Slashdot Mirror
OpenBSD 3.7 Reviewed
busfahrer writes "Jem Matzan has written a review of OpenBSD 3.7 for Newsforge. He talks about their licensing issues, network features, upgrading packages and the new supported architectures."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Opening line:
The operating system world has been blessed by another regular release of OpenBSD.
And, no, it doesn't get any more objective further down. Nor does he talk about the licensing issues or new architectures in any detail at all - less detail, in fact, than he talks about the theme tune.
I liked linux back when nobody knew what it was. Now my mom even knows what it is.
Good bye linux, hello obscurity, er, OpenBSD!
Since BSD is dead (dying?), here is some information about the ancient OS.
Just more evidence that it is dying I suppose.
but in their own way. Everyone is unique--we are all alike in that respect. There is no spoon.
Parent's story is much more interesting than "this BSD crap".
"...an effigy of a crown-wearing penguin."
Sheesh. The prez in "Mars Attacks" said it best:
"Why can't we work out our differences? Why can't we work things out? Little people, why can't we all just get along?"
Mark
Is there *any* actual information in this article at all (useful information, anyway)? The only tidbits I could find boil down to things like "my on-board controller didn't work", "I couldn't compile KDE myself", and "this and that specific option to this and that program gives a warning when you use it".
Outside of these things, the only pieces of information I could find boiled down to "there's two new ports", "it still doesn't include Apache 2.x", and "you get daily (in)security reports mailed to you". If it wasn't for the irrelevant fluff mentioned above, I'd assume the author of this article hasn't even installed OpenBSD and instead just looked through the website and maybe Google'd for some extra information.
I really hope the author didn't get payed too much for this, because no matter how much he got, the article wasn't worth it.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
I guess BSD isn't dead after all.
It's now a zombie. Neither dead or alive.
Evolution or ID?
Oh come on. Real leeter-than-thou people wouldn't dream of using anything that runs on x86.
I've seen crap reviews like this all over the place recently. Perhaps some standardized questions to answer about the OS as it is being reviewed would make the reviews more informative and comparable?
WTF Taco, you've really balled things up in a not this time!!!!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
As someone who replied to the original article (see bottom of original link) mentioned, it would've been interesting to have seen a true comprehensive analysis of OpenBSD, rather than a lot of "I think" and "I liked".
I would have appreciated the article more if it were a lot more in-depth, but perhaps that would've ward off others. I would like to see him not just talk about the install process (initially), but also how easy it was to install applications (and not just "I had to type too much"), configure them (interface-configuration, or purely text-editing), and finally - how well they all interacted. Now, I know that sounds more like an analysis of the individual applications rather than the operating system, but what is an operating system if not a platform that you use to interact with applications?
We also hear about the "new wireless" stuff... where was that? Test with multiple cards? USB-Wireless perhaps? PCMCIA Wireless? To tout such things (even in the review) and then not do anything with them is rather disappointing.
Kind of like Terri Schiavo was.
Even though OpenBSD isn't great for performance in most cases, we've used it in our consulting business to power some of the customer / billing / receivable databases for some very large LA bars, restaurants, and clubs.
--
Restaurants, bars, and clubs in Los Angeles
It's more machine than man.
That's cool, now I can get a tinfoil house to go with my tifoil hat.
GETPKG - Package Management for Slackware
From the article:
The theme of the OpenBSD 3.7 CD set is The Wizard of Oz, and the cute little CD jacket cartoon strip shows the OpenBSD mascot and friends on a journey to achieve better wireless card drivers. Their adventure takes them to the Emerald City to meet the great and powerful Wizard of OS himself -- an effigy of a crown-wearing penguin. The man behind the curtain turns out to be a Richard Stallman-like character with GNU horns. The characters are disappointed because the Wizard ends up being "all talk -- no action!" So they decide to code the wireless driver by reverse-engineering the device.
Hello,
I would be interested in having an in depth discussion on the pros and cons of the openbsd approach as compared to some of the patches for linux. SELinux being the most famous, however I am actually a fan of RSBAC, www.rsbac.org.
From what I understand, OBSD attempts to audit code to elliminate bugs in the first place, which while noble is not entirely practical. Systems like Rsbac act as support so if a security exploit is found, no damage can be done.
Thoughts?
