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."
_d8b____________________d8b_______d8,
_?88____________________88P______`8P
__88b__________________d88
__888888b__.d888b,_d888888________88b_.d888b,
__88P_`?8b_?8b,___d8P'_?88________88P_?8b,
_d88,__d88___`?8b_88b__,88b______d88____`?8b
d88'`?88P'`?888P'_`?88P'`88b____d88'_`?888P'
______d8b________________________d8b
______88P________________________88P
_____d88________________________d88
_d888888___d8888b_d888b8b___d888888
d8P'_?88__d8b_,dPd8P'_?88__d8P'_?88
88b__,88b_88b____88b__,88b_88b__,88b
`?88P'`88b`?888P'`?88P'`88b`?88P'`88b
I Am Not An Eigen Value !! I am a Googley Shill !!!
...does it run Linux? Oh wait...
Horns are really just a broken halo.
I notice the usual contemptible morons have come out of the woodwork with the usual trollish garbage that they routinely attach to any article here referring to the BSDs.
I have to ask, Linux users...when are you going to stop making yourselves so easy to hate?
I think you are missing this:
You're an idiot.
How we know is more important than what we know.
It is now official. Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying
Targeted at Linux users you say? "If you've been using Linux for a few years and have chosen the command line lifestyle over a gui lifestyle then OpenBSD should interest you." WTF?
BSD is dead. As long as they have the antique command line tools.
Think whatever you want, but I cannot live w/o GNU command line. bash alone isn't sufficient - text-tools, file-tools are also important.
e.g. BSD's moronic find requires directory name - while GNU one picks current directory by default. All GNU tools support --help and --version - try to find common help displaying option in BSD variants. Not that BSD tools helps output is any useful anyway. Also BSD's ps suck big time. The stupid insistence on using 'more' instead of 'less' isn't helping either.
Also, it might surprise you, 'vi' is no more. Everybody had forgotten what it is - for good - and are using 'vim' instead. But the fact remain: BSD has no sane decent text editor preinstalled. Because POSIX 'vi' cannot be called 'sane' nor 'decent'.
GNU tools by themselves are already pretty old - and kind of outdated. BSD tools are just rotten dead. And with them to me whole BSD: kernel is good, shell around it - is dead.
Constructive note. BSD should align themselves with Debian or Gentoo. Yeah, I know BSD was first. But first doesn't mean better - and those who came after BSD had learned on its mistakes - while BSD remained in its slumber. BSD can learn from Debian it's excellent software management facilities (/etc/alternatives is just god send). From Gentoo BSD can learn how to build software easily in a user-friendly fashion: integrating cross compilation, ccache, distcc all for good fast build on any system.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Of course you mourn the demise of *BSD. It's only natural. Dealing with the death of an operating system close to you can be one of the most traumatic experiences of your life, and you're bound to go through a range of emotions. While you may be able to work through those feelings on your own, it's often helpful to talk to a friend, a family member, or a counselor. You might also seek out a support group for people who are grieving.
Grieving is a process, and it's totally normal to go through feelings of shock, sadness, anger even guilt. The healing process is different for everyone. It might take you six weeks to move on, or it might take you six years. Don't beat yourself up because you're not "over it" yet. It takes time to heal wounds.
So what else can you do to feel better? It might sound corny, but try writing a letter, making a collage, or planting a tree in memory of the operating system you've lost. Remembering and celebrating all the good things *BSD brought to your life might help give you some closure, and having a keepsake to honor *BSD may help you get through some tough times in the future when you'll be missing it.
It's true that life won't be the same without *BSD around. It may seem like you'll never feel better, but eventually you will. Take some comfort in the old saying, "Time heals all wounds," and remember that *BSD will always be with you in your heart.
"I know that the day I will run a critical application/server, I will either use openBSD or maybe a stable debian but not a recent linux." - by Yvanhoe (564877) on Wednesday May 02, @05:06AM (#18953825)
.reg file hacks, security policy tuning, and more. In total? This took me a 1/2 hour of work to test & apply.
Did you know that NASDAQ (one of the MOST "mission critical applications" there is, in investor's monies) runs uptime into the fabled "5 nines" (99.999% uptime, 24x7) using Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 & failover clusters, as well as IIS 6.x?
If not, now you do!
"and the fact that openBSD doesn't use the linux/windows "security" paradigm of "write software quickly, find security bugs, fix them ASAP"" - by Yvanhoe (564877) on Wednesday May 02, @05:06AM (#18953825)
The point of the article shows there is indeed, 2 remote exploits possible though!
Also, OpenBSD just isn't as widely used, or as flexible, as Windows or Linux are though. BSD's or Linux or MacOS X (UNIX DERIVANTS ALL) are just not targetted as much as Windows installations are, because Windows is the most widely used and flexible OS there is, on the most widely used hardware type installation there is (x86).
I.E./E.G.-> Windows NT-based OS family (since 2000/XP/Server 2003 & even beforehand) run on x86 (linux runs on more, and NT-based OS' used to in RISC/MIPS/Alpha prior to NT 4.0 iirc)!
That is the most used cpu platform there is first of all, and have more surrounding apps for various purposes that run on them. Thus, you really have a greater surface area of employment opportunity on them with that point, since there are more of them out there, from the home level, all the way up thru client-server departmental arrangements, into "Enterprise Class" setups (witness NASDAQ using Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 to run their business 24x7 nonstop and successfully, in a HUGE transaction based system).
"Their strategy is instead to be secure out of the box, at the price of a slower pace of development and less features." - by Yvanhoe (564877) on Wednesday May 02, @05:06AM (#18953825)
Windows, since even before Windows Server 2003 (and now VISTA) have WHQL driver quality tests, as well as application compatibility testing!
(As well as features in the OS that help counter for older legacy apps also)
"Their strategy is instead to be secure out of the box, at the price of a slower pace of development and less features." - by Yvanhoe (564877) on Wednesday May 02, @05:06AM (#18953825)
Key word: "OUT OF THE BOX", an important point here:
E.G.-> Currently, I have my Windows Server 2003 SP #2 running a 84.735 score on the "CENTER FOR INTERNET SECURITY" CIS Tool 1.0, after
This is a java based webbrowser tool, and iirc? You can run it on your BSD or Linux setup as well, and see if it does better, especially "out of the box", or hardened even (SELinux is such an example, and in & of itself, brings up an interesting point about Linux - if it is SO solid out of the box? Where is there SELinux, period, then??)
Windows NT-based OS' also possess a C2 security rating per the "orange book" and can be made more secure than they are out of the box.
(Although, afaik Windows, has not achieved beyond C2 security levels in B level ratings, or beyond that in "verified design", and I do not believe ANY OS has achieved this yet, though some UNIX's have reached the "orange book" B level designation at this point and years ago in fact, circa the mid 90's (HP-UX may be one example here)).
It is NOT as you state it is for Windows, @ least, not anymore, and has not been since the early 21st century! Get with the times, my man!
Rate it any way you like, but this merely indicates YOU moderator, are just a Pro-Unix (& knock offs) fan of UNIX, period, who aids in compounding myths about Windows to attempt to stop others from using it, and this, is misinformation.
LOL, Mr. Moderator: Your omitting disputing my points above says it all for me.
How was I "off topic"?
I quoted the person speaking and addressed his points - how is that "off topic"? I was completely ON TOPIC, quoting him and replying to his points!
Give us a break, slashdot pro-Unix and derivants mod, you are not fooling anyone!
I found this drawing particularly interesting. Notice how they show the penguin as the guy taking all the source. Rather hypocritical don't you think?