Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Review: OpenBSD 3.4 SPARC64 Edition

Posted by michael on from the die-hard dept.

'It's me' writes "Tony Bourke is reviewing OpenBSD 3.4 for SPARC-64. He discusses installation, the feel of the OS, its desktop, its performance, a MySQL problem he stumbled on, development tools and hardware support, firewalling and more."

39 comments

  1. Dupe by henrik · · Score: 0, Redundant

    It's a dupe.

    1. Re:Dupe by henrik · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Well, looks like it was FreeBSD before.

  2. OSNews Article Overview by duffbeer703 · · Score: 2, Funny

    OpenBSD is great.

    It recognized my NIC and worked very well.

    The firewall features are very valuable and robust.

    Conclusion: Linux is not ready for the desktop.

    --
    Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  3. Not only a dupe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but a little late, considering that 3.5 is due to ship tomorrow.

    1. Re:Not only a dupe... by Homology · · Score: 3, Interesting
      ..but a little late, considering that 3.5 is due to ship tomorrow.

      He did try a snapshot dated 29th of March, and that snapshot is pretty much OpenBSD 3.5. It would be nice if he could at least toch upon some of the new features of OpenBSD 3.5 like Greylisting (very efficient anti-spam and anti-email-virus) or CARP (the Common Address Redundancy Protocol) for failover.

  4. Not a Dupe! And an OK review by bhima · · Score: 3, Informative

    I found the article rather interesting! And if anyone had bothered to read the previous article they would realize that this guy is doing a series of articles based on the same Sparc box and a variety of operating systems (perhaps all the ones that will run on it and are freely available). To bad his doesn't seem to be a developer because he doesn't touch on anything at all in that arena and I would have been mildly interested in comparisons.

    --
    Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
  5. Reviewer unfamiliar with *BSD? by puff+the+barbarian · · Score: 1
    From the article:
    I had assumed that like FreeBSD and NetBSD, that desktop/graphics would not be supported. That assumption turned out to be incorrect.
    Not sure where he got that warped idea about "desktop/graphics"; *BSD supports these things just fine, thank you.
    1. Re:Reviewer unfamiliar with *BSD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sure, in x86, but this is SPARC64. Slightly different animal.

  6. Sparc64. . . by bplipschitz · · Score: 4, Informative

    I run OpenBSD 3.4 on an Ultra1 and an Ultra2 with no problems whatsoever. Granted, they are machines at home that the kids use [for doing homework, playing games, surfing the web], but they hold up well, are relatively quiet, and aren't going to get easily hacked.

    The main reason I run OpenBSD on these machines, is that the graphics support was superior to NetBSD [which I run on an old SS20], and FreeBSD doesn't support the SBUS [yet].

  7. BSD IS DEAD/LINUX ADVOCACY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Hello everyone!
    You may know me as the "troll" that posts the "BSD IS DEAD" and all of the "FACTS" to every BSD story on Slashdot. Many people wonder why I do it. The answer is that BSD is detrimental to the open source community.

    As a Linux advocate, I have taken upon myself the duty to convince Slashdot readers that BSD is dead and that Linux is the future. If BSD were to gain a bigger marketshare, corporations such as IBM and Sun may be distracted from their interest in Linux.

    If you know any BSD users, you must convince them to convert to Linux. These people are slowing down open source developement because developers are distracted from working on Linux programs to make them work with BSD. Imagine how great Gnome/KDE, Mozilla, and Apache would be if the developers didn't have to waste precious time writing code so that it would run on BSD. We need the entire open source community to get behind one operating system so that developers can focus on achieving our goal, OS dominance.

    We can all agree that Microsoft has to go. We cannot allow any other proprietary operating system to take it's place. That narrows it down to the open source operating systems, of which the 2 major options are Linux and BSD. Since Linux already has the larger marketshare, we need to kill off BSD. Once we convert all the BSD developers to Linux, we will have a stronger army.

    So what can you do to help? Easy. Find BSD users and developers and convince them to switch to Linux. Do so by any means necessary. You can start out being nice, but be persistent. Don't give up. In the end, they will thank you for enlightening them.

    There can be only one open source operating system. Divided we fall. Together we shall rule.
    As a great man once said, "Let us never forget the duty, which we have taken upon ourselves."

    1. Re:BSD IS DEAD/LINUX ADVOCACY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, well I'll feed the troll since I have nothing else to do at the moment. Since when is having one OS the best goal? Now if you like Linux that's fine, but I moved away from Linux for many reason, and I've found that FreeBSD filled that void and more. If OS dominance means having only one operating system, then I don't want any part of it. Many of us use BSD because we DON'T LIKE LINUX, and being forced to use Linux is no better than forcing a Linux user to use Windows. Open source should be about freedom and choice. For many of us, that choice isn't Linux.