Also, not trying to start a war, but I fail to understand why the six years without a hole in the default install is used so often to promote it..., the default install is essentially useless, as there have been holes in the services that most people would want to enable...
... facts are facts. ;)
FreeBSD:
FreeBSD, Stealth-Growth Open Source Project (Jun 2004)
"FreeBSD has dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."
Nearly 2.5 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD (Jun 2004)
"[FreeBSD] has secured a strong foothold with the hosting community and continues to grow, gaining over a million hostnames and half a million active sites since July 2003."
What's New in the FreeBSD Network Stack (Sep 2004)
"FreeBSD can now route 1Mpps on a 2.8GHz Xeon whilst Linux can't do much more than 100kpps."
NetBSD:
NetBSD, for When Portability and Stability Matter (Oct 2004)
NetBSD sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (May 2004)
NetBSD again sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (Sep 2004)
OpenBSD:
OpenBSD Widens Its Scope (Nov 2004)
Review: OpenBSD 3.6 shows steady improvement (Nov 2004)
OpenSSH (OpenBSD subproject) has become a de facto Internet standard.
*BSD in general:
..and last but not least, we have the cutest mascot as well - undisputedly. ;)
Deep study: The world's safest computing environment (Nov 2004)
"The world's safest and most secure 24/7 online computing environment - operating system plus applications - is proving to be the Open Source platform of BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) and the Mac OS X based on Darwin."
BSD Success Stories (O'Reilly, 2004) (pdf) ~ from Onlamp BSD DevCenter
"The BSDs - FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Darwin, and others - have earned a reputation for stability, security, performance, and ease of administration."
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
Actually, from an admins point of view, the BSDs are easier to learn than any linux distribution. That is not to say they are easier to use, but they are simpler when it comes to managing the system:
Less complicated init;
MUCH better documentation;
Less painful filesystem management (though LVM2 is really nice);
The downsides are significant however:
Bad support for esoteric hardware;
Less vendor support;
Fewer eyes looking over the code (though, to be fair, there is MUCH less code for them to look over)
Heh heh - yesterday in Sunday School at church, my 9-year-old son learned about a guy named "Lazarus" who, in the Bible, is raised from the dead by Jesus.
;-)
His teacher was a little flummoxed because my son kept referring to Lazarus as "re-dead", which refers to some zombie like characters in some of his Zelda games on his Gamecube.
For some reason, she didn't get any happier after I "educated" her about who Zelda was... Believe it or not, we really only let him have 30 minutes of total screen time (TV + Computer + Gamecube) per day. I'm not sure *she* would believe me.
Mark
That's right, they use Sokolov's 4.3BSD-Quasijarus on VAXen, in a basement and they'd like it!
there's no way this POS "review" would have seen the light of day. Disappointing, even by slashdot standards.
When I ran RedHat, there were some pretty annoying things that got changed from release to release (inetd disappears, two different C compiler installs because of kernel problems, etc.).
This kind of stuff doesn't happen in OpenBSD. From an administration perspective, my first 3.2 install is very similar to the 3.5 that I run now, which itself is similar to 3.7. There are no large architecture changes (perhaps because things are well-thought-out from the start).
Because of this, you pretty much know what you're getting when a new OpenBSD release comes out. The installer is practically identical, and the running system yeilds few surprises. There will always be new features, but there won't be lots of things to unlearn.
So no, I don't really pay much attention to the reviews. The list of new features on the OpenBSD web page pretty much tells me all that I need to know.
While I appreciate what OpenBSD has provided, OpenSSH for one, I do have to pause when I consider how the distribution itself is licensed.
OpenBSD is distributed as a bunch of files, and an FTP based installer. If you want ISOs, you can buy them, but you can't share them after you buy them because they are proprietary. You can get an ISO made by someone else, however the OpenBSD site implies that you probably shouldn't trust them (but that's your decision to make), provided the ISO is not the same was the "official" ISOs.
I realize they are trying to earn money to support OpenBSD's efforts. However, several Linux distributions also seek to earn money for their efforts, yet they also provide ISOs of their distribution (for free even). Take a look at LinuxISO for an example of the various ISOs available.
For all his quirks, I do not believe RMS would blur things in the same way. Whether you agree with him or not, he makes his position known, and then stands by it. I don't think he'd make a "proprietary" version of his work like OpenBSD is doing.
