55 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  actually, those of us who pre-ordered 3.4 have the privilege of getting the released CDs first. after they've completed those orders, everybody else gets to order.
  
  jon
  
  --
  -- http://www.cerastes.org
New release, new song by Permission+Denied · 2003-10-15 04:24 · Score: 1

The OpenBSD 3.4 song
The 3.1 song was the best. This one is weird - but nice lyrics.
Lots of changes in the release: looks like a large code audit, ProPolice in the kernel, libraries loaded at random addresses, W^X for i386. Looks good. Haven't used with OpenBSD since 2.8 (went to FreeBSD), but this I might try this one.
1. Re:New release, new song by zulux · 2003-10-15 04:57 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It looks like the FreeBSD people are going to pull in OpenBSD's PF to replace the old and crufty IPF.
  
  ( OpenBSD PS was created out of a typical Theo spat with the IPF people - and has gone on to kick IPF's ass. PF is cool! )
  
  --
  Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
2. Re:New release, new song by zulux · 2003-10-15 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Really? Got any links to back this claim up?
  
  more info
  
  I can't rememebr where, but somebody on the FreeBSD also mentioned poring it for 5.3 or so.
  
  --
  Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
3. Re:New release, new song by Permission+Denied · 2003-10-15 15:54 · Score: 1
  
  FreeBSD already has two firewall systems: ipf (old and crufty (but cross-platform (Solaris) which is kind of useful)) and ipfw (which seems to get the major work, with ipfw2 having some neat tricks). If they add pf, they'll have three (four if you count ipfw1 and ipfw2 in the 4- series, but you have to choose between one of these two, whereas you can run ipf alongside ipfw). And then it also has IPSEC, which can do some firewally stuff with DENY policies. And then it also has divert sockets, which allow you to write your own userspace firewall systems (among other things).
  That's kind of crazy.
4. Re:New release, new song by anthonyrcalgary · 2003-10-15 16:08 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I love PF. It beats the crap out of netfilter/ipchains, IPF, and it's almost easier to use than a web interface on a hardware router.
  
  Dunno how happy you'll be with it as a desktop system. My OpenBSD machine lives in the basement crawlspace, and I'm reasonably sure it doesn't have a monitor or keyboard at the moment. I don't know what it's like with a GUI.
  
  --
  When someone might yell at me, it has to be OpenBSD.
5. Re:New release, new song by Permission+Denied · 2003-10-15 18:04 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I don't think any of the free *nixes are better or worse as desktop systems. They can all compile the same Mozilla, mplayer or whatever and since I'm the type that always tweaks compile-time options instead of using pre-compiled packages, all the *nixes are the same to me desktop-wise. The only real difference is that I don't need to fiddle with alternative ABIs or wrapper scripts to run vmware on Linux or Opera on FreeBSD but that's not that big a deal since any OS can give me a terminal and a decent browser.
  I use FreeBSD at home so I can keep up with -CURRENT whereas I stay with -STABLE on the boxes at work. If my nat box at home breaks due to a cvsup, I can just plug a laptop into the dsl modem to deal with some emergency call. Since I hear only good things about pf, I might return to OpenBSD at home since it really can't hurt anything. The only reason I wouldn't use it at work is because I've set up a mostly FreeBSD shop and I don't want my future replacement to find himself with fifteen different OSes to admin.
6. Re:New release, new song by anthonyrcalgary · 2003-10-15 19:50 · Score: 1
  
  "I don't think any of the free *nixes are better or worse as desktop systems."
  
  Eh -- I dunno. Everything targets Linux. Takes a lot less work to get stuff working on it, especially like video cards and stuff. Also, consider the better interactivity on 2.6. Not appropriate for servers yet, but should be fine for a plain old dekstop. OpenBSD can't even take full advantage of a P4 HT.
  
  A firewall system is a different story. Your basic scrap computer will do just fine, as long as it can fit 2 PCI NIC's. It's better for security if it's a seperate box from everything else, and it's cheaper if the computer that stays on all the time can do so on like 20 watts.
  
