OpenBSD 4.1 Released

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by kdawson on Tuesday May 1, 2007 @07:42PM from the hot-bits dept.

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."

218 comments

who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 19:46 · Score: -1, Troll

_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
1. Re:who cares? by Marcion · 2007-05-01 20:01 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Why do we care, because now people can use the code hex09f91102... oh have we moved on already?
  
  No idea, they make a nice SSH program though.
  
  --
  My little Linux and tech blog
2. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 20:57 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Well, if that is the case then I must be that kid in the movies because I see dead OSs on lots of my servers.
3. Re:who cares? by WilliamSChips · 2007-05-02 22:57 · Score: 1
  
  Bruce Willis is dead.
  
  --
  Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Having a little trouble by Rumagent · 2007-05-01 19:48 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Can someone help me? The driver for my wireless network card seems to be broken.
1. Re:Having a little trouble by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 20:20 · Score: 0
  
  Digg dies, OpenBSD is alive.
  
  Go quickly to the gunstore for the rapture approaches and you are likely to be eaten by a grue.
2. Re:Having a little trouble by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 21:29 · Score: 0
  
  That would be a gruesome way to die.
Just curious... by darnok · 2007-05-01 19:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

My OpenBSD firewall box is several years old now (version 3.x), just keeps working and probably will until the 8yo hardware finally dies. Although I'm interested in the features in 4.1, and congratulate the developers on what'll doubtless be another good release, ultimately I'll probably stick with my existing setup. I *love* OpenBSD, for precisely one reason; it does what it's supposed to, and in my experience it *never* fails. However, I'm very unlikely to upgrade to any new version; why change something that works perfectly?

For those of you using OpenBSD, how many of you are in a similar situation?
1. Re:Just curious... by TodMinuit · 2007-05-01 20:16 · Score: 1
  
  I recently upgraded my firewall from a 3.x to 4.0 because the version I was running had a bug that didn't allow ALTQ rules to be unloaded from pf.
  
  Now, the standard kernel is too big. Programs keep running out of memory. The machine is from, like, 1993. It's a 75MHz Pentium with 16MB of RAM.
  
  Oops.
  
  --
  I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
2. Re:Just curious... by SlashV · 2007-05-01 20:26 · Score: 1
  
  Same here. I run 3.7 on my box and leave it that way. Particularly since upgrading seems like a bit of a pain(I have never done it, but the instructions for it sound like trouble).
  However, I do wonder whether not upgrading has security implications..
3. Re:Just curious... by QuantumG · 2007-05-01 20:35 · Score: 1
  
  I do wonder whether not upgrading has security implications.. You wonder? You wonder? Of course it has security implications.
  
  Sheesh.
  
  --
  How we know is more important than what we know.
4. Re:Just curious... by Yvanhoe · 2007-05-01 21:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You wonder? You wonder? Of course it has security implications. I think you are missing this :
  We remain proud of OpenBSD's record of ten years with only two remote holes in the default install. and the fact that openBSD doesn't use the linux/windows "security" paradigm of "write software quickly, find security bugs, fix them ASAP". Their strategy is instead to be secure out of the box, at the price of a slower pace of development and less features.
  
  I am quite happy with linux right now. But 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.
  
  --
  The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
5. Re:Just curious... by QuantumG · 2007-05-01 21:13 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  I think you are missing this:
  
  You're an idiot.
  
  --
  How we know is more important than what we know.
6. Re:Just curious... by asninn · 2007-05-01 21:14 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  However, I'm very unlikely to upgrade to any new version; why change something that works perfectly?
  
  Because holes continue to be found in every version and because old versions do not receive fixes anymore. There's only been two remote holes, of course, but there's an emphasis on both "remote" *and* "holes" here - and also an emphasis on "root", which unfortunately isn't even included in the slogan.
  
  In other words, if you don't upgrade unless/until a new remote root exploit is found, you still have to worry about local users rooting your box (and don't forget that there typically are users like "www" etc. even when no actual person besides you has an account on the box; not a big problem for a firewall, most likely, but servers in general aren't automatically safe), and you still have to worry about remote priviledge escalation, remote denials of service and the like, too.
  
  That's not to say that OpenBSD is not a very secure system, but the slogan is somewhat misleading (it's marketing, after all!), and not keeping a system up to date with security patches is never a good idea.
  
  --
  butter the donkey
7. Re:Just curious... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 21:32 · Score: 0
  
  Takes one to know one
8. Re:Just curious... by toadlife · 2007-05-01 21:36 · Score: 1
  
  "it does what it's supposed to, and in my experience it *never* fails"
  That was my experience too, until I accidentally typed `postsuper -r all|postfix reload` instead of `postsuper -r all;postfix reload` on my Open BSD 3.5/postfix box. It caused a Kernel panic.
  
  Other than that, the box ran without a problem for 2.5 years straight.
  
  --
  I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
9. Re:Just curious... by empaler · 2007-05-01 21:51 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't any other OS. This is BSD. Renowned for security implementation.
10. Re:Just curious... by udippel · 2007-05-01 21:56 · Score: 1
  
  The machine is from, like, 1993. It's a 75MHz Pentium with 16MB of RAM.
  
  Just drop by, I'll have another 16MB of EDO RAM for you; and you'll be fine (the 75 MHz Pentium is very much okay, even on 4.X).
11. Re:Just curious... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 22:32 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  running 4.0 on a p166 w/32 of EDO
  
  generally, I just keep a copy of all the files I change in /home/update/{etc,var,...}
  
  and simply back this up prior to the uprade,
  reinstall 'new' (not upgrade), make sure my ethernet if's didn't change somehow,
  and just diff & cp until I'm up to date.
  
  usually takes about 1-2 hours each release, since I've really only touched
  pf.conf, rc.conf, hostname.if, and a few others.
  
  for the guy with the 16MB: just rebuild the kernel with less drivers, etc..
  might take 6 hours, but hey, it will still compile, right?
12. Re:Just curious... by kv9 · 2007-05-01 22:35 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  However, I'm very unlikely to upgrade to any new version; why change something that works perfectly?
  
  nice troll. to add support for more platforms, new devices, new tools (hoststated niceness), bufixes, etc. are you the only OpenBSD user? do you expect progress to stop just because you're happy with the current state of things?
  +5, Interesting my foot and other foot. good job, mods.
  
  --
  Stop Computers/Cars Analogies on S
13. Re:Just curious... by drsmithy · 2007-05-01 22:55 · Score: 1
  
  That was my experience too, until I accidentally typed `postsuper -r all|postfix reload` instead of `postsuper -r all;postfix reload` on my Open BSD 3.5/postfix box. It caused a Kernel panic.
  If that's what actually happened (ie: you didn't coincidentally get hit by a cosmic ray at exactly the same time) it's a pretty serious bug. Is it repeatable ?
14. Re:Just curious... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 22:59 · Score: 0
  
  I'm running 3.7 mainly because I don't feel like reinstalling :) Though I might give 4.1 a try... CPU is a 2.4ghz P4 with 1/2 a gig of ram, so it should be fine. (One of those slickdeals dell server deals from about 4 or 5 yrs ago) But 3.7 does all the routing/firewalling I need. Only complaint with it is some altq issues, but for the last 3 years it's handled two outside network connections brilliantly (I miss being @ the university with a cable modem.) Oh well, such is life. I'll upgrade eventually (erm, fresh install) if I can just find the time... maybe after I finish season 5 of angel & season 8 of buffy...
15. Re:Just curious... by TheRaven64 · 2007-05-01 23:04 · Score: 1
  
  Have you tried building a new kernel? The default is intended to support most hardware. For a limited platform, I would recommend that you make an absolutely minimal kernel config and use that; I do for a Geode box I own, and it's a 266MHz chip with 64MB of RAM...
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
16. Re:Just curious... by TheRaven64 · 2007-05-01 23:09 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree that the grandparent is a troll. To some extent, I agree with him. I don't rush to deploy OpenBSD updates, because the system got to a state where I consider that it does everything I want from a (server) OS some time ago. Of course, new features are nice. I don't want to imply that they should stop developing them, and I do often see new things I might find a use for, but my OpenBSD installs currently work and work very well. I find updates from some other Free Software projects a lot more exciting, ironically, because they don't yet do everything I want them to.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
17. Re:Just curious... by MrNaz · 2007-05-01 23:17 · Score: 1
  
  Because holes continue to be found
  
  Yea, both of them. And in this case, I'm not using that as a sarcastic reference to a low number, there really have only been two.
  
  --
  I hate printers.
18. Re:Just curious... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 23:18 · Score: -1, Offtopic
  
  "I *love* OpenBSD, for precisely one reason; it does what it's supposed to" - by darnok (650458) on Wednesday May 02, @03:49AM (#18953491)
  
  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 /. , so please - do not take it that way.
  
  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 /. , that (more or less) "BSD IS THE MOST SECURE OS THERE IS"!
  
  (Perhaps OpenBSD does not qualify on that account, vs. origina
19. Re:Just curious... by MrNaz · 2007-05-01 23:19 · Score: 1
  
  He's running a firewall you dolt. Since when do you need support for a new graphics chipset on a firewall? If it supports your eth cards than that's it. You don't need anything else. At all.
  
  --
  I hate printers.
20. Re:Just curious... by smittyoneeach · 2007-05-01 23:37 · Score: 1
  
  Rather limited view.
  You also need to provide some positive feedback to the system that produced your rock-solid product.
  Get a poster or t-shirt, if not the new version.
  One need not love Theo, but he's worthy of respect and support.
  
  --
  Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
21. Re:Just curious... by udippel · 2007-05-01 23:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And in this case, I'm not using that as a sarcastic reference to a low number, there really have only been two.
  
  Hmm, sorry, two what ? Two remotely exploitable holes in the default install, or two users running the default install ?
  (For those not in the know: the default install has - drums rolling - ssh enabled. And SMTP on 127.0.0.1. That's it. Over. No http, no ftp, no pop, nothing else.)
  
  Don't get me wrong, I'm a great OpenBSD fan and run it on my 3 production machines. Still, personally I consider that statement about the two holes more embarassing than impressive.
22. Re:Just curious... by pixr99 · 2007-05-01 23:45 · Score: 1
  
  Troll? I didn't get the impression that he was claiming the OpenBSD project should call it a day because their software can't be improved. I think he was claiming that for his particular application (a firewall), he didn't need anything more than what it already provides.
23. Re:Just curious... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 23:49 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  "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)
  
  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 .reg file hacks, security policy tuning, and more. In total? This took me a 1/2 hour of work to test & apply.
  