I am not saying Theo doesn't have the right to do this. He does. And it's his choice (or OpenBSD's choice, if there's a board that makes these decisions) how to license and release their work. I just think it's a bit hypocritical, that's all.
Something to consider. I do not know if they would consider this a violation, but from what I understand of how OpenBSD ISOs are licensed it would be. Suppose you and a few friends, or you have an office with multiple people supporting your systems. You would be violating the license on the distribution if you purchased one set of disks and made copies for your internal use. _IF_ one of the strengths of FOSS is the freedom from the hassles and expense of managing proprietary licenses, then that strength is effectively taken away by the proprietary nature of the OpenBSD ISO license, since, in theory at least, you would still need to track the ISOs to make sure you did not have illegal copies.
[For the record, I have purchased OpenBSD in the past. I ended up not using it for various reasons I won't go into here. When I needed BSD, I used FreeBSD instead. The ISOs are also available at the LinuxISO link above. I also use Linux and Mac OS X.]
Last night I switched from Debian unstable to OpenBSD 3.7, on account of the better wireless support.
So far it's been a good deal. I copied my $HOME from Debian, installed a bunch of stuff from the ports tree, and I can hardly tell the difference now, other than better wireless support, and probably a cleaner userland.
OpenBSD's base system is great, and though the ports tree is nowhere near as massive as Debian, it still contains nearly 100% of the relevant tools that I use every day, packaged in a very clean manner. I'm satisfied!
nothing new here, move along.
Some of the major operating systems *are* BSD. FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD.
5 lines, and it's a better review than the one in the FA.
he makes a good point
>Now my mom even knows what it is.
Your mom knows a lot of other things you wouldn't suspect.
Oh, and btw BSD rules. So, you *please* stay away from it. Thanks
(No, I didn't forget the "post anonymously" blah blah)
--
Requiem for the FUD
When will OpenBSD finally boot above cylinder 1024 or whatever? I am very serious about this because I love OpenBSD and would like to see it on more desktops. It has progressed much in the last 10 years.
OpenBSD is not open to the typical install process, ie 10Gig of Windows then no possible booting for OpenBSD.
Do we have to wait for version 5.0 before Theo "gets it?"
I know this is slashdot, but please stop spreading FUD.
6 91304
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=127944&cid=10
Fewer eyes looking over the code
I don't know if this is really true. There are three major BSD "distributions" with subtle differences. Fans of each routinely look over the code for the others looking for good, "stealable" code. Not only does that mean that people are looking at the code, but informed "outsider" coders are looking at it with a critical eye. So, even if the code is reviewed by fewer people, it's reviewed by people who are more likely to notice, report, and fix bugs.
Forward, retransmit, or republish anything I say here. Just don't misquote me.
that explains undeadly.org
Open BSD does not support Apache2. This affects me personally because I love Apache and can't do without it. I don't know how the rest of you feel...I really don't see why any1 should take up such an OS. Windows rocks!!!
I don't mean this as a dig on anyone but OpenBSD wasn't created for you or you. Theo created an OS that he liked and the developers that work on it make changes that they want. Theo doesn't have to "get" anything. This isn't Linux or any other OS for that matter; it's OpenBSD meaning that it's not the community's OS it's the developers. So, if you don't like it don't use it...I for one will.
Just out of curiosity do you like FreeBSD or OpenBSD better. And why?
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
there's a review that looks at openbsd from the perspective of its ancestor, netbsd:
m l
http://www.feyrer.de/NetBSD/openbsd-comparison.ht
looking at openbsd commit logs, the apm issue was solved shortly after that review came out, but without mentioning the review.
FreeBSD because of the number of ports, i386 optimization, availability of features that one day could turn out handy (like jails).
There are also other reasons related to the goals of the projects - I like FreeBSD for emphasizing the "tool" aspect of software, keeping policies/politics completely out of the door. But it's not that I don't respect OpenBSD activism, as a matter of fact I do, they have a point (and by pressing hardware vendors they've already got amazing results). It's just that the FreeBSD point of view happens to be closer to mine. (Btw this last issue influences which one I like better, not which one I use, since IMHO this is not a reason to use one over the other.)
Anyway, I think that what the *BSD projects have in common is far more important - that is, the academical spirit of the BSD license.