  "Since I hear only good things about pf"
  
  gah... you don't even want to know. After you've screwed around with it for a few hours it's easier than a hardware router with a web interface. Complex stuff can be done in one line, and while it requires thought, it has a much smaller tendency to bite you in the ass than with the other firewalls I've dealt with, because the language is smart and intuitive.
  
  And it's fast.
  
  --
  When someone might yell at me, it has to be OpenBSD.
7. Re:New release, new song by evilviper · 2003-10-16 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  Everything targets Linux. Takes a lot less work to get stuff working on it, especially like video cards and stuff.
  
  Not true at all. For just about anything except videocards, it's automatically detected and setup by the kernel. No need for kudzu, no messing with modules.conf or other options. No need to deal with unresolved kernel symbols, etc. Although it doesn't support as much hardware (it supports a very large portion of it though) it's hardware support is much better, in every way.
  
  For videocards, it has XFree86 like every other Unix system. It's no mork work to get it setup on OpenBSD, than on any other system.
  
  As far as programs go, it's harder to get a program to work on Linux (either binary, or src), than it is to install it from the OpenBSD ports (or the binary package if you wish).
  
  Also, consider the better interactivity on 2.6.
  
  I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, at all. Would you care to clarify?
  
  OpenBSD can't even take full advantage of a P4 HT.
  
  No, it can't take advantage of HT yet. Does that make all that much of a difference, overall? You make certain trade-offs when you go for security and stability... A little performance difference isn't all that big of a deal.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Immature OS by Shanep · 2003-10-15 17:46 · Score: 1

Maybe if someone with a maturity level higher than gradeschool takes over then OpenBSD has a good chance. But at the moment it's an unprofessional joke.

You base this opinion on your opinion of Theo?

I know of two major banks which use OpenBSD for their firewalls. I've received this info from insiders on independant occasions without asking (was a comment in passing, during conversation, regarding my use of OpenBSD).

The source is there and people do use OpenBSD's tree and their own private tree's for real, business critical work.

--
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
Re:Troll-in-one by Shanep · 2003-10-15 17:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you BSD fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a BSD box (a PIII 800 w/512 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this BSD box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

From my old server...

login as: root
root@10.0.0.2's password:
Last login: Thu Oct 16 13:12:27 2003 from 10.0.0.13
OpenBSD 3.2 (GENERIC) #25: Thu Oct 3 19:51:53 MDT 2002

Welcome to OpenBSD: The proactively secure Unix-like operating system.

Please use the sendbug(1) utility to report bugs in the system.
Before reporting a bug, please try to reproduce it with the latest
version of the code. With bug reports, please try to ensure that
enough information to reproduce the problem is enclosed, and if a
known fix for it exists, include that as well.

Terminal type? [xterm]
Don't login as root, use su
oldserver# dmesg|grep cpu0
cpu0: F00F bug workaround installed
cpu0: Intel Pentium/MMX ("GenuineIntel" 586-class) 200 MHz
cpu0: FPU,V86,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,MCE,CX8,MMX
oldserver# dd if=/dev/zero of=/home/share/17MB.bin bs=32k count=544
544+0 records in
544+0 records out
17825792 bytes transferred in 1.110 secs (16057261 bytes/sec)
oldserver# ls -la /home/share/*.bin
-rw-r--r-- 1 root nobody 17825792 Oct 16 15:25 /home/share/17MB.bin
oldserver# time cp /home/share/17MB.bin /home/share/music
0.0u 1.3s 0:01.66 81.9% 0+0k 293+1916io 11pf+0w
oldserver# time cp /home/share/17MB.bin /home/share/17MB.bak
0.0u 1.3s 0:05.23 26.0% 0+0k 286+1916io 0pf+0w

That's 1.66 seconds to copy a file exactly 17Mbytes from one disk to another, on an Pentium 200 MMX OpenBSD 3.2 machine.

To more closly match what you are doing, copying the same file to the same disk took 5.23 seconds.

1. You can not play games on it. Yeah, when I want to play games, the first thing I think is OpenBSD!

2. It cannot be used by my grandma. Neither can PIX. Your point?

3. It lacks a GUI of any note. You obviously consider any free Unix that doesn't come installed by default with a GUI as "lacking a GUI". I guess you use Mandrake because that is all you are capable of using.