  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!
24. Re:Just curious... by kv9 · 2007-05-01 23:57 · Score: 1
  
  He's running a firewall you dolt.
  I don't care what the fuck he is running. nobody is holding a gun to his head to upgrade. this stupid question *always* pops out. and you can compress this thread down to three things: 1, does it run Linux? 2, why should I upgrade? 3, did you forget about the song?
  to answer your interesting questions: 1, yes it does with Xen or COMPAT_LINUX. 2, you shouldn't. 3, no we did not.
  If it supports your eth cards than that's it.
  4.1 comes with a shitload of NIC updates.
  You don't need anything else. At all.
  you need it to support the rest of the components in your computer unless you plan to run it straight off the NIC
  
  --
  Stop Computers/Cars Analogies on S
25. Re:Just curious... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 00:03 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  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!
26. Re:Just curious... by kv9 · 2007-05-02 00:14 · Score: 1
  
  I think he was claiming that for his particular application (a firewall), he didn't need anything more than what it already provides.
  how is that relevant to the discussion? 4.1 brings all kinds of goodies to the table: new nic drivers, hoststated, pf related improvements, sensors and more. just rtfrelease. these changes are all related to "his particular application".
  this is the typical remark of the "nerd" with a single old box in his basement: "why should I upgrade?". you shouldn't. install it on your test systems, and if it works out deploy it on your new installs. and eventually you'll upgrade the older ones too. or more likely, you'll just apply the security patches and chug along with the old systems.
  I'm not an upgrade nut. we still run 3.8 on "production" systems, but the newer ones have 4.0 (and pretty soon 4.1) installed.
  
  --
  Stop Computers/Cars Analogies on S
27. Re:Just curious... by pixr99 · 2007-05-02 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  > I think he was claiming that for his particular application (a firewall),
  > he didn't need anything more than what it already provides.
  
  >> how is that relevant to the discussion?
  
  Well, since he was discussing his firewall and his use of OpenBSD on his firewall, it seemed relevant that I discuss his firewall and his use of OpenBSD on it. No?
28. Re:Just curious... by kv9 · 2007-05-02 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  no.
  
  --
  Stop Computers/Cars Analogies on S
29. Re:Just curious... by TodMinuit · 2007-05-02 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I was going to, but then I messed up the system I was building it on when I unpacked the kernel source. I haven't gotten around to trying again. (Luckily it was a virtual machine.)
  
  --
  I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
30. Re:Just curious... by melstav · 2007-05-02 00:48 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Except that, as was pointed out to me by several people when I tried to dispute the (at the time) "only one remote vulnerability ..." claim, once you change a config file, you no longer have a default install.
  
  The example I used was that the version of sendmail they had been distributing had a vulnerability that could be exploited to allow someone to allow the execution of arbitrary code with elevated privileges. The response I got was that, because they pre-configure sendmail to only accept connections from the local host, it's not a remote vulnerability -- it's a local one, and thus doesn't count.
  
  I'm sorry, but if all I have to do to "default install" to have a remotely exploitable vulnerability is reconfigure a service that is installed and running in the default install to accept connections from remote computers, I think the claim is disingenuous.
  
  I'm not saying that I have a problem with OpenBSD -- I use it on my firewall boxen and love it. I just have issues with some of their advertising.
31. Re:Just curious... by Niten · 2007-05-02 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  I'm upgrading to 4.1 because now the generic kernel allows my PowerMac G4 router/server to restart automatically in the event of a power failure. But frankly, I probably would have upgraded anyway: otherwise, it would be difficult for me to justify buying the CD and supporting the project, wouldn't it? :P
32. Re:Just curious... by raddan · 2007-05-02 01:11 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I would do the same, but we are affected by some of OpenBSD's recent patches. While it's true that there are only 2 remote holes in the default install in 10 years, there are other bugs like denial of service, database corruption, and local privilege escalation that would have affected us. I've backported a few easy patches to some of the machines that are difficult to take down for maintenance, but in general we make the effort to upgrade every other release.
  
  OpenBSD is great because maintenance is much easier. I don't have to worry, for example, about a broken libc after an 'emerge world' like I do on my linux boxen at home. That's an extremely painful lesson to learn.
  
  BTW, if you love the OS as much as you say you do, shell out the 50 clams to buy a CD set. If donating doesn't give you that warm, fuzzy feeling, at least the cool stickers will. The latest set comes with a wireframe Puffy. Awesome.
33. Re:Just curious... by Noryungi · 2007-05-02 01:22 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  In other words, if you don't upgrade unless/until a new remote root exploit is found, you still have to worry about local users rooting your box (and don't forget that there typically are users like "www" etc. even when no actual person besides you has an account on the box; not a big problem for a firewall, most likely, but servers in general aren't automatically safe), and you still have to worry about remote priviledge escalation, remote denials of service and the like, too.
  
  True, but you should also read about PrivSep, W^X, security levels, systrace and other important security mechanisms that mitigates those risks (while not entirely eliminating them). All of these (and more) make a well-configured OpenBSD machine a very tough nut to crack. So to speak.
  
  To me, the best thing about OpenBSD is not that it is perfectly secure (that can't be achieved) but that security is taken seriously and all this mechanisms are activated by default. The excellent documentation, especially manual pages vs the GNU unreadable info pages mess, and reactive developper community are also big pluses in my book.
  
  --
  The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
34. Re:Just curious... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 02:04 · Score: 0
  
  Because holes continue to be found in every version and because old versions do not receive fixes anymore.
  
  Not only that, but they have a nasty habit of fixing security holes without telling anybody. That means you could be vulnerable without knowing about it.
35. Re:Just curious... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 02:06 · Score: 0
  
  9:04AM up 747 days, 8:28, 2 users, load averages: 0.33, 0.15, 0.10
  
  747 days ago we had a long power failure which the UPS couldn't run through. That killed over 683 days of uptime then.
36. Re:Just curious... by LurkerXXX · 2007-05-02 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  Embarrassing? Why? Because they don't run a bunch of unneeded services off the bat like some other OS's do/have-done-in-the-past?
37. Re:Just curious... by udippel · 2007-05-02 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  Mmh. I *do* like and prefer the 'you have to enable' philosophy of OpenBSD. No need to lock down any box.
  But you don't want to tell me that a box running ssh and nothing more and nothing less makes any sense to run, do you ?
  So what's the point of bragging with this ssh-only box to have so few vulnerabilities ? Again, I'm a fan; except of this aspect, which I still consider embarrassing. But maybe that's only me.
38. Re:Just curious... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 04:05 · Score: 0
  
  "Also, OpenBSD just isn't as widely used, or as flexible, as Windows..."
  
  Depends on use. I just built a radio to copper bridge with IPsec, packet filtering and authpf for user authentication. I recompiled the kernel and put it on a compact flash using OBSD on a small Soekris box. I don't know Windows but it just doesn't seem like it would be used like this. Maybe someone can shed some light on that subject. But I wouldn't trust a MS box for this role at all.
39. Re:Just curious... by noc007 · 2007-05-02 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. The point is to make you turn on/install only what you need. You're responsible for getting that running and making sure it's secure. If I'm going to be building a firewall, there's no need for httpd or anything else besides pf and sshd. I'll admit Theo can come off as a bit kooky in interviews and his code seem over paranoid, but that paranoia leeds to a more secure OS out of the box.
  
  I'd much rather spend my time installing only the software I need and making sure it's all buttoned up than building my own kernel and/or having to check around to make sure I don't have any unnecessary software running on top of installing the software I need. I've got better things to do than patch up an OS and remove unnecessary software; it's bad enough I have to do it with Windows.
40. Re:Just curious... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 04:20 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  "Depends on use" - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02, @12:05PM (#18957955)
  
  Always does, I never stated otherwise. Windows, Unix Variants, what-have-you, have their niches areas they are superior to one another in.
  
  http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=233061&thr eshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=18954433
  
  (In fact, iirc, in the URL noted above (also in this thread/topic)? I freely conceded that Microsoft concentrates SOLELY on x86 really, dropping support for lesser used hardware/cpu platforms such as MIPS RISC, PowerPC, and such - it used to be that way, prior to NT 4.0, iirc, in NT 3.x - 3.5x, but MS changed policy on it).
  
  Your statement, based on mine earlier to which you replied? A non-issue, as I never argued it here and won't!
  
  In fact, if you see that URL here above, I commended (in a way), the fact Linux and other UNIX variants, are SO portable (albeit, portable to far lesser used platforms all the way from home usage, thru departmental servers, up to ENTERPRISE CLASS 24x7 SYSTEMS, such as NASDAQ RUNS, SUCCESSFULLY!)
  
  Hey, now though, on another note I made to you? Consider running this (for your hardware platform, especially LINUX, which you claimed to use):
  
  http://www.cisecurity.org/bench.html
  
  CIS Tool 1.0
  
  (And get back to me with your score, and where it "failed you" on any points it does so on. On Windows Server 2003 SP #2, for your reference, I am able to get an 84.735 score!)
  
  Thanks, if you have the time!
41. Re:Just curious... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  So! It doesn't matter how great Windows is. It's a Microsoft product. A company that I refuse to support because of their business practices, ELUA and artificial restrictions.
42. Re:Just curious... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 04:39 · Score: 0
  
  To each his own, & perhaps on some grounds, you ARE right (I do not battle on grounds of business practices because as "bad" as Mr. Gates is perceived as here, I feel Mr. Ballmer is far worse and blatantly so! See, instead on technology only, I believe all businessmen are after dollars, not better product imo, via better technology):
  
  Thus, on those grounds above you stated to which I reply to you on now? I refuse to support UNIX on 1 ground - which IS much like yours:
  
  We should ALL have been running some form of UNIX, if you think about it! There should have been no Apple System 6/7/8/9 MacOS X, BSD, Linux, Os/2, DOS, Windows of any form!
  
  We should have been running a single OS, albeit one ported to various hardware platforms, and UNIX was the best bet for that imo! It was the future (presently) happening then (prior to the 21st century).
  
  However, what resulted instead, once Bell Labs opened up their code?
  
  A pile of people building their own distros (BSD, BellLabs/AT&T, Linux, SUN OS, IBM AIX, & the list goes on ad-infinitum).
  
  The Linux camp? No different - everyone's "jockeying for power" (and money).
  
  At least Microsoft & Bill Gates had enough COMMON-SENSE, to avoid that fragmentation of their OS and control the code, from a single vantage point!
  
  (At least Linus Torvalds holds out at the kernel level in regards to this, & demands oversight of this so it does not "go outta control" as it had for previous UNIXES, so badly, that apps will not run across diff. unixes, period!)
43. Re:Just curious... by Dog-Cow · 2007-05-02 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  I think the point is that having a super-secure OS w.r.t to remote vulnerabilities is very easy when there is no remote access. If (open)ssh was the only service enabled on a Windows box*, it would be just as secure from a remote-exploit point of view, would it not? That's why it's embarrassing. When you learn that there are no remote services enabled in the default install, it makes the whole idea totally pointless.
  
  * To my knowledge, the NT kernel has never had a remote-exploit found. Only services above that level.
44. Re:Just curious... by toadlife · 2007-05-02 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it was repeatable. I tried it again to verify that it was not a coincidence. The box no longer even exists and at the time I didn't report it to the OpenBSD folks.
  