      Besides which if you want to talk about developers wasting time on compatibility, look at how Samba and Apache still support SCO Unix. Seriously, has anyone seen a live SCO server with Samba installed? I don't think they exist outside of a test enviornment.

      You'll also note that you contradict yourself. You say everyone should chose Linux over BSD so that people can focus their efforts and achive OS dominance, yet you cite making Gnome/KDE better. If Open Source is really going to take over, the battle will be at the GUI level (Gnome/KDE) and if you really want to talk about where people should dump everything and focus their efforts, it should be on that level. Of course many of us like having the choice that the freedom of OS allows, but I guess that's the sort of crazy thinking you have, when you can use whatever OS you like.

    2. Re:BSD IS DEAD/LINUX ADVOCACY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moron. You are trolled.

    3. Re:BSD IS DEAD/LINUX ADVOCACY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      These people are slowing down open source developement because developers are distracted from working on Linux programs to make them work with BSD.

      Maybe you should stick to telnetd rather than OpenSSH and a shitload of others. Or simply put, go back to Windows because you're a disgrace to Linux and Open Source Development as a whole.

      This reply is coming from a Linux advocate as well. Go back to Windows and STFU before you make a bigger fool of yourself again.

      Good luck with your cmd.exe and command.com.

  8. Few errors by the+morgawr · · Score: 4, Informative
    Though it's not the author's fault entirely (he is in a hurry), some of the bad experiences he had could have been avoided if he had followed the documentation and not assumed that OpenBSD is the same as Net and Free.

    For example he tried to run the various X configurations utilities. The FAQ clearly states that there is a WORKING example configuration that you should start from in /usr/X11/README .

    Furthermore the FAQ also states to not compile from source unless absolutely nessessary. If he had used packages, he might not have had the problems with the databases that he had. However there was a MySQL glitch in 3.4 (I think, it could have been 3.3) that was fixed in stable. Also, the 3.5 snapshot from the 29th had some serious problems (people were told not to use it). Doing a little more homework would have avoided these problems; it's all documented.

    While overall the article was very interesting, I am disappointed that his haste caused him to have problems where he should not have.

    --
    The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
    1. Re:Few errors by tokki · · Score: 2, Informative

      For example he tried to run the various X configurations utilities. The FAQ clearly states that there is a WORKING example configuration that you should start from in /usr/X11/README .

      The FAQ does not state this at all. Which FAQ are you refering to? ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/doc/obsd-faq.txt

      While it was odd that starting up X11 with a non-working config crashed the system, I was able to get X11 working, as you can see in the screenshot.

      Furthermore the FAQ also states to not compile from source unless absolutely nessessary.

      That is not what the FAQ says. In fact, it only references compiling when talking about ports versus packages, and not compiling in general. It says that packages are easier, and it's recommended to use them, but it seems more of trouble-saving and time-saving advice than anything else, not an admonishment of compiling.

      Ports Versus Packages

      If he had used packages, he might not have had the problems with the databases that he had. However there was a MySQL glitch in 3.4 (I think, it could have been 3.3) that was fixed in stable.

      I've gotten several comments about using packages. For one, I'm using MySQL 4.0. There are no packages or even ports for MySQL 4.0. I've been using it with the other evaluations, and it is MySQL's latest.

      I prefer to compile from source whenever possible. Packages and ports are a convienence, and can often contain patches and workarounds, especially on non-x86 distributions. It would seem silly to rely entirely on ports/packages.

      There is a port for PostgreSQL which I used and had the same bus error problems, although I didn't use a precompiled package. I'll give that a spin when I'm by the system, but right now I'm in Hawaii so I don't have access to the OpenBSD system.

      Also, the 3.5 snapshot from the 29th had some serious problems (people were told not to use it). Doing a little more homework would have avoided these problems; it's all documented.

      The 3.5 snapshot worked fine for me, and I didn't see any "do not use" messages anywhere. The only problem I had with it was it exhibited the same strange MySQL behavior that 3.4 did. For me, it worked exactly the same as 3.4. So I'm not sure what "problems avoided" you are referring to.

      You'll note that I did solicit the help of the OpenBSD/sparc mailing list, and while I recieved some excellent suggestions, nothing was able to sort out the particular issue.