4. There is no support available for it. http://www.openbsd.org/support.html

5. It is an assortment of fragmented OSes. This is so untrue. The BSD's are whole and complete units in themselves. You wanna talk fragmentation, look at Linux.

6. It cannot be run on the x86 platform. Idiot. This is the worst troll I have ever seen. http://www.openbsd.org/plat.html

7. You have to compile everything and know C. http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=pkg_a dd&sektion=1&format=html

8. Support for the latest hardware is always poor. BSD's often supports certain hardware before Linux does (crypto, USB, etc) and once something is supported, the support often tends to be much better (WiFi).

9. It is incompatiable with GNU/Linux. OpenBSD supports binary emulation of most programs from SVR4 (Solaris), FreeBSD, Linux, BSD/OS, SunOS and HP-UX. (from the OpenBSD front page)

10.It is dying. Yeah, right. Do you think that if you keep saying something, it will happen? The only thing that will happen, is that most people will ignore you and a few will take the time to ridicule you.

--
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
Re:Immature OS by anthonyrcalgary · 2003-10-15 20:10 · Score: 1

What's the big deal?

He's an asshole. So is Rieser. So is Stallman. A lot of the people in the open source community are. Who cares? You don't have to deal with him.

--
When someone might yell at me, it has to be OpenBSD.
OpenBSD, W2k - dual boot? by teemu.s · 2003-10-15 21:00 · Score: 1

may someone has tried to dualboot openbsd 3.4 (current) with windows 2000 (its just a desktop system - no production machine.)
and NTFS? currently Im running w2k (on fat32 which sucks) and OBSD3.3 - and GAG
- due the new (?) NTFS Support it should work if GAG is installed on a w2k boot partion - or am I totally wrong? (I know I should have posted this to misc@openbsd.org - which Ill do in the evening..)
1. Re:OpenBSD, W2k - dual boot? by teemu.s · 2003-10-15 21:09 · Score: 1
  
  o.k. NTFS Support is new - according to the man page mentioned in my initial post - it first appeared in FreeBSD 3.0 and has later been ported to OBSD 3.4.
2. Re:OpenBSD, W2k - dual boot? by Brandybuck · 2003-10-16 16:45 · Score: 1
  
  New in OpenBSD. FreeBSD 3.0 is getting long in the tooth. Works great for me, but it's read only.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:Troll-in-one by JimmytheGeek · 2003-10-16 08:56 · Score: 1

YHBT
This is posted, possibly by a bot, whenever there is an openbsd article.
Re:Troll-in-one by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2003-10-16 09:49 · Score: 1

any article, its been in any computer forum. I've see it in linux ones when talking about the new 2.6 features, and in pretty much macos story as well
Re:Immature OS by 1s44c · 2003-10-16 23:13 · Score: 1

There's no way you'd catch our business using OpenBSD

Thats your loss. OpenBSD is a great system and just because Theo can come across as rude and arrogant doesn't mean he can't pull together a great system.

I try to respect people for what they do well, not hate them for their faults.
Why violate? by nurb432 · 2003-10-17 13:31 · Score: 1

I could care less about their wishes ( or anyone elses ). its what I want that matters.

Simple as that.

I normally use FBSD anyway, but i like to keep a collection of current alternatives to look at.

And I dont want to screw with having to create my own install ( and network isntalls are not acceptable, i do tests offline.. )

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Still a crock by nurb432 · 2003-10-17 13:34 · Score: 1

Others dont copyright the 'layout' and they are still thriving.

I understand he wants to continue to be funded, but pissing people off in the process isnt a good way to do it.

Its kept my $ going to the FBSD camp instead of theo, due to the attitude.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Re:Troll-in-one by UltraSkuzzi · 2003-10-20 03:15 · Score: 1

What an informative article! I feel 100% smarter by reading that. Now just for comparison, I did a google search on various operating systems.

Linux Returned 112 million articles
BSD returned 7.6 million articles
OS/2 returned 4.4 million articles
CP/M returned 100 thousand articles

So BSD is not dying, by any means. It is stable, scalable, and every web site on Netcraft's top 50 (http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html) longest uptime list is a *BSD variant! Dead?

--

~UltraSkuzzi
This comment is liscensed by SCO.