  If you want to try it it, was OpenBSD 3.5 and postfix 2.x, spamassassin and amavisd. Maybe I install it in aspare box try to repeat it and do the right thing and report it.
  
  --
  I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
45. Re:Just curious... by durdur · 2007-05-02 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  See http://www.openbsd.org/security.html.
  
  After a while they stop issuing patches for old versions - 3.7 is old enough to be in this category.
  
  So even if you have kept up security patches, by not upgrading, you do have possible issues.
46. Re:Just curious... by synthespian · 2007-05-02 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  OpenBSD's man pages are the gold standard.
  
  --
  Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
47. Re:Just curious... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 07:38 · Score: 0
  
  "If (open)ssh was the only service enabled on a Windows box*, it would be just as secure from a remote-exploit point of view, would it not?"
  
  But you *cannot* have that on a Windows box, because they have a gazillion ways they must provide backwards compitability, and several of those are network things. Just as a random example, check out C Paget's shmoocon 07 presentation on the Windows automatic webproxy detection.
  It asks the *network* in half a dozen unauthenticated old protocols about where there might be a proxy. You don't need to root the box if all you wanted to do was MITM all web access, and besides there were some ways helpful to rooting in that you could use it to spoof NTLM challenges.
  Or just try to disable as many unneeded Windows services - suddenly random features stops working in Office without any sensible error message, that is my personal experience at least. Not to mention Windows just as BSD runs integral system services such as DNS. IIRC Windows had a DNS client vulnerability not long ago, kernel or not.
  
  OBSD has the *design* to be secure, NT does not, in comparison. Number of default network services is just an illustration of that. If you have the right design, then, in some relative sense, maybe it's "very easy" to be secure.
  
  disclaimer: I'm running NT5 at work, and I never had root on a *BSD box.
48. Re:Just curious... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 07:53 · Score: 0
  
  Do not mention "COMMON-SENSE" and the company that came up with the LM hash password storage method in the same sentence.
  Ever again.
  
  Besides, MS has it's own share of fragmentation in the time domain, it could even be argued to be worse.
49. Re:Just curious... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  Are you that stupid?
  
  Windows is more flexible?
  
  What does WHQL have to do with security? WHQL certified drivers screw my system up every time I use them.
  
  Go look at VMS, have fun.
50. Re:Just curious... by LurkerXXX · 2007-05-02 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  But you don't want to tell me that a box running ssh and nothing more and nothing less makes any sense to run, do you ?
  
  I do it all the time. I've got lots of firewalls running that only have SSH running, and no other external services.
  
  If I do want another service going, I'll start it myself, because when I install the machine, it has no way of knowing if I want to run a web/smtp/imap/pop/ntp/ftp/samba/nfs/tomcat/dhcp/dn s/yadda/yadda/yadda server, and so cranking any or all of those up just in case I want them is rather silly.
51. Re:Just curious... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 09:11 · Score: 0
  
  Make your condescending remarks, but explain to me why perfect security cannot be achieved?
52. Re:Just curious... by yoasif · 2007-05-02 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  As far as I can tell, the only way to access the tool is to be a member of the site (which starts at $300 annually for individuals). Thanks, but no thanks.
53. Re:Just curious... by ScrewMaster · 2007-05-02 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  Aw, man ... I hate when that happens.
  
  You're going to need a bigger UPS.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
54. Re:Just curious... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 10:04 · Score: 0
  
  "especially LINUX, which you claimed to use..."
  
  No, I said OBSD (OpenBSD).
55. Re:Just curious... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 11:12 · Score: 0
  
  Here's hoping I'm not missing something obvious.....
  
  I'm not the GP and I'm a fairly inexperience/ignorant lurker. That said, I believe what the GP has been (meant to have been) saying is that the "Only 2 remote... in the default install" doesn't tell the new user whether or not the other commonly used programs have been found to have "problems." If there are none, then saying it makes it more impressive, but if there have been problems found in some of these programs, but only someone ** diligently searching the source ** might find them, it becomes a marketing technique the GP (and I) would rather see left to folks who feel that honesty can be curtailed when it doesn't enhance ones product presentation.
  
  It's a little like advertisers saying,... "Up to 20% off!," but you never know if you're going to pay full price or not,... nevermind, what that price may be.
  
  Of course, I may be misunderstanding your situation,... perhaps, you do read/security check the source code in "non-default" programs before cranking them up.
56. Re:Just curious... by udippel · 2007-05-02 13:59 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, see. You change your /etc/rc.conf.local by adding pf=YES.
  Lost. This is not the default install, and possible vulnerabilities in PF don't contribute to the 'two'.
  So, you would not know how many vulnerabilities your install had had over the last years.
  If you are worth your salary, you add time tracking.
  Lost. This is not the default install, and any vulnerability in ntp/ntpd/ntpdate/rdate/openntpd does not increment the 'two'.
  
  So let's leave the 'two' as a marketing hoax.
57. Re:Just curious... by Tweekster · 2007-05-02 14:55 · Score: 1
  
  Why would you want anything more than that running in a default install?
  
  --
  The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
58. Re:Just curious... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 23:42 · Score: 0
  
  manual pages vs the GNU unreadable info pages mess
  
  You've hit on one of my biggest peeves with GNU. Love 99% of what they've done, but 'info' is just downright painful.
Yea, but... by Heembo · 2007-05-01 19:53 · Score: 4, Funny

Yea, but does it run Linux? Oh wait....

--
Horns are really just a broken halo.
1. Re:Yea, but... by LizardKing · 2007-05-01 21:06 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  To which the stock answer is, yes OpenBSD does run Linux - Linunx binaries at any rate (linux_compat(8)). I don't know about OpenBSD, but on NetBSD this works very well. Before a native JDK 1.4.2 was available for NetBSD I ran the Linux binaries of it under emulation.
2. Re:Yea, but... by TheRaven64 · 2007-05-02 00:03 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Sysjail has a nice feature, where you can run everything inside the jail via a foreign system call framework. This means you can set up a sysjail on OpenBSD containing a complete Linux-compiled userland, and users can access it without ever being aware that it's not Linux unless they try to load a kernel module (or use a system call that isn't emulated).
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
DIGGaz are NIGGaz by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 19:56 · Score: -1, Offtopic

white man always oppressin black man
1. Re:DIGGaz are NIGGaz by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 20:14 · Score: 0
  
  Thief!
2. Re:DIGGaz are NIGGaz by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 21:16 · Score: 0
  
  We prefer the less prejorative term "infrinja".
I Am Not An Eigen Value !! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 19:59 · Score: -1, Troll

I Am Not An Eigen Value !! I am a Googley Shill !!!
Beowulf ? by BeoCluster · 2007-05-01 20:00 · Score: -1

Can I make a Beowulf cluster of OpenBSD's boxes ?
1. Re:Beowulf ? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 23:27 · Score: 0
  
  No, but in Soviet Russia you can make OpenBSD boxes out of a Beowulf Cluster.
2 remote holes in default install by timmarhy · 2007-05-01 20:00 · Score: 2, Funny

so does this mean when i install my bick OS which defaults to turning off your NIC's, i will be able to claim my security is better then anyones?

--
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Downloads by dleigh · 2007-05-01 20:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

Why not a link to the .iso download page in the article?
(Yes, that was annoyed sarcasm). I'd rather donate to the project and download an image than get one shipped, I can't believe OpenBSD is still refusing to provide Official ISOs.
1. Re:Downloads by geminidomino · 2007-05-01 20:02 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  That's the one thing that's hindered my using it, too.
  
  Keeping in mind who we're dealing with, though, I don't see it changing any time soon.
2. Re:Downloads by astrashe · 2007-05-01 20:05 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You can download a very small minimal iso and do a net install. I did it this evening -- the core system is pretty small, and comes down quickly. It's not as inconvenient as you might think.
3. Re:Downloads by Marcion · 2007-05-01 20:07 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  >I can't believe OpenBSD is still refusing to provide Official ISOs. Me neither, which is why they have no users. If you want to have to pay for an operating system before you even try it then you might as well run Windows. I tried once downloading the files via FTP was poorly documented (at least then), I got stuck with the editing the cylinder limit things and then I gave up and installed Linux.
  
  --
  My little Linux and tech blog
4. Re:Downloads by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 20:08 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Why don't people understand that the world of ISOs isn't practical
  for EVERYTHING? They're not "refusing" anything, the OpenBSD people
  provide an easy manner to obtain and install OpenBSD via ftp.
  
  For beginners, and for people who don't understand try looking here:
  
  http://www.openbsd101.com/
  
  The above site is Linux user friendly.
5. Re:Downloads by TodMinuit · 2007-05-01 20:19 · Score: 1
  
  You can also download the installation packages, burn those to a CD, and that along with the installation CD to do an offline install.
  
  Or you could burn the packages to a CD and then boot bsd.rd.
  
  --
  I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
6. Re:Downloads by timmarhy · 2007-05-01 20:23 · Score: 1
  
  i believe the whole point, is why should we have to dick around to do it in the first place
  
  --
  If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
7. Re:Downloads by TodMinuit · 2007-05-01 20:26 · Score: 1
  
  Because OpenBSD create top-notch software and needs money to do so.
  
  "So why don't they be a friggin' business already," you say. Well, because they want to be open source. "So why not do both?" They do.
  
  If you don't like it, don't use it. Or create your own ISO and distribute it.
  
  --
  I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
8. Re:Downloads by Hognoxious · 2007-05-01 20:38 · Score: 1
  
  It's still making you jump through hoops for no obvious benefit. SuSe does something similar (or did last time I looked) it was enough to nudge me towards RH.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
9. Re:Downloads by evilviper · 2007-05-01 20:44 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Why not a link to the .iso download page in the article?
  
  For the same reason Linux kernels, and any other files aren't directly linked in /. articles.
  
  Just for you: ftp://ftp5.usa.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/4.1/i386/cd 41.iso
  I can't believe OpenBSD is still refusing to provide Official ISOs.
  
  Creating an ISO is positively trivial. The file system layout is exactly the same as the FTP tree. Just be sure to make it bootable with mkisofs -b, or whatever "bootable" check-box your Win32 CD burner program has...
  
  Not to mention that there are dozens of different ways to install, and a bootable CD is rarely the most convenient. FTP install is quite handy.
  
  It's only for non-x86 systems that creating bootable CDs is somewhat difficult. And even there, I'd much rather create my own multiple system CD than download an x86 ISO, an Alpha ISO, a Sparc ISO, and burn each to several different (mostly-empty) CDs.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
10. Re:Downloads by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 20:47 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Because OpenBSD is elitist and you must pass this test to prove yourself "worthy" to use it.
  
  If anyone thinks I'm trolling, they've never read the OpenBSD devl mailing list ...
11. Re:Downloads by LizardKing · 2007-05-01 21:25 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Why don't you download the floppy boot images, do a net install and save having to waste a CDR?
  