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
So the difference between OpenBSD and FreeBSD (besides the maintainers of course) is more along the lines of politics (OpenBSD only allowing software in which meets their definition of free). Do these two share between each other? Is there a common BSD kernel or anything like that?
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
I simply told you which one I like better and why (i.e. what you asked for). I didn't tell you what are the differences between them, so your deduction is wrong.
h andbook/index.html
In fact, the main differences are technical, in their very goals: while FreeBSD focuses mainly on features and i386 performance, OpenBSD focuses mainly on code correctness and security.
>Do these two share between each other?
Sure they do - and massively.
For example, one little jewel that came from OpenBSD to the other *BSDs is pf (packet filter), that has an excellent reputation for its being very clean and easy to use.
>Is there a common BSD kernel or anything like that?
No.
The *BSDs are developed like OSes, not "distros". So, while they massively share code, they maintain their own kernels.
To better understand the differences, it helps to notice that OpenBSD was born as a NetBSD fork, 8 years ago - and even today, it shares more code with NetBSD than with FreeBSD.
But to understand even better, well.. FreeBSD and OpenBSD are renowned for their excellent documentation, that is well worth having a look at.
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/
http://openbsd.org/faq/index.html
--
Requiem for the FUD
I linked to the FreeBSD Handbook, that is the user documentation. But for more general info about the FreeBSD project you might want to have a look at the FAQ firstf aq/index.html
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/
I also forgot: this is a very nice place to find competent and informative answers to BSD and Unix related issues
http://bsdforums.org/forums
Btw, one little thing that the forum above has, and IMHO Slashdot is missing *badly*, is the ability to edit comments to add things you forgot (damn it).
--
Requiem for the FUD
In other news, OpenBSD has revised its operating system once again without changing its fundemental underlying concerns about security, disregard for performance, and being complete dicks to anyone using OpenBSD who isn't already a complete expert.
This adherence to their core values for so long has been applauded by those good enough to be OpenBSD developers while the scum who aren't worthy to send money to Theo much less cross him can take a flying leap at a rolling donut.
OpenBSD: Too mean to die.
OpenBSD is really more of a server OS. Sure you /can/ use it as a desktop, but there are better alternatives. I think its strongest point is how in /etc/rc.conf one can simply change say named_flags=N to named_flags="" (command arguments could go inside the quotes) and bam! BIND is up and running. Many of these services are available in /etc/rc.conf from the default install. Thus with OpenBSD it is possible to bring up a reliable and secure server fairly quickly.
Really? Have you heard of NetBSD? Do you not realize that FreeBSD has been not only on-par with Linux, but ahead of it in some areas for many years now?
That's debatable. There are fewer vendors for BSD-based OSes, but you get perfectly good support from those that do exist.
Saying that this is a disadvantage is dishonest. The idea is that more eyes makes code more secure... While that theory has been dismissed many times, even if you do believe it, you can't possibly deny that all BSD distros have a much better security tract record than Linux.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
"Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'."
I'm not a big RMS fan, but here's where I'd disagree with you -- how GM engineers their engines and why may be none of my business, but being allowed to tear it apart and replace parts myself for my own use should be a basic right. If I then want to tell others what I did to my GM engine to make it better, so they can do it to theirs, that should be fine too.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
how GM engineers their engines and why may be none of my business, but being allowed to tear it apart and replace parts myself for my own use should be a basic right. If I then want to tell others what I did to my GM engine to make it better, so they can do it to theirs, that should be fine too.
I think we're talking about two different things: the right to see the software source code is like the right to have the *blueprints* of that engine (i.e., the right to have their knowledge and know-how, the "recipe" of their product).
OTOH, I think your example is comparable to be allowed to *reverse engineer* the software (according to the philosophy, with which I tend to agree, that since I bought it I should be allowed to do with it whatever the heck I want).
Anyway, it ultimately depends on the license/EULA that the software comes under. I think (and here's where my favouring BSD over GPL/GNU/Linux comes out) the ideal scenario is the one in which any vendor can choose for his code the license/EULA that he wants, with no GPL-like restrictions, and the *market* is the one that decides if he's gonna succeed or fail.
After all, according to history, this is the scenario that yields the best results for the economy - and not only in software production.
