Slashdot Mirror
OpenBSD Hackathon Underway
Triumph The Insult C writes "Aside from some stealth developers, the annual OpenBSD Hackathon, held in Calgary, is underway, according to Theo. They've been doing some recent work on SMP, and have some impressive AMD SMP gear there that they've got to hack around with. A few years ago, it was PF. Who knows what they'll come up with this time that knocks our socks off."
I installed 3.5 yesterday, oddly enough.
It only took 15 minutes to install the base system. All my hardware autodetected without problems. What's wrong with the installer?
There has been a lot of babbling on the mailing list. Everyone is against it. They are sticking with 1.3.39 (i think) with all of their security fixes. There will only be updates for security reasons. To quote the general thoughts of the developers: "If you don't like it, don't bitch at us; Bitch at Apache"
Anyway, nothing is stopping you from running 2.x or any other apache. It just won't be supported.
I think that Carp/pfsync is more important than apache. Plus now there is some SMP to work with.
Just my 2 cents.
I dunno, biglock is the way to get it working. Portions of the kernel can then be multithreaded gradually over time.
Or who knows, they might decide to do it the DragonFly way.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
Actually all users could use a thoroughly code-reviewed system with a safe default install.
The net would be a bit safer for sure, even if it was just a bit.
More user-friendly installer => wider user-base => less zombies for DDoS. Maybe even more money for OpenBSD development? More OpenBSD related jobs? More interest in embedded ports? More positive PR?
Too bad you're so shortsighted!
Or better yet, screw the default and install what -you- want.
That's fine. The whole point of free software is the freedom to do what you want. Make sure you know what you are doing though and don't expect help if you are on the mailing list saying:
"I compiled gcc 3.2 and apache 2.0..."
The reason I like bsd and why I feel it is so stable. It is the fact that the 'default' base system contains a group of tightly knit programs that have been proven to be secure and stable. Once you start adding programs that aren't default, (i feel) you lower some stability and some security.
The OpenBSD team needs to give their installer some more polish (from the functional standpoint not the prettiness standpoint)
It seems you have been quite unlucky.
I've been using OpenBSD since 2.5. The installer was a bit of a shock at first, but once it makes sense, it is wonderful (and it is sensible). I usually can install OpenBSD with X in under 5 minutes and I've only ever found one machine to not install for me (an IBM Thinkpad series 1300).
I've installed on tons of x86 machines, some MacPPC, a 68k Mac and a Sun Ultra 10. No problems. I cannot say the same for some Linux distros or the other BSD's.
I plan to have another crack at that Thinkpad, now that OpenBSD 3.5 has new boot code.
There are times when OpenBSD won't work, where some Linux distro does or vice versa. So try again. Don't write OpenBSD off because of a few bad initial attempts. I've been using Linux for about 7 years and tried lots of distros and the BSD's. I settled on OpenBSD (and Debian when I must use Linux).
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?