  The reason official downloadable ISO images are not available is to encourage people to buy the prepackaged CDs. The revenue from these sales is a significant reason why OpenBSD continues to flourish, as people like Theo de Raadt have an income that allows them to work full time on the project. Hopefully this will prevent a monoculture of Linux on servers, which in some respects would be as bad as the monoculture of Windows on the desktop. Personally I don't need CDs, but if I was using OpenBSD (rather than a certain other BSD) then I would be doing net installs from a server on my own network, and making a donation.
12. Re:Downloads by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 21:42 · Score: 0
  
  > I can't believe OpenBSD is still refusing to provide Official ISOs.
  
  That's because you're a drooling retard. Pay attention, fuckwit:
  
  http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq3.html#ISO
13. Re:Downloads by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 21:43 · Score: 1
  
  saying they have no users is just not true. You might not be one of them, but that doesn't magically make all others disappear.
  
  You don't have to pay them at all, you can just use the net install version. Editing the cylinders is something even the install cd's will let you do, and that is also my main problem with all BSD's; their install partitioners suck. Now i run FBSD, OBSD, and several linux variants, and all have their merits and drawbacks. None is 'generally better' than the other. Some are easier to install and maintain, others are easier to actually control. hardware-wise it's about 50-50 for me (linux has better usb support, but obsd did WAY better on the wifi side here) but of course, that's just my experience.
14. Re:Downloads by jawtheshark · 2007-05-01 21:43 · Score: 1
  
  They need the money! Do you buy each CD? I do... but I have made my own ISOs when I was low on cash. It's not hard at all.
  
  I have a standing order that gives them 15€ a month. If more people would do that, perhaps they just might start posting ISOs. Other than that, they rely on the "sales". It how business works.
  
  --
  Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
15. Re:Downloads by kestasjk · 2007-05-01 22:08 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Creating an ISO is positively trivial. The file system layout is exactly the same as the FTP tree. Just be sure to make it bootable with mkisofs -b, or whatever "bootable" check-box your Win32 CD burner program has... If that's too challenging you can also burn the minimal ISO, and burn the install files to another CD. Boot up off the minimal ISO, then use the second CD as the source for the installation tarballs.
  
  --
  // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
16. Re:Downloads by turing_m · 2007-05-01 22:15 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Or you could download everything in the ftp directory on another computer, host it locally, and install from there. Quicker and you don't waste a CDR.
  
  --
  If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
17. Re:Downloads by kestasjk · 2007-05-01 22:17 · Score: 1
  
  You can download a very small minimal iso and do a net install. I did it this evening -- the core system is pretty small, and comes down quickly. It's not as inconvenient as you might think.
  
  Yeah, but if you do that you won't be able to stick your install CD into a music player any time you like and play the "Puffy Baba and the 40 Vendors" 4.1 song.
  
  --
  // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
18. Re:Downloads by turing_m · 2007-05-01 22:19 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  They have no users? They are currently on #52 in the page hit rank on distrowatch. Right below linspire.
  
  --
  If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
19. Re:Downloads by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 22:19 · Score: 0
  
  Excuse me. Did you just say "floppy boot images"? just now? in the year 2007?
  
  I'm sorry, but the last time I owned a computer with a floppy drive was.. well I don't remember - it's been that long.
20. Re:Downloads by ThePhilips · 2007-05-01 22:21 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  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.
21. Re:Downloads by mindstormpt · 2007-05-01 22:44 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Not that BSD tools helps output is any useful anyway.
  
  On the other hand their manpages actually say something.
22. Re:Downloads by evilviper · 2007-05-01 22:47 · Score: 1
  
  Now that's a huge waste of CDs, and really no easier, since you still have to get the layout right, and the like.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
23. Re:Downloads by paulatz · 2007-05-01 23:03 · Score: 1
  
  It's still making you jump through hoops for no obvious benefit. SuSe does something similar (or did last time I looked) it was enough to nudge me towards RH.
  
  It have been a long time since you last looked...
  
  --
  this post contain no useful information, no need to mod it down
24. Re:Downloads by DrSkwid · 2007-05-01 23:10 · Score: 1
  
  The bootable CD / .tgz packages works very well for me.
  One can choose to download only the parts one needs - i.e. no ports or no X
  You can install via ftp, pxe, cdrom with tgz files on it
  
  OpenBSD is the fastest installing fully bloated OS I've tried.
  
  If you need to run Apache 1.x that comes as standard set up to run chrooted in /var/www which saves a bit of fannying about.
  
  --
  There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
25. Re:Downloads by ens0niq · 2007-05-01 23:14 · Score: 1
  
  As usual, you can find an unofficial - and of course unsupported by the OpenBSD dev team - i386 install ISO, and a short install guide (unfortunately just in hungarian language) at the Hungarian Unix Portal.
26. Re:Downloads by MrNaz · 2007-05-01 23:28 · Score: 0
  
  Then use a usb thumb drive, still saving the CDR.
  
  --
  I hate printers.
27. Re:Downloads by ThePhilips · 2007-05-01 23:30 · Score: 1
  
  Man pages which are displayed by BSD's unique 'more'. Thanks you very much.
  If you are really into command line, then check out Gentoo. Right after installing you would get feeling that Gentoo devels are really using command line - since it is so well made and polished.
  
  --
  All hope abandon ye who enter here.
28. Re:Downloads by udippel · 2007-05-01 23:44 · Score: 1
  
  milksucks ? Maybe. How about a coffee ? Or was the 'fully bloated' supposed to be funny ? Intentional ?
29. Re:Downloads by Hognoxious · 2007-05-01 23:45 · Score: 1
  
  It certainly have. It seems that since Novell took them over, the only downloads available are demo versions - even so-called "open server". Otherwise, you have to pay for the disks. So I was wrong - it's even worse than I thought.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
30. Re:Downloads by kernelpanicked · 2007-05-01 23:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Ummm no. Nobody said "targeted at Linux users." Don't know where you got that BS from. Here are a few tips though.
  
  1. --help? What the fuck is up with GNU and the ridiculous long options. Try reading the man pages which actually provide information on a BSD system as well as examples. By the way, every command, device, and config file has one on OpenBSD.
  
  2. Korn shell is nearly a drop in replacement for bash and in some ways a damn sight nicer.
  
  3. export PAGER=less. And you call yourself a command line user? For shame.
  
  --
  Ubuntu: If at first you don't succeed, blindly slap a sudo in front of it
31. Re:Downloads by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 23:57 · Score: 0
  
  >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.
  
  BSD is dead? No, WTF back at you.
  
  You're kidding, right?
  
  >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.
  
  You are a troll. Hello? GNU tools are pretty old? Um. Mr. Linux n00b where do you
  think %99.9 of the linux commands on your precious Debian or Gentoo come from?
  
  There is no 'ls' for Linux and one for BSDs.
  
  You are a troll.
32. Re:Downloads by dylan_- · 2007-05-02 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  No, that's the Enterprise version. The free version is called opensuse.
  
  --
  Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
33. Re:Downloads by Niten · 2007-05-02 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  Well, they have FTP bandwidth bills to pay: I can't imagine that the effect of replacing the bandwidth used to get a minimal boot image and whichever installation sets you select for your specific architecture, with three full-sized CD images, would be negligible.
  
  If it's that much of a concern for you that you can't get the official installation CD images without buying a physical copy, maybe you could just make a $50 donation to the project and then copy the CDs from a friend (the pre-orders were actually shipped about two weeks ago, so chances are that someone near you already has his or hers). Just a thought.
34. Re:Downloads by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 01:14 · Score: 0
  
  Beware, the official isos can't be downloaded at this page :
  http://www.09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63- 56-88-c0.net/
35. Re:Downloads by squiggleslash · 2007-05-02 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  Lucky you.
  I run OpenBSD on a couple of SPARCclassics. The machines in question didn't come with floppy drives (they have a space for one and are available with floppies, but the exact models I had didn't have them.) The easiest way to install OpenBSD on them is to take out the harddisks, plugging into a *ix system that supports SCSI, and write the network boot floppy image to the first few sectors. Then you replace the disks and cross your fingers.
  (That's roughly what you do anyway, it's been a while. They're still on OpenBSD 3.2! Makes for a nice firewall/router/gateway.)
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
36. Re:Downloads by DrSkwid · 2007-05-02 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  Fully bloated with webserver mail server graphical windowing system etc. etc.
  
  Rather than installing FreeDOS
  
  --
  There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
37. Re:Downloads by Dan+Ost · 2007-05-02 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  export PAGER=your_pager_of_choice
  
  There, that wasn't hard.
  
  I haven't played with it long enough to really know for usre, but I actually think I like the BSD version of less better than the Linux version. It's easier to grok.
  
  --
  
  *sigh* back to work...
38. Re:Downloads by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 03:40 · Score: 0
  
  Not having a floppy is no excuse for not upgrading. The OpenBSD Upgrade FAQ lists instructions on how to do that. If you like taking risks, download bsd.rd onto / and at the boot> prompt enter boot hd0a:/bsd.rd and viola! you are in the install/upgrade system. Only problem, you don't complete the install/upgrade your system is hosed and you need to boot a CD or whatever.
  
  Trying to go from a very old machine to latest has several problems, a.out & ELF issues being the primary. There you are best at using a CD, floppy, or swapping hard drives like you have.
39. Re:Downloads by shish · 2007-05-02 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Why don't people understand that the world of ISOs isn't practical for EVERYTHING? They're not "refusing" anything, the OpenBSD people provide an easy manner to obtain and install OpenBSD via ftp.
  
  Can I still do an FTP install if I can't get online?
  
  --
  I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
40. Re:Downloads by LizardKing · 2007-05-02 04:14 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  BSD is dead. As long as they have the antique command line tools.
  
  Well Linux, and every other Unix like OS including Mac OS X, are dead then as they also include "antique" command line tools. In fact Windows must be dead as well, as it includes command line tools, albeit piss-poor ones.
  
  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.
  
  Last time I checked, the ksh that comes with the BSDs can do everything bash can. The BSDs include all the command line tools that the GNU file and text tool packages have, after all they're clones of the Unix ones found in BSD, plus with the BSDs the manpages are actually complete and usually include examples. With the GNU tools you are often faced with an incomplete or out of date manpage that refers you to some difficult to navigate or search "info" pages.
  
  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.
  
  Wow, GNU find extends POSIX with one extra feature that I've never used in over a decade of using it. As for --help, that's what manpages are for (sorry, I forgot that your GNU manpages are incomplete), and --version, how often do you need to know what version of find you're using?!?
  
  Also BSD's ps suck big time.
  
  Hmm, last I checked the output of both ps on Linux and NetBSD looked remarkably similar. Note that what you probably consider "GNU ps" is actually "Linux ps", as the implementation of such a command tends to be very closely tied to the kernel it's running on.
  
  The stupid insistence on using 'more' instead of 'less' isn't helping either.
  
  Oh dear, never heard of the PAGER command line variable? I guess your particular brand of Linux just happens to default it to /bin/less. Funnily enough, so does /etc/skel/.profile on my BSD machines.
  