(Needless to say, all other things being equal, I prefer software that comes with no anti-reverse-engineering EULAs - and *much* more, of course, I like Free/Open software that comes with the complete source.)
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
Less complicated init is also less powerful, and less painful filesystem managment is highly subjective. And, from an admin's point of view, BSDs being easier to learn is highly subjective also... I find Debian significantly easier to maintain, and I don't have to deal with the inconvenience of compiling software or the inconvenience of poorly compiled packages.
Bad support for esoteric hardware;
Really? Have you heard of NetBSD? Do you not realize that FreeBSD has been not only on-par with Linux, but ahead of it in some areas for many years now?
Try PC hardware support. That's the concern of most people. There are a lot of drivers for Linux exclusively. While supporting a bunch of different platforms is a good thing, it's not something most people will choose one operating system over another for if they're using the most prevalent platform in the world.
And on a personal note, the lack of a journalled filesystem has kept me away from FreeBSD ever since XFS was available on Linux.
Less vendor support;
That's debatable
No, it's not debatable. There are much fewer hardware manufacturers that support BSD. There are much fewer companies that sell and support BSD. There are much fewer software companies that support BSD.
you can't possibly deny that all BSD distros have a much better security tract record than Linux
And you're saying that without context; there are many different distributions available and many more Linux users. Since more people are interested in Linux, more people will find vulnerabilities. There's also more code to find problems with
But at the end of the day, I wouldn't really be too concerned with the security of either operating system.
I already did. And I quote: "FreeBSD has been [...] ahead of it in some areas for many years now"
Really, now? Start listing them, and I'll be happy to challenge them, one-by-one. Unless of course you're just trolling and have no evidence behind your claims...
The number of companies is completely and totally irrelivant. Microsoft is only one company...
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
In what areas? I see a lot of Linux-only drivers out there, many binary-only. A lot of drivers are developed on Linux and later ported to other open source operating systems after they become stable on Linux...
Really, now? Start listing them, and I'll be happy to challenge them, one-by-one. Unless of course you're just trolling and have no evidence behind your claims...
So if I can't make a list of drivers, I'm automatically trolling? That sounds like a trollish challenge -- "if I can't prove my claim by factual evidence and the other person won't either, then I'm right and the other person is wrong". There are lots of Linux drivers out there that are supported on Linux and Linux only...
The number of companies is completely and totally irrelivant. Microsoft is only one company...
The number of companies is not irrelevant. (is that word that hard to spell?) "Less" is a quantitative measure and there are truly less companies that support BSD than Linux or Windows. Microsoft is only one company, but there are many, many companies that sell Windows or offer support for Windows. The same applies for Linux. No matter how you look at it, there's less vendor support for BSD than Linux or Windows.
I've used OpenBSD regularly since release 2.5. It is, hands down, in my opinion, the best operating system available today. To further abuse a very tired cliche, "It just works". I've used so many different Linux distros I've lost track, from "roll your own" distros (LFS) to kindergarten-so-easy-your-mama-can-use-it distros like Ubuntu. I've used every version of Windows around, and MacOS 9 and X. I've used FreeBSD, and NetBSD. I was even a BeOS user for a long while. But I keep coming back to OpenBSD, every release. Here are some reasons why I prefer it over everything else out there.
1. It's a complete operating system out of the box, developed by one group of people, with a focus on CORRECTNESS, as well as security. It's not a kernel, plus GNU tools, plus random drivers, plus patches, plus dependency hell, plus a version of GNOME that is so fragile that trying to upgrade any of it breaks the whole damn system. I don't mean to sound bitter, I love linux, but I have yet to find that one magic distro that does everything right. OpenBSD detects all my hardware right away, every time. Christ, even my sound card just works, without any special configuration, after installation.
I install the package for mplayer, and 10 seconds later, I can watch videos, with no extra configuration needed.
Side note: The Linux distro that comes closest to "getting it right", is BLAG30000. Those guys kick arse. Too bad they based theirs on Fedora and RPM... but check em out anyway. www.blagblagblag.com
2. It is small and clean and COMPLETELY documented. There are man pages for every config file, program, and system call in the base system. Commercial operating systems don't have this level of documentation. Every single file is there for a reason, there's no cruft floating around. It's tight.