    2. Re:Few errors by 0racle · · Score: 3, Informative

      It didn't crash the system because of an invalid XF86Config file, it crashed because he tried to start X one a Serial Console, you can't do that.

      As far as the MySQL problem, its very well known and has been in OpenBSD for some time, the MySQL Manual has it listed for as far back as 2.8 if I recall correctly, just for some reason not everyone hits it.

      On a side note, it was nice to see my name in a review, even though I was for all intents and purposes no help at all.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    3. Re:Few errors by tokki · · Score: 1

      You were of great help :)

      I just checked the manual, and found this:

      OpenBSD 2.8 problem

      Interesting, I hadn't seen that before. It's for 2.8, but it seems to be the same issue I had. When I get back from Hawaii I'll run MySQL with that tweak, see if that resolves the problem.

    4. Re:Few errors by tokki · · Score: 1

      It didn't crash the system because of an invalid XF86Config file, it crashed because he tried to start X one a Serial Console, you can't do that.

      As I stated in the article, I figured it probably wouldn't run and die with an error. What I was surprised about was that it actually caused the operating system to crash.

    5. Re:Few errors by the+morgawr · · Score: 1
      Sorry it took me so long to get back to you (was out of town...)

      > The FAQ does not state this at all.

      Wow, you've got me there. The faq doesn't seem to have that information anymore. I'm pretty sure it or some man page (X, startx) used to because I remember reading explicitly to start with the example in the README file instead of running the config when I set OpenBSD up on that Blade 100.

      > There are no packages or even ports for MySQL 4.0

      Well, while I don't use MySQL, this does look like 4.0 to me. According to the make file there is a package available via ftp and on the CD-ROM. I also doubt you bothered to apply all of the patches in the patches directory when you made it from source yourself. That's proably why it doesn't work. On a general note if you ask on misc@ they are going to tell you to just use the package and only to use the port if you need a special flavor (and it doesn't sound like you do).

      > The 3.5 snapshot worked fine for me,

      I mistyped. The April 19th snapshot was the messed up one (It was fixed on the 20th, everyone subscribed to misc and source-changes was told).

      If you got a snapshot on the 29th you probably didn't get 3.5. Instead you ended up with current, and not only that, but you got it durring the greatest period of change and instability....

      Releases are finalized far enough before the release date to get the CDs pressed. May 1 isn't when they apply the tag. Had you wanted to run 3.5 before that, I'd have suggested installing 3.4 or a snapshot, fetching the 3_5_BASE from CVS and doing release(8).

      > You'll note that I did solicit the help of the OpenBSD/sparc mailing list

      Not very many people are subscribed there; misc@ is usually a better bet for the type of problems you were having (misc probably isn't as friendly though....).

      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
    6. Re:Few errors by the+morgawr · · Score: 1

      Also if you want to go back and use the patch (stable) branch instead of the current branch, you can use your current system to check out the latest OPENBSD_3_5 branch of ports, src, and XF4 from cvs and make a "release" ( see release(8) ) of the patch branch. Then you would use the files it makes to install the software again (use install not upgrade b/c upgrade doesn't work in the other direction...).

      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
    7. Re:Few errors by tokki · · Score: 1
      Well, while I don't use MySQL, this does look like 4.0 to me. According to the make file there is a package available via ftp and on the CD-ROM. I also doubt you bothered to apply all of the patches in the patches directory when you made it from source yourself. That's proably why it doesn't work. On a general note if you ask on misc@ they are going to tell you to just use the package and only to use the port if you need a special flavor (and it doesn't sound like you do).

      They've just added MySQL 4.0 for OpenBSD 3.5. It doesn't exist on the 3.4 packages, and it wasn't in ports for 3.4.

      If you got a snapshot on the 29th you probably didn't get 3.5. Instead you ended up with current, and not only that, but you got it durring the greatest period of change and instability....

      Well, it booted up as 3.5, so if it wasn't 3.5 it was sure a neat trick :) Either way, it didn't behave any differently.

      However, I was able to find a solution. 0racle mentioned that there was a long standing issue with MySQL and OpenBSD, so I took a look in the MySQL manual and found an entry regarding the same issue for OpenBSD 2.8. It hadn't come up in my numerous Google searches before, probably because I was searching for OpenBSD 3.x issues. I used the suggested fix, and SQL-bench was able to run. It just ran last night.

      However, the results were pretty terrible for the insert operations. It took longer than even the bad FreeBSD 5.1 result, about 3 times longer than with Solaris, FreeBSD 5.2.1, or Linux on the same hardware. I'll publish an addendum to the article soon with the results.