  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'.
  
  nvi, the default vi on BSDs has more features than the minimum required POSIX - see the Solaris implentation for something approaching that minimalism! Personally I find vim to be a mess, and have had it crash on me a number of times. However, the approach taken with the BSDs is that a minimum is included in the base install and ports or packages can be added to create the "perfect" environment. That said, OpenBSD includes a minimal emacs workalike in the base install which may be more to your taste.
  
  Constructive note. BSD should align themselves with Debian or Gentoo.
  
  God no. Gentoo is grinding to a halt as it's an unstable mess, while Debian reflects the whole GNU mentality of replacing things with new, no less buggy implementations every so often, with no interface consistency and way too many esoteric features. Having fought with aptitude and had it crash far too many times, I'm more than happy with the BSD ports systems instead.
41. Re:Downloads by Drinking+Bleach · 2007-05-02 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Not really, the files could be anywhere you want them to be. Just have to type the path to them. You can even install when the files are on hard disk (ffs or ext2)
42. Re:Downloads by DragonWriter · 2007-05-02 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Why don't people understand that the world of ISOs isn't practical
  for EVERYTHING?
  
  Why, precisely, would complete (rather than minimal) official ISOs not be practical for OpenBSD? Yes, clearly, there are workarounds and alternatives of various complexities, including a fairly straightforward method to roll-your-own complete install disks, none of which indicate that complete ISOs would be impractical.
  
  The issue isn't "everything", its OpenBSD 4.1, and I certainly don't see any reason to think that complete ISOs would not be "practical".
43. Re:Downloads by jcgf · 2007-05-02 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  No, but if you can't get online, you can't download the iso if it were available either.
44. Re:Downloads by jcgf · 2007-05-02 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  If you are really into command line, then check out Gentoo. Right after installing you would get feeling that Gentoo devels are really using command line
  why leave bsd to go to wannabe bsd? Other than to gain the priveledge of an even more difficult install.
45. Re:Downloads by synthespian · 2007-05-02 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  You don't like the mg Emacs-like editor installed by default?
  What a fucking troll...
  
  --
  Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
46. Re:Downloads by Peaker · 2007-05-02 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  If you don't like it, don't use it.
  
  I think that's what people are saying here: "We don't like it, so we don't use it."
  I guess they are saying this as they are hoping that the OpenBSD folks realize that their user base is small enough as it is to use such user-alienating tactics.
47. Re:Downloads by shish · 2007-05-04 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  Um, yes, I totally can. With linux isos I download the iso at work, burn it to CD, then install completely offline elsewhere.
  
  --
  I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
48. Re:Downloads by LizardKing · 2007-05-04 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like you've only tried the OpenBSD and FreeBSD installers. The partitioner in the NetBSD installer is very straightforward, in fact I'd go as far as claiming that it's the best of the BSD installers. The base install is also more minimal than OpenBSD (no Apache for instance, which suits me as only a minority of my machines needs a webserver and even then it isn't Apache). NetBSD is a much better performer than OpenBSD, and the upcoming 4.0 version looks to be an even better performer than current FreeBSD releases on uniprocessor machines.
49. Re:Downloads by shking · 2007-05-04 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  The issue isn't "everything", its OpenBSD 4.1, and I certainly don't see any reason to think that complete ISOs would not be "practical"
  
  In the Linux world, there are many projects who's purpose is to organize and distribute software with a linux kernel.
  The OpenBSD project is about building an OS, not about creating a distro. You might as well ask Linus why he doesn't distribute ISOs.
  Nothing prevents someone else from rolling their own OpenBSD "distro" and distributing the ISO files.
  
  --
  -- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
Yea but.... by Heembo · 2007-05-01 20:02 · Score: -1, Troll

...does it run Linux? Oh wait...

--
Horns are really just a broken halo.
1. Re:Yea but.... by Basehart · 2007-05-01 20:20 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  Yaay, it's raining here in Seattle :-)
2. Re:Yea but.... by evilviper · 2007-05-01 20:55 · Score: 1
  
  ...does it run Linux? Oh wait...
  
  Of course it does.
  
  It runs Linux binaries directly, like all the BSDs.
  
  It also has Qemu, Bochs, BasiliskII, GXEmul, etc. in ports, on which Linux will no-doubt run.
  
  Insert "In Soviet Russia" "Beowulf Cluster" "I read that as" "??? Profit" and any other completely mindless /. cliches.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
3. Re:Yea but.... by slugstone · 2007-05-01 20:57 · Score: 1
  
  It is not rainning in Sea... Oh never mind.
4. Re:Yea but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 22:13 · Score: 0
  
  In Soviet Russia, Linux runs OpenBSD!
5. Re:Yea but.... by RLiegh · 2007-05-02 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  >It also has Qemu,
  But no kqemu; so I'll stick with Linux, FreeBSD or Solaris; all of which have proper kernel support for Qemu.
  
  >Bochs,
  
  Ewwwwww, that's disgusting! I thought with Qemu we had managed to finally put bochs out of our misery.
6. Re:Yea but.... by evilviper · 2007-05-02 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  But no kqemu; so I'll stick with Linux, FreeBSD or Solaris;
  
  In my experience (using Qemu on FreeBSD), kqemu doesn't provide even a noticeable performance improvement, even with the recent "-kernel-kqemu" improvements... Perhaps disk I/O is so much of a bottleneck that the virtual CPU doesn't really get maxed-out often?
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
7. Re:Yea but.... by RLiegh · 2007-05-02 13:53 · Score: 1
  
  It seems to help the most under Linux, as far as I can tell; it helps somewhat under solaris and freebsd (but not as much) and doesn't help at all under windows.
  
  I've tried using qemu (without kqemu) under netbsd, and it was (to me) noticibly slow enough that I simply wasn't able to put up with it.
8. Re:Yea but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-03 01:13 · Score: 0
  
  OpenBSD will have a kqemu lkm in 2 or 3 weeks from now.
md5sum of the iso by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 20:12 · Score: 0, Funny

09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0 cd41.iso
1. Re: md5sum of the iso by Hal_Porter · 2007-05-01 22:21 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  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;
OpenBSD 4.1 Release Song by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 20:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

You mustn't exclude the OpenBSD 4.1 Release song from this article!

http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html
ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/songs/song41.mp3
1. Re:OpenBSD 4.1 Release Song by simong · 2007-05-01 22:40 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm, yes, I think I can sing that:
  
  #Boo hoo, Linux won't share driver documentation with us, boo hoo boo hoo#
  
  The last paragraph in the left hand column on that page is frankly nonsense. Linux has more driver support because there are more people working on driver support. I would like to see evidence of any kind that the OpenBSD community has been refused driver documentation which has been given to the Linux community.
2. Re:OpenBSD 4.1 Release Song by Dan+Ost · 2007-05-02 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  If you were to look into it, I think you would find that one of the reasons that Linux has more driver support is because Linux is willing to accept specs under non-disclosure agreements. OBSD developers are not will to do the same since it makes maintenance impossible for anyone who hasn't signed the NDA.
  
  I'm mostly a Linux user, but I don't buy hardware unless it's supported by OBSD for exactly this reason.
  
  Looks like it's time for another donation to OBSD.
  
  --
  
  *sigh* back to work...
3. Re:OpenBSD 4.1 Release Song by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 03:57 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  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?
4. Re:OpenBSD 4.1 Release Song by josephdrivein · 2007-05-02 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  I heard they release a song with each version of OpenBSD but I've never actually listened to it.
  Now that I did, I think it's terrible. Other people think the same of old releases...
  
  Anyway, if they like it, they can go on writing bad songs along with great software.
5. Re:OpenBSD 4.1 Release Song by chriscappuccio · 2007-05-02 09:00 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  They didn't show it very well in the cartoon, but the linux pengiun "stealing" the documentation is analogous to signing an NDA, as nobody else gets to see the documentation (the whole point of the NDA)
  
  And then for signing the NDA, he gets "stabbed" by the real thieves and he "dies" (what happens to devices when there's no documentation)
6. Re:OpenBSD 4.1 Release Song by ctzan · 2007-05-03 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the artistic and litterary taste of computer geeks is ALWAYS embarassing.
  With the time you'll learn to get over it.
  The OpenBSD guys at least don't push so much Tolkien, Monty Python, Star Trek or other exasperating crap. That alone is quite refreshing.
Sad, but predictable by petrus4 · 2007-05-01 20:33 · Score: 0, Troll

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?
1. Re:Sad, but predictable by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 20:42 · Score: 0
  
  October.
2. Re:Sad, but predictable by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 20:58 · Score: 0
  
  Why do you assume they're Linux users? Linux users are too busy fighting with each other to worry about *BSD.
3. Re:Sad, but predictable by catmistake · 2007-05-01 21:19 · Score: 1
  
  petrus4, I need your help. My BSD mentor has pretty much disowned me because a few weeks ago I installed Edgy on some old box I had lying around. (At the university I work for, outside of the user space, there is Windows, Solaris, and Linux servers. Linux is by far the most prevalent, and I figured it was time I stopped excluding myself from possible income sources.) What's the big deal? The penguinistas have become a lot less annoying in the last couple years about their cause, and Linux is progressing towards a stately adolescence. I guess what I'm asking is... where are the problems with linux that aren't in BSD? Is it lack of standardization? Or are there specific things that should work that were broken in linux? Why do hard-core admins scoff at linux?
  
  --
  The Admin and the Engineer
4. Re:Sad, but predictable by Bearhouse · 2007-05-01 21:47 · Score: 0
  
  There's a lot of comments, (including on /. - see article on Dell shipping Ubuntu Linux), about 'Linux' being less suited to the server role than BSD, (requires daily reboots, lock up without reason..). Will these be fixed in the 'server' version of Ubuntu? We'll see...
5. Re:Sad, but predictable by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 22:10 · Score: 1
  
  'Linux' being less suited to the server role than BSD, (requires daily reboots, ...
  
  With all respect, Sir, you are an idiot.
6. Re:Sad, but predictable by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 22:20 · Score: 0
  
  Linux is not mature enough to be used in production servers right now, but I hear the kernel 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0 will change this.
7. Re:Sad, but predictable by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 22:27 · Score: 0
  The most important difference between BSD and Linux:
  
  Linux is a success.
  
  BSD is a failure.
  
  Yes Virginia, BSD is dying. 'Nuff said.
8. Re:Sad, but predictable by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 22:31 · Score: 1
  
  Requiring daily reboots? WTF?
  Can you please state your source for this fantastic piece of information?
9. Re:Sad, but predictable by ettlz · 2007-05-01 22:31 · Score: 1
  
  I have to ask, Linux users...when are you going to stop making yourselves so easy to hate?
  Don't tar all Linux users with the same trollbrush. There are a very few people on both sides who like to stir the old Linux vs. BSD shit for absolutely no good reason other than to rile the "other side". A lot of us also use a BSD, like it, and see the virtues of both OS families without the need to sling mud. I use predominantly Linux on the desktop, not because I hate Windows, but because I genuinely like Fedora Core. Strange, eh?! I also use FreeBSD on my server because it's a good OS for that purpose and I dislike monoculture. Why fight?
10. Re:Sad, but predictable by delire · 2007-05-01 22:37 · Score: 1
  
  There's a lot of comments, (including on /. - see article on Dell shipping Ubuntu Linux), about 'Linux' being less suited to the server role than BSD, (requires daily reboots, lock up without reason..)
  