3. It has as simple, easy to use installer, and you can install the base system from the CD in 15 minutes. I've never understood why people on Slashdot, of all places, think that OpenBSD's installer is difficult. Come on! Buy the CD, and the insert even walks you through it! I thought we were supposed to be technical folks here.
4. OpenBSD doesn't care if you use their OS or not. They're not out to conquer the desktop market, or the server market. They just want to make a damn fine OS that is correct and works. And they've suceeded in every sense. Use OBSD or don't, Theo will still keep making sweet releases every six months. And I thank him for it.
5. It's free, in every sense of the word.
6. Buy the cheap CD set, and you get stickers! And they have a theme song for each release, for fuck's sake! How much cooler do you want them to be?
7. Strong crypto. pf. OpenSSH. So much cool software in the base system.
8. Contrary to popular belief, it makes a damn fine desktop system. Everything that you could want is available from packages or ports. You can have your Windows-look-alike KDE or GNOME desktop, just like with Linux. And OBSD is still rock solid and fast. Don't let anyone tell you that it's not a good desktop, they're lying.
9. It's easy as pie to configure, and they DON'T want you to rebuild the kernel! Of course, you can, you can rebuild the whole base system with one command, but they ship a kernel that works for almost all scenarious. How many Linux howto's have your read that start out with "First, make sure experimental feature X is supported in the kernel. If not, rebuild it..."?
Not in OBSD.
10. The intangibles. This can't be explained, but I know there's other OBSD users that know what I'm talking about. It just "feels good". It's a warm fuzzy to use OpenBSD.
Just my opinions. I get sick of reading all the posts here about how OpenBSD sucks because Theo's a dick (he's not), or BSD is dying (it's not), or the installer's too obscure (it's not) or whatever reason. It doesn't suck at all. Do yourself a favor - check it out.
"So the difference between OpenBSD and FreeBSD (besides the maintainers of course) is more along the lines of politics (OpenBSD only allowing software in which meets their definition of free)."
No. There are many technical differences in addition to the political differences.
In general, FreeBSD picks features, compatability and performance first, while OpenBSD picks security and robustness first. Over time, that drift has left them in completely different positions.
The freedom of 3rd party software is somewhat a secondary issue. There are plenty of other problems with Apache, they have refused many security patches. It would basically be a fork either way.
"Do these two share between each other?"
Yes. All the BSDs use OpenSSH and PF from OpenBSD, OpenBSD got much of its SMP code from NetBSD, NetBSD got UFS2 from FreeBSD, and so on.
"Is there a common BSD kernel or anything like that?"
No. All the BSDs maintain their own kernel.
The closest two are probably OpenBSD and NetBSD. NetBSD performance optimizations make their way into OpenBSD pretty frequently, and security enhancements flow the other way just as often.
FreeBSD and NetBSD's common ancestor is way too far into the past for code to move that freely between their kernels. OpenBSD is a fork of NetBSD so it's in the same position.
DragonFlyBSD is a fork of FreeBSD, but it has drifted very quickly because the they've been making huge changes. AFAIK they can still port stuff from the FreeBSD kernel, but after a certain point "porting" becomes "using the other code as a guide for a rewrite" and I think they'll get there sooner rather than later.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
USB, Firewire, NICs, 802.11, etc. Look it up. I'm not going to give you a lecture on all the developments of FreeBSD and Linux over the past several years.
Oh, you see "a lot" eh? "A lot" meaning 2? 3? Which ones? Provide some real evidence, or quit making noise.
Now that is absolutely ridiculous. The only thing I can think of where that is actually the case is Nvidia's drivers. This is really a blatantly untrue, and shows that you're either trolling, or (more likely) don't have any knowledge of the subject you're talking about.
It's not possible to prove a negative, only a positive. I can't prove there aren't Linux-only drivers out there, but you have the possibily to prove there are. I, however, can go through your list, and disprove them individually.
Saying something with no truth to it is trolling. Since you claim there are lots of Linux-only drivers out there, it's up to you to try to prove it.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
FreeBSD does not focus on i386 performance. That was an old goal.. its not true anymore. FreeBSD 5.x and greater now focus on SMP. SMP designed kernels are slower for single cpu cases which is why Solaris always gets a bad rap as VERY slow.
:)
NetBSD arguably is now the fastest BSD for single cpu i386 boxes. They have "benchmarks" to prove it.