    8. Re:Few errors by the+morgawr · · Score: 1
      >Well, it booted up as 3.5

      Yeah -current will tell you it's 3.5 (because it's 3.5-current). Does it have the -stable or the -release tag after the 3.5 at the top of the dmesg? I guess that's possible since you did get the snapshot back in March.

      >However, I was able to find a solution.

      I'd strongly suggesting using 3.5-stable (or release) and the MySQL package when you do your addendum. The MySQL problem should be fixed in one of the patches and should work for you "out-of-the-box" (but I'll make no gaurentees about the speed).

      If you still have to make that kind of an adjustment to the package to get it to run, try contacting the port maintainer. That's not something that should stay broken...

      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
  9. Hardware support problem in ALL BSDs by mnmn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Part of the reason why Linux is so popular is it supports almost all hardware out there. BSD is great and preferable for me in many places because if its simplicity and its more standard.

    I tried OpenBSD in my Ultra5 a while ago, before the first of these two reviews came out, and it ran much faster than Solaris. I have a SCSI disk in there, so it was an impressive firewall, except it didnt see the ATM card.

    Also needed to install OpenBSD (I'm used to OpenBSD's simplicity) on my spanking new VA Linux 1000 webserver, but I was using a Promise SATA card in there to run the SATA disk. Only Linux can read the SATA, so I had to revert back. BSD is great but (1) You have to have the hardware it supports (2) You should only need the functions your version of BSD supports.

    I'd love to see FreeBSD support SATA cards (Promise TX2plus) and have facilities like Linux UML or Solaris zones, unlike chroots. In the short run, Linux is there, in the long run BSD will be used unless Linux becomes real stable, and is standardized, or the Slackware development is continued.

    --
    "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
    1. Re:Hardware support problem in ALL BSDs by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'd love to see FreeBSD support SATA cards

      WTF? FreeBSD does support SATA cards. My workstation does not have any IDE harddrives, yet I've had FreeBSD on it for a year. This machine does not have Linux on it because at the time I purchased the system Linux only had SATA support as a patch. At the last time I tried to install Linux on it, none of the shipping distros included SATA support on the install media.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    2. Re:Hardware support problem in ALL BSDs by Triumph+The+Insult+C · · Score: 1

      you will probably always see less support for exotic hardware in *BSD because the volunteers who contribute to *BSD are less willing to compromise their beliefs by signing NDAs to get documentation. *BSD is free-free for a reason, and a good part of it comes from that (non-polluting code)

      --
      vodka, straight up, thank you!
    3. Re:Hardware support problem in ALL BSDs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (1) You have to have the hardware it supports

      Umm, yeah. That goes for Windows and Linux as well. Linux may support more, but more often some of those fringe drivers are really flaky (which also goes for Windows).

    4. Re:Hardware support problem in ALL BSDs by mnmn · · Score: 1

      It didnt support Promise TX2plus. Plus you have to admit Linux supports many more devices than any of the BSDs, there are more devices supported exclusively by Linux than there are ones supported exclusively by FreeBSD.

      The fact that Linux is becoming an OS standard, with vendors releasing drives for it along with Solaris win2k, and not BSD, Plan9 etc, doesnt help the situation.

      For now we're thankful at least one free OS is supported by many hardware vendors.

      --
      "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
  10. "the feel of the OS" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    cold and stiff

  11. Again? by saintlupus · · Score: 2, Funny

    Tony Bourke is reviewing OpenBSD 3.4 for SPARC-64.

    Would someone please give this guy a Solaris CD already?

    He's reviewed _everything_ else that runs on his eBay-purchased US5. Let it go.

    --saint

  12. ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have demonstrated your ignorance to all.
    Bravo!

  13. 3.5 is out. by MrChuck · · Score: 1
    A review of 3.5 (release announced at midnight GMT - 4PM PST today) would have been more useful. And since we've known for 5 years that 3.5 would be coming out around now (3.9 will be 5/1/2006) a review of a recent snapshot would seem actually useful.

    I'm so upset, I'm going back in time to stop running X, KDE, GNOME and the festival of apps I've used on BSD since 1994. Did Linux have a network stack yet then? /me forgets.

  14. Two months and counting.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the last "editon" of ezine.daemonnews.org is from march. Think they'll manage to put one out by july?

    Guys, why don't you change the url to quarterly.daemonnews.org --hell, beat the rush and skip to yearly.daemonnews.org if you like.

    But BSD isn't dying. Remember that, folks, that's crucial.