  The BSD's are a fine family of OS's. This is widely understood now. There's no need to resort to baseless exaggeration to superficially elevate BSD's position in the mind of the reader, who will probably read your comment, in turn, as "the BSD's are so threatened by Linux that I will resort to back-handed absurdities".
  
  You're above comment is contrary to the quiet confidence I'd expect any BSD user to have..
  
  Best you climb back under the bridge I think.. You're safer there, and so are we.
11. Re:Sad, but predictable by rindeee · 2007-05-01 22:38 · Score: 1
  
  Whuh?! There are lots of comments on /. about goatsecs too, but I doubt you would use that in support of your stance for/against the subject (I don't want to know). If you have a Linux server (or any server for that matter) that requires daily reboots and you can squarely blame it on the OS, why are you running that OS? I've numerous servers running BSD, Linux, OS X, Solaris and yes, even Windows, that are all quite stable and simply do not require reboots save for an occasional reboot on a Windows or OS X box after an update (do not like, but not a big deal if it's planned for). Sorry friend, but your statement is utter rubbish.
12. Re:Sad, but predictable by ettlz · 2007-05-01 22:43 · Score: 1
  
  Assuming the parent isn't a troll, it should be pointed out that it's much more complicated than this. BSD is not a failure and it is not dying: a considerable portion of webservers run on FreeBSD. OpenBSD is considered by many to be the de facto for routing, network services, etc. The fact is that Linux is more in the public eye now. I think this is because (1) there was all that legal wrangling over BSD in the early-mid 1990s, when Linux was starting to take off, that made the latter more attractive. (2) Linux thereby acquired a bigger "cult" following of disaffected, former Windows-using youths (like me!) who were looking for something different; they then grew to love it and the wonderful, larger world of UNIX. This, plus the much publicised Push for the Desktop amongst Linux distros (the likes of Ubuntu, Fedora and SuSE), has resulted in it getting much more mainstream media attention. There's nothing really sexy about servers.
  
  Linux is a success, but it is very wrong to call BSD a "failure".
13. Re:Sad, but predictable by Bearhouse · 2007-05-01 22:58 · Score: 1
  
  I'll reply to the least offensive post. Why do people think that insulting others somehow makes their argument more compulsive?
  The guy asked a question, I gave him a potential reason why people might think that way - look around, guys, I'm just reporting what others are saying. That does not mean that I AGREE with that.
  
  For the record.
  
  1. No, really not into Goatsecs.
  2. The only server that I managed that needed frequent reboots was one running Windows NT that I 'inherited' - soon fixed that, (memory leak).
  
  Yes, you can make any OS stable with enough work, you just need to get the right distro. and set it up right. But how many people know how to do that? Would you start with an Unbuntu 'desktop' ISO? Of course not.
  
  Finally, it's well known that Linux is not yet ready to used be an 'enterprise' OS with heavy DB access...that may explain the original poster's colleagues' atitude.
14. Re:Sad, but predictable by Crackez · 2007-05-01 23:51 · Score: 1
  
  You know what they say, BSD is for people that love Unix; Linux is for people that hate Windows...
15. Re:Sad, but predictable by Yggdrasil42 · 2007-05-02 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  Finally, it's well known that Linux is not yet ready to used be an 'enterprise' OS with heavy DB access...that may explain the original poster's colleagues' attitude. I'm sorry but I'll have to disagree. At the company where I work, (6000+ employees) we're running SAP on Linux servers, and you'll have to take my word that the database access is very heavy here. Performance and stability have been very good.
  
  Personally my home server has been running Linux for around 8 years, has always been under full load and has never crashed because of software failure. My highest uptime has been >450 days and the only time I ever need to reboot is when the kernel is updated. Anecdotal evidence of course, but I think people who have to 'reboot daily' simply must have faulty hardware or are spreading FUD.
  
  No doubt BSD is more stable than Linux, but Linux is perfectly adequate for any server use.
16. Re:Sad, but predictable by udippel · 2007-05-02 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  Seems I tend to agree somewhat with one of the more offensive posters:
  
  1. Whatever I read on /., the 'daily reboots' of Linux isn't exactly what I remember w.r.t. your 'lots of comments'.
  
  2. If that chap asked a question, why cite what you (wrongly, as is) think that others were saying ? Instead of giving your own opinion and experience ?
  
  3. Finally, it's well known that Linux is not yet ready to used be an 'enterprise' OS with heavy DB access.
  Is there somehow anything that you know about databases, or are you back in the mere realms of assumption ? The largest databases ('enterprise') could be running DB2 or Oracle. Miraculously, both run on Linux:
  http://www.oracle.com/technologies/linux/index.htm l
  http://www-306.ibm.com/software/data/db2/linux/
17. Re:Sad, but predictable by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 00:32 · Score: 0
  
  The BSDs in general possess a level of integration Linux's development process makes all but impossible to achieve. That stems primary from the most basic difference between two two: Linux distributions are distributions, the BSDs are full-flegded individual O/Ses.
  
  In Linux, the various distributions differ primarily in bells and whistles, packagre management, and package selection, other than that, it's the same kernel and core system, core packages are mostly developed upstream and packaged by various distributions.
  
  In BSD, the various BSDs are pretty much the opposite, They each have a different kernel, different core system, different userland. The core system is developed, and maintained "in-house" by the core team, not upstream, for example, ls on *BSD and ls on Linux provide the same core function, but the difference is ls on *BSD was build from the ground up, and possibly even rewritten to mesh into the core system, its quite literally *BSD-ls, rather than upstream ls. Even GCC has been re-written and altered to fit into the core system, to the point that you can consider it *BSD-GCC. This affords a level of integration that the Linux distribution model simply doesn't allow for.
  
  Second is specialization, Linux is a jack of all trades, it tries to do everything. The BSDs aren't. The BSDs are each designed with a primary function in mind, and a primary focus/set of roles it is designed to fulfill. For this reason, they're bloody awesome at what they're designed to do, but really not so much at what they aren't. Though its not to say that just because a given BSD focuses primarily on one thing, it ignores the others, this isn't true; they share allot of code, (ex. just because netbsd focuses on portability, doesn't mean they don't focus on security):
  
  OpenBSD focuses primarily on security and stability at the cost of development speed, how should I say this... At a borderline obsessive-compulsive level. There's no contest in terms of security.
  
  NetBSD focuses on portability, it currently has ports for 57 platforms.
  
  FreeBSD focuses on performance/stability and workstation/server use. It currently has the most extensive package collection with just under 17,000 packages in ports.
  
  MirOS and DesktopBSD are still very new...
  
  OpenDarwin is no longer actively developed.
  
  OS X focuses primarily on the desktop and user experience.
  
  Interix focuses on only two functions, acting a compatability layer between win32 and Unix, and acting as a native, parallel Posix subsystem in Windows.
  
  Third is the style of Unix at the core. Linux, ad most Unixes are descendants of System V Unix. The modern BSDs are not. They're descendants of BSD-4.4. Hence the existence of SYSV Unix vs. BSD-style Unix. (as an aside, SunOS was a BSD-style Unix, until Solaris, which was sysv-style, after which SunOS was retroactively renamed as earlier versions of Solaris. Essentially things are similar, but are different. Some people find BSD-style Unix easier to work with.
  
  fourth is the dev model, especially relating to feature additions.
  
  (Free)BSD has a system of something like, test, test again, test yet some more, test it once more for good measure, then test it again, and include it in -CURRENT, test it, test it some more, test it yet some more, once more for good measure, then test it again, now we test it some more and include it, in UNSTABLE, where it gets tested, and tested, and tested, and tested, until UNSTABLE is tested a few more times, and flagged RELEASE. For this reason you just don't find things that are broken. If it's implemented in FreeBSD, you KNOW that it works well, not only on its own, but with the rest of the system as well. And things that don't fit the design goals, rarely make it into the release. People sometimes take shots at FreeBSD's relatively sub-par USB support, for example, but there's areason for this, and the shots usually stop when you ask them why the hell they'd need to connect a webcam, mp3 player or pen tablet to their server.
18. Re:Sad, but predictable by k1e0x · 2007-05-02 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  There is nothing "wrong" with either.
  
  Linux tends to have abit better hardware support (for stuff you really dont need) at the rick of stability. There is also more software that is ported to Linux. Did I say Linux was unstable? Well that depends, Debian is very well tested and will generally give you good preformance in the server role.
  
  I know BSD well but, I prefer Linux and sometimes Solaris over *BSD.
  
  --
  Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
19. Re:Sad, but predictable by catmistake · 2007-05-02 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for trying. I was hoping for some cold facts, but at least you tried. I guess its more important that you are slammed for your heresy rather than me have some understanding of just what is (constructively) wrong with linux. I would say it could be as simple as the mere mucking up of directories, adding more directories starting with the same letter, or couple of letters, that are unrelated, when there was no reason to do so. But... my my mentor also scoffs at the tab-completion I like so much (and tells me I'm lazy), so I don't think that's it.
  
  --
  The Admin and the Engineer
20. Re:Sad, but predictable by synthespian · 2007-05-02 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  Besides, Linux users are always in the public eye, due to the profusion of basically 3 types of articles:
  
  1) "Look, Ma! Look at my Beryl spinning cube interface!!" articles, or The Linux Desktop Wallpaper How-To;
  
  2) The We-Are-Fighting-Evil genre of articles (Free Java, Free Flash, Free .Net, Free Mac OS, etc.)
  
  3) We-Are-Fighting-Each-Other genre (e.g., "Debian X Ubuntu" material).
  
  --
  Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
21. Re:Sad, but predictable by petrus4 · 2007-05-02 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  Where are the problems with linux that aren't in BSD? Is it lack of standardization? Or are there specific things that should work that were broken in linux? Why do hard-core admins scoff at linux?
  
  There is a set specification which outlines what a UNIX system is. As far as admins complaining about Linux not being "standard" it often genuinely is the case with a number of binary Linux distributions that a number of the utilities outlined by that specification are not installed by default, but rather are viewed by the distribution makers as being optional extras. They do this in an attempt to increase user-friendliness or save disk space, but there are times when for some people anyway it can simply make life more difficult.
  
  The BSDs are designed to include all of these utilities as part of the core system, so admins and other users who want them can rely on them being there; there is no uncertainty as there can be with Linux distros.
  