Here's the new goal list for the *BSD community:
FreeBSD: threads/SMP (5.x)
NetBSD: Performance (2.x)
OpenBSD: Security and now replacing the entire
userland with BSD stuff.
DragonFly: FreeBSD did it wrong.. i can fix it... Note that matt D. wrote a lot of the freebsd 5.x code he makes fun of now! Seriously, his message approach reminds me of a Mach style.
OpenDarwin: Some consider this a BSD others do not.. based on Apple's Darwin/OSX releases, it has a Mach kernel with monolithic memory management from FreeBSD. Mach descends from 4.3/4.4 BSD releases so its a BSD derivative at least.
PC BSD: New kid on the block (sorry).. trying to be GNU GPL licensed, freebsd distro/fork? focusing on Desktop market.
Then the countless BSD distros emerging.. most are freebsd based and focus on live cds. Frenzy is one example. PicoBSD is another... etc.
Like it or not the BSD community is going through what the GNU/Linux community went through in the mid to late 90s. I don't have to say its not dead anymore.. its quite alive. While I don't agree with Theo De Raadt, many BSD people feel the Linux camp sold out with most of the big players taking the helm.. IBM, Novell, Sun, Redhat, etc. Its a shame linux has gone corporate.. at least we have a few grassroots distros like Gentoo left.
Just for clarification, I am a FreeBSD, OSX, Gentoo, Solaris, and Windows user. Its helpful to know what my bias is.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
It never ceases to amaze me how many people still cling on to the theory that BSD is "dieing" and that OpenBSD is "bad" and has "no driver support". I've been a sysadmin since before Linux was a corporate buzzword, and I've used just about every operating system out there, and I can say that OpenBSD is the best server operating system, hands down.
Sure, there are speciality corners where other operating systems might work better, but I can't see any good reason why security shouldn't be the priority of every single server on the internet. OpenBSD is the only operating system that is actually taking a serious look at security (whereas most Linux distributions are so bad with security right now, that they are less secure than Windows Server). While OpenBSD's "security audit" of the system code is the major point in its favor, some of the real advances in security are sometimes the subtle hidden ones that aren't even being talked about, such as the Pro Police stack, W^X memory protection (which Linus dismissed for not being a "silver bullet"), and randomized malloc. They might be stupid, little changes, but each one means that it is that much harder for somebody to remotely break into the server. The point is, OpenBSD is thinking about all this, while the other Linux distributions are thinking of ways to stuff more dangerous programs into their default startup.
OpenBSD driver support is far cleaner, plug-n-play's far better, and in some areas is actually more complete than Linux (OpenBSD supports a ton of networking devices right now, including wireless).
Once more difficult than Linux, it is now becoming signifigantly easier, because the core system is clean and concise, and there is extensive documentation both in the form of the manpages and in published books. Where most Linux distributions have opted for bloated, unmanageable monsters that are immediately susceptible to remote buffer overflows the second they are installed, OpenBSD has opted for cleanliness and system simplicity, which I think is a far more enlightened and managable approach in the long run.
When software isn't good enough for the team, they make their own. It is this no-compromise position that led to OpenSSH, which every unix system in the country is now using. It also led to PF, the packet filter that absolutely blows away ipfilter (though I'll admit could be a bit easier to use, I'm a moron when it comes to filter rules). The fact that they can make these incredibly powerful, landscape-changing programs on a whim should be a hint to just how talented the developer team really is.
There are some areas where the system needs work, but those areas are quickly focused on and resolved (after last week's hackathon we'll probably have better RAID device support, despite driver snubs by many of the companies).
I probably sound like a hypocritical ideologue in this post, but I'm more interested showing off the good side of OpenBSD so I can drive this point: People that blindly use Linux for everything are missing out on the real advances in practical server technology, which aren't happening in penguin country.
How's Java state of affairs concerned to OpenBSD (and if some good soul knew, FreeBSD as well)?
And does OpenBSD support linux binaries (to run gtk2 things as well, not even sure if FreeBSD supports it)?
Likely so that people couldn't change what they wrote after replies were written, but it would be good to have it eBay-style, so you'd see something like:So you could only add, not remove.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Wow.. impressive. No, really: great comment!
:D
Actually, one could say: rarely is that point so well argued as it is in your comment.
Oh, wait.. Jem!!