Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

OpenBSD 3.7 Reviewed

Posted by Hemos on from the good-stuff-to-read dept.

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."

10 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. Re:BSD, the history by oKtosiTe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    BSD is not dying at all. Most of the major operating systems are based on BSD, or have borrowed code from it.

    --
    It will happen.
  2. Re:Declare your bias, why don't you? by millahtime · · Score: 4, Insightful

    licensing issues

    You have issues with BSD licensing? How much freeer do you want it?

    --
    Evolution or ID?
  3. Actual information by slavemowgli · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Actual information by molnarcs · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Once I criticized this guy (in a comment) for an even more shallow review FreeBSD 5.3 - because I firmly believed (and I still believe) that he didn't even bother to install it :)) He wrote a review on 5.2 a few months before that, which was very critical (and rightfully so, 5.2 was a quite flaky release) but at the same a really good review. In his 5.3 review he basically recirculated the points he made for 5.2, and even got some really weird factual mistakes. His response was to put me on his foe list ... now that's a pretty childish behaviour, isn't it?

      Later he wrote an article on newsforge about "Being Free is Hard to Do" on free software, than he submitted this article to slashdot under his nick (ValourX), describing it in the following terms:

      What is more important to you -- the four freedoms of Free Software, or the ability to maximize the value of your computer? It's a question that comes up on Slashdot often, but rarely is it so well argued as it is in this NewsForge article. Link.
      What shameless self promotion! It is a pity, for once this guy wrote excellent reviews and articles, but what he does lately is prostitution, not journalism.
  4. I expected more, but of course... by dayid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Declare your bias, why don't you? by compass46 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not sure he was complaining about the BSD license so much as the article not expanding on the license fights OpenBSD has had with hardware vendors. There were only a few sentences scattered throughout.

  6. Re:Declare your bias, why don't you? by Metteyya · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He talks about the licensing issues. Which drives me to the question: what's the logic behind throwing away Apache 2 (because of too restrictive license) and distributing closed-source wireless drivers at the same time?

  7. There is less reason to review OpenBSD. by emil · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Declare your bias, why don't you? by itsybitsy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'll bite. How isn't BSD "free enough"?

    Are you talking about the so called "freedom" that code has under the GPL that "keeps" it open? That's not really freedom as it comes at a cost, a large cost, the authors "give up" their "rights" is the cost. Now they might want to do that and pay that price (which is perfectly fine if they choose to do so), but afterwards they are no longer free to do what they want with the code, and neither are users who might choose to use the code as the "many rules" of the GPL will keep you in line with the "commune of the GPL".

    Freedom isn't the right word for the GPL'd code. It's too bad that Richard Stallman usurped that word. Yes, you get some freedom but it's more like a restricted freedom only if you obey the party line.

    The BSD license with its minimal terms gives authors and users maximal choices including the freedom to modify the code and not release it and sell such modifications! That's simply not an option if you want to stay within the terms of the agreement with the GPL! So the GPL isn't "free" in a way that the BSD is free.

    These two licences aim at different audiences and use different methods (minimal v.s. wordy) to achive their goals.

    The BSD is about "freedom of choice" of BOTH authors and users.

    The GPL doesn't care about users or authors. It simply cares about the code and will impose whatever restrictions by having users and authors surrender their natural and legal rights to the commune of the GPL.

    Which do you want? The freedom of choice or the rules of the GPL commune you wish to live under! It's your own personal choice until you commit your code to one of them (or another licence scheme of your choice). Choose wisely and after consideration is my best advise. Be free, stay free.

  9. Re:Declare your bias, why don't you? by itsybitsy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are you talking about the so called "freedom" that code has under the GPL that "keeps" it open? That's not really freedom as it comes at a cost, a large cost, the authors "give up" their "rights" is the cost. Now they might want to do that and pay that price (which is perfectly fine if they choose to do so), but afterwards they are no longer free to do what they want with the code, and neither are users who might choose to use the code as the "many rules" of the GPL will keep you in line with the "commune of the GPL".

    Freedom isn't the right word for the GPL'd code. It's too bad that Richard Stallman usurped that word. Yes, you get some freedom but it's more like a restricted freedom only if you obey the party line, and that's not true freedom at all since your freedom is restricted. Restricted-freedom-at-a-high-cost is more like it... or Freedom-with-legirons.

    The BSD license with its minimal terms gives authors and users maximal choices including the freedom to modify the code and not release it and sell such modifications! That's true freedom of choice for authors and users! That's simply not an option if you want to stay within the terms of the agreement with the GPL! So the GPL isn't "free" in a way that the BSD is free.