  For basic desktop use, Ubuntu is fine, and has been praised for its' user-friendliness. If however there comes a time when you wish to learn more, (which may be of benefit if you wish, as you say, to gain Linux-related employment) I strongly recommend investigating the Linux From Scratch Project. They release an online book which will teach you how to assemble a Linux system yourself that is largely compliant with the abovementioned specification, at least as far as the installed utilities are concerned. If that sounds intimidating right now, I'd also recommend this which is a guide that I wrote for someone else a while back. That will give you the background knowledge you need before attempting to complete the Linux From Scratch book.
  
  After you've done that and used Linux for a while, (months, years, whatever) I'd definitely recommend installing FreeBSD at some point, if only for the sake of contrasting the two and rounding out your knowledge. You will then be in a very good position to determine which system you wish to make your environment of choice, long term.
22. Re:Sad, but predictable by catmistake · 2007-05-02 15:21 · Score: 1
  
  THANK YOU!!!!! Nice post, mod up!!
  
  --
  The Admin and the Engineer
23. Re:Sad, but predictable by catmistake · 2007-05-02 15:26 · Score: 1
  
  THANK YOU TOO!!
  What is it with you BOFH and books?? :P
  Seriously, much appreciated. Its good to glimpse the forest.
  
  --
  The Admin and the Engineer
OpenBSD 4.1 Release Song by MavEtJu · 2007-05-01 20:42 · Score: 0, Redundant

The OpenBSD 4.1 Release Song can be found at the OpenBSD Multimedia Resources List.

The list is using the same sources as the other *BSDs Multimedia Resources Lists :-)

--
bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
So by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 20:54 · Score: 0

How much of those significant improvements were lifted from GPLed software on the sly?
1. Re:So by ThePhilips · 2007-05-01 22:39 · Score: 1
  
  C'mon, we do not want to start the old song again. You know, most first Linux drivers were ported over from BSD.
  Development of both BSD & Linux isn't commercialized - so word "lifted" is unfit here. It is more about "exchange of ideas" ;)
  
  --
  All hope abandon ye who enter here.
2. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 23:04 · Score: 0
  
  You're reasoning with a troll. I think this means YHL.
3. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 23:05 · Score: -1, Offtopic
  
  SHUT THE FUCK UP, NIGGER!
3 Years and Counting by p0 · 2007-05-01 21:26 · Score: 2, Informative

I setup an OpenBSD box about 3 years ago. It has multiple gigE's and processes a reasonably tough load of network traffic 24 hours a day, even today. It has never ever crashed! it is not just crash proof, it simply doesn't give any other problems of any kind whatsover, heck I dont even know what to write in this darned comment!

Thanks for this. OpenBSD is rock solid!

--
This is my sig. There are thousands more, but this one is mine.
But... by Arielholic · 2007-05-01 21:38 · Score: 5, Funny

But.... does it have UAC?
1. Re:But... by TheRaven64 · 2007-05-02 00:09 · Score: 1
  
  Kind of. It has systrace, which allows the arguments to every system call to be validated before being issued, and either allowed, denied, or allowed with elevated privilege based on a policy. Unlike UAC (or SELinux), it can be enabled on a per-process basis, so you can only use it for the processes you don't trust, or use it for everything, depending on your level of paranoia.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
2. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 01:03 · Score: 0
  
  But.... does it have UAC?
  
  nor does it need it!
3. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 10:54 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, you can play Doom and Doom II on OpenBSD. Check /usr/port/games or heck just install the prboom package. Go forth and avenge your fallen comrades...
*BSD is Dying by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 22:03 · Score: -1, Troll

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
Dealing with Loss of BSD by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-01 22:42 · Score: -1, Troll

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.
No ISO policy by PhotoGuy · 2007-05-01 23:00 · Score: 3, Informative

While I hear great things about OpenBSD, and realize it is for a niche market where stability and security are the number one concern, it seems to me that more people would check it out and use it, if not for this policy:

"The OpenBSD project does not make the ISO images used to master the official CDs available for download. The reason is simply that we would like you to buy the CD sets to help fund ongoing OpenBSD development. The official OpenBSD CD-ROM layout is copyright Theo de Raadt. Theo does not permit people to redistribute images of the official OpenBSD CDs. As an incentive for people to buy the CD set, some extras are included in the package as well (artwork, stickers etc).

Note that only the CD layout is copyrighted, OpenBSD itself is free. Nothing precludes someone else from downloading OpenBSD and making their own CD. If for some reason you want to download a CD image, try searching the mailing list archives for possible sources. Of course, any OpenBSD ISO images available on the Internet either violate Theo de Raadt's copyright or are not official images. The source of an unofficial image may or may not be trustworthy; it is up to you to determine this for yourself."

Now, FTP installs are pretty slick in these days of prevalent high speed; still, it seems a bit silly and arbitrary to intentionally restrict ISO distribution, to try and sell a few discs. The people who are willing to pay, would buy regardless of a free ISO being available (corporations and IT departments like having the official discs, and such).

I guess more than anything, this policy stikes me as a bit of "attitude", which turns me off the distribution, more than the mild inconvenience of not having ISO's readily available.

--
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
1. Re:No ISO policy by DaMattster · 2007-05-01 23:23 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I understand your frustration with the policy and the attitude that it might imply but let me show you the other side of the story. The OpenBSD team works very hard to produce these releases and get little support in the form of donations from large companies that use pieces of the operating system. Theo De Raadt asked Sun for a donation for one of his hackathons and was not even given the time of day. He was not even answered which is tantamount to a 'no.' Given that OpenBSD provided extensive assistance to Sun in the integration of OpenSSH and voluntarily reported bugs in Sun's version (as well as others), I think it really would have been no skin off of Sun's back to provide a donation. The principle form of income for the project to function comes from sales of OpenBSD CD-ROMS. You could still make your own ISO, but please keep in mind the hard work of this project. Honestly, 50.00 is a drop in the bucket and you help keep the future of a good project stable.
2. Re:No ISO policy by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · 2007-05-02 00:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Have you priced the official disks? Have you ever used OpenSSH? If so, have you ever given anything back to the creators and maintainers of OpenSSH (OpenBSD)?
  
  This attitude pisses me off. If you were actually using OpenBSD, you'd be willing to fork over a few buck to get the disks. But you're not using it. The amount of time spent to produce such a high quality OS is worth the money in my book.
  
  The other thing that pisses me off is that OpenBSD doesn't have a millionaire patron. But they do have Sun, Cisco, etc shipping their software (OpenSSH) withouth even bothering to contribute to the foundation. Kinda cheap, huh? Maybe that's why they charge for their install disks.
  
  You clearly know nothing about OpenBSD.
  
  --
  This guy is way out there
3. Re:No ISO policy by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 01:16 · Score: 0
  
  Tell me, How much money has OpenBSD donated to GNU for the use of GCC? The OpenBSD people are a bunch of whiners.
4. Re:No ISO policy by k1e0x · 2007-05-02 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  There is nothing wrong with wanting to make money.. especially if you are working to do it.
  
  --
  Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
5. Re:No ISO policy by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · 2007-05-02 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  And Linux never borrowed from the BSD TCP/IP stack? Shut the fuck up.
  
  --
  This guy is way out there
6. Re:No ISO policy by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  So in the mind of the OpenBSD zealot, It's OK for to whine and bitch, because the world somehow owes you stuff, but it's not OK the other way around. Fucking hypocrites the lot of you. Go make your toy 1970s OS handle modern computers already.
7. Re:No ISO policy by PhotoGuy · 2007-05-02 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  A followup on my own posting:
  
  I decided to check out OpenBSD anyway, despite lack of an ISO. I used a Parallel's virtual machine to try an install.
  
  The baseline netbook fired up, prompted me with a lot of text prompts and manual disk editing (wow, they still do that?), detected the network fine, prompted me for packages, and started downloading them. Great.
  
  After getting base41.tgz (I think it was), it just sat there. For an hour. Doing nothing.
  
  So I restarted the install. It hung at the same place.
  
  No diagnostics. No indication of what might be wrong. A network issue? Possibly. If so, an ISO would have avoided that glitch.
  
  As it stands, I'll never bother spending the time to figure it out, and will never end up using/recommending/buying OpenBSD at this time. For now, when I need a lean, mean, gateway machine, NetBSD seems small, ISO-available, stable, and secure, so I'll use/recommend that.
  
  (One other thing that "bothered" me about the non-ISO thing, was that the "CD layouts" were "Copyright by Theo." Having a layout of all things, copyrighted by one person, again, seems a bit small-time and unprofessional. And the /. crowd is the type that would be up in arms about a layout being copyrightable, since arguably there's no creative design involved, just some drudgery of getting a bootloader and the packages on a disc.)
  
  Anyhow, I do have a lot of respect for what the OpenBSD folks have done over the years. I just think that the ISO thing is hurting them more than it's helping them. Let people see what you have, as easily as possible. If they like it, and they are the type of person/corporation/role that would pay for things, they will. If they're not the type that would pay, they won't. But you're only excluding potential customers in the former category, by not making it as easy as possible for them.
  
  (/me goes off to download the latest NetBSD to play and see what they've been up to...)
  
  --
  Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
8. Re:No ISO policy by GreyWolf3000 · 2007-05-02 15:31 · Score: 1
  
  The other thing that pisses me off is that OpenBSD doesn't have a millionaire patron. But they do have Sun, Cisco, etc shipping their software (OpenSSH) withouth even bothering to contribute to the foundation.
  *Snicker* Maybe you guys should switch to a GPL license to prevent big companies from selling all that hard work and giving back nothing.
  I joke. I'm glad that the OpenBSD team sticks to their idea of software freedom even when they appear to get taken advantage of.
  
  --
  Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
9. Re:No ISO policy by Raenex · 2007-05-02 17:57 · Score: 1
  
  So they say their work is free for anybody to use, without payment, and then they get all bitchy when they aren't paid for their work? And they resort to gimmicks like trying to copyright an ISO image?
10. Re:No ISO policy by mxs · 2007-05-02 23:03 · Score: 1
  
  Have you priced the official disks? Have you ever used OpenSSH? If so, have you ever given anything back to the creators and maintainers of OpenSSH (OpenBSD)? Beside the point. They choose to do things like they are, and that's their prerogative. I fully support their right to do so. It does not mean that I have to agree with or like it, or even consider "giving back". See further down on why.
  This attitude pisses me off. If you were actually using OpenBSD, you'd be willing to fork over a few buck to get the disks. Don't assume. It just makes you look like an idiot.
  But you're not using it. The amount of time spent to produce such a high quality OS is worth the money in my book. Precisely. In your book. Don't tell me what to do on my books, or anybody else's books.
  The other thing that pisses me off is that OpenBSD doesn't have a millionaire patron. But they do have Sun, Cisco, etc shipping their software (OpenSSH) withouth even bothering to contribute to the foundation. Kinda cheap, huh? Don't like it ? Change the software's license.
  
  No, really. If you don't actually mean "it's free for whatever you want to use it for", don't release it under a license saying that. It's quite simple, really. Bitching and moaning after people take you up on your offer is just childish. Sure it would be nice of Sun to help the project financially. Same goes for Cisco. But you damn well better don't EXPECT them to. If you give a gift to the world, it is exactly that. A gift. No strings attached. If you want strings, freaking spell it out in the license. In that case it's not a gift anymore, but a product for sale with you expecting compensation.
  Maybe that's why they charge for their install disks.
  
  You clearly know nothing about OpenBSD. Just because I don't agree with everything they do 100% or wouldn't follow Theo everywhere does not imply my lack of knowledge about or usage of OpenBSD. But hey, it makes for a cheap ad hominem attack, doesn't it ...
11. Re:No ISO policy by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-03 01:34 · Score: 0
  
  give it a break with this crap.
  
  this is how you can build your own OpenBSD iso:
  
  $ wget -r ftp://ftp.usa.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/4.1/i386
  $ wget -r ftp://ftp.usa.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/4.1/{src,sys ,ports}.tar.gz
  $ wget -r ftp://ftp.usa.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/4.1/packages /i386/{what,ever,packages,you,want}.tgz
  $ wget -r ftp://ftp.usa.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/{what ever else}
  
  $ mkisofs -o obsd41.iso -J -R -b 4.1/i386/cdemu41.iso ftp.usa.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD
  
  you're either a fucking whiner or a troll.
  go run your own project if you're so smart instead of telling other
  people how to manage THEIR project.
12. Re:No ISO policy by capsteve · 2007-05-03 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  wow. i can't believe so many people are complaining about the no iso policy.
  
  how do you support you favorite OSS project as an end user? do you donate equipment, time and money? or do you just download and evangelize? i support several projects by donating via paypal, or buying t-shirts/stickers/etc... openbsd is not being snarky, they tell you where the money is going:funding the project. what's wrong with that?
  
  i don't think that refusing iso images to encourage cd sales is a 'tude issue, silly or arbitary. it's more of a cultural perspective, one of getting something physical in return for making a small donation to a software project. it also makes the end user a little more socially responsible by explaining that the money goes to the funding of said project when a purchase is made. you get a lot of bang for the buck when you purchase the disc set(you favorite OS for many hardware platforms, stickers, a song), but you also get the satisfaction of monitarily supporting the folks that put a lot of effort into making the the openbsd project what it is:a solid fucking OS that's stable and secure.
  
  i've installed a lot of different os's in the last 12 years, and i will admit that the openbsd install is one one of the more archaic installers... slightly more arcane than a solaris console install. having said that, an openbsd install is quick and easy, especially with the ftp/http install. in fact, i prefer to do ftp/http installs of openbsd. i wish more distros would follow the model: download only what you need to install when you install it. don't get me wrong, gui installers are great. i love them when they work, but i hate the fact that they tend to slow down the install process, just to have a chance to compete in the windows-centric market.
  
  --
  three can keep a secret, if two are dead - benjamin franklin
13. Re:No ISO policy by Brandybuck · 2007-05-05 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  Stop being an idiot. Their work *IS* free for anybody to use, without payment.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
14. Re:No ISO policy by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-05 23:56 · Score: 0
  
  Everyone is sick and tired of OpenBSD OpenSSH shakedowns. Wah Wah Wah, if you don't want to give it away .. wtf, there are alot of big projects not doing this you owe me garbage...
  
  And let me tell you, I run ERP for a _big_ ass company, and we don't touch ssh, we use telnet, how about that? And you know what I hear? We arent the only ones. In fact I've never seen an enterprise app relying on OpenSSH. Yeah the MIS guys use it..but not the users...
quick say something negative about OpenBSD .. by rs232 · 2007-05-02 01:28 · Score: 0, Redundant

I really like OpenBSD except for, they don't make their own ISO images, they disown you if you install Edgy and er .. they don't make their own ISO images .. :)

--
davecb5620@gmail.com
1. Re:quick say something negative about OpenBSD .. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  What I don't like about OpenBSD is the fact that it is dead.
  
  BSD = Dead End.
hey Redundant .. by rs232 · 2007-05-02 03:57 · Score: 1

And then mod down posts that say something positive.

was (Score:1, No sense of humor)

--
davecb5620@gmail.com
Re:Just curious...Another down mod? For what?? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 04:05 · Score: 0

LOL! Another 'slashdot moderation', based on the same b.s. as it was here:

http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=233061&thr eshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=18954433

I will quote verbatim from it, for your reference:

"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!"

ROTFLMAO! Except this time, you rated me down for "trolling"... how is a post trolling anyone, or anything, if it is in DIRECT response to someone's words, quoted?

The explanation for my being modded down -1, is one I will NEVER see (but it won't be the first time I have seen that. Cowards always back stab & run, don't they?)
donations first AFTER trying it out ... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 04:45 · Score: 0

This attitude pisses me off. If you were actually using OpenBSD, you'd be willing to fork over a few buck to get the disks. But you're not using it. The amount of time spent to produce such a high quality OS is worth the money in my book.

Has it ever crossed your mind, that maybe nobody is donating to OpenBSD, because nobody is using it? You are mixing up reason and cause. If the OpenBSD developers choose to make it difficult for interested users to get a copy of OpenBSD running, then people won't. And certainly few people are hot about buying the cat in the bag.

Well, yes. The OpenBSD commercial CD-ROM images are not about "donations" - they are a product. And OpenBSD currently hasn't the benefit of the well proven, nice and shiny package on the shelf. Most potential Linux converts see it as a gamble, and not just another distribution to give a try. And in my personal opinion, the ISO donation scheme appears a little like tricking people into something. Yes, I'm sorry.

That being said, the net installation is working quite fine. If the release notes weren't as obsessed with promoting the commercial ISOs and mentioned how easy and fast the FTP installation actually is - maybe I'd might have tried OpenBSD a few releases earlier. And maybe, if I get it running, I actually donate a few bucks. (And no, 50 is too much - for _ME_.)

However, dear OpenBSD developer, understand, that nobody will ever donate BEFORE having tried it out. Not likely.
OpenBSD wishlist by BlueParrot · 2007-05-02 04:53 · Score: 1

I've had a look at OpenBSD and while it is indeed very encouraging to have an OS that is secure without tweaking, as opposed to one where you have to know about, and disable, everything that could be a risk, there are still a few things that trouble me. a)If you want to follow the stable branch you need to compile from source. The OpenBSD developers correctly discourage you from compiling from source as it is more likely to break things, yet it is required for teh stable branch, which is annoying. b)The install is a bit complicated, especially if you are going to compile from source ( which you have to if you want to follow the stable branch ). There is quite a lot of work required here to get a system that is "secure by default". c)The price of the CD images. Yes, I know this is in order to fund the project, but it only really affects new users since those who have been using OpenBSD for some time are probably fine with the net-install or will donate money anyway. This policy hits new users, and if you don't really want to spend a lot of money on a system just to try it, this leaves you with an even more complicated install procedure. Maybe it could be an idea to have a "minimal" install CD for the very basics of the system, and then charge for the rest of the stuff. Most of these problems seem to be down to limited resources rather than the capabilities of the OpenBSD team. I don't really care much about the license policy, because quite frankly its their project and they are free to license it as they like. Personally I prefer the GPL for things I would write myself, but as a user having less restrictions is never a bad thing. All in all it's a nice project and I will probably try it out once I get some more experience with *NIX systems. For now I will stick with my Debian install however.
1. Re:OpenBSD wishlist by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 18:22 · Score: 0
  
  a) I've followed the patch branch for /years/ and have yet to have a problem.
  
  b) I'll give you that the install isn't exactly user friendly. But, you're wrong about the patch branch. First you install the release (See (c)). Then you checkout the patch branch and compile that (See (a)).
  
  c) Purchasing the disks isn't exactly expensive; ~$50 USD. And when you don't have corporate sponsors, it's rather hard to justify giving away your main source of income. But, there's /is/ a minimal disk available on there ftp site(s). Using that to install over the net is fairly easy. Hell, there's only one step in the install that's different doing it that way. Namely, the one where you specify where the install sets are.
  
  As you can see, there really isn't that much work involved (as long as you know where to look). In fact, the only real potentially problematic step would be the install. And even then, IMO the only difficulty that is in there is setting up the disk. But, you really just have to get that right once and there's typically someone around that can help.
Elegy for *BSD by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 05:17 · Score: 1, Funny

Elegy For *BSD

I am a *BSD user
and I try hard to be brave
That is a tall order
*BSD's foot is in the grave.

I tap at my toy keyboard
and whistle a happy tune
but keeping happy's so hard,
*BSD died so soon.

Each day I wake and softly sob
Nightfall finds me crying
Not only am I a zit faced slob
but *BSD is dying.
Secure bricks by p00ya · 2007-05-02 05:41 · Score: 1

Embarrassing? Why? Because they don't run a bunch of unneeded services off the bat like some other OS's do/have-done-in-the-past? The bricks of my house have proved secure against *all* remote attacks, and I suspect they may be capable of RFC1149. If I start advertising them as a secure competitor to OpenBSD (0 is less than 2, after all, and who needs useless services like SSH), I'd have no reason to feel embarassed, right?
1. Re:Secure bricks by LurkerXXX · 2007-05-02 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  SSH is useless? Not to anyone I know who runs UNIX. Maybe if all you use is windows I can see it as 'useless' to you, but then, those folks wouldn't be running OpenBSD in the first place.
2. Re:Secure bricks by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 09:25 · Score: 0
  
  I think you missed the sarcasm in his post.
  
  Unless, of course, I'm injecting sarcasm into a comment that wasn't intended to have any.
Re:Just curious...Another down mod? For what?? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 06:38 · Score: 0

Personally, I rated you back up a point, though I somewhat regret doing so now that I read this.

It's a mistake to view moderators as some kind of Borg collective.

It's an even bigger mistake to try and pick an argument with 'Mr. Moderator'.
It'll always be a different mod, (who has no idea of your past experience) especially when you're posting as AC.

As for why you probably got down-rated, you took a somewhat arrogant and argumentative tone (you're not alone in doing so, mind you), and while some of your arguments were sound -- I found the NASDAQ information to be very interesting -- some weren't. For example, citing WHQL drivers, for those of us who've struggled with crashing BSOD WHQL-certified drivers riddled with security holes is decidedly unpersuasive.

My respectful advice? Think seriously about what you post, especially if you're going for a long post. Choose your best 3 or so arguments, and don't assume those you're talking to are ignorant or unaware.

Consider that the value of slashdot is as a self-regulating community, not a disparate bunch of little flame wars.
Xen? by mhans · 2007-05-02 06:46 · Score: 1

Does anyone know the status of OpenBSD as a guest OS under Xen? Are we likely to see this any time soon?
Nice sig by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 10:08 · Score: 0

You're a real "Command Line Warrior" alright, getting stuck "editing cylinder limit things". Not only can't you use disklabel, even though a complete guide/walkthrough for using it (as well as the rest of the install) is provided on the site, but you also can't even figure out what its for. You don't edit cylinder limits you dumbass, you create partitions.
Insightful? try -1 troll. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 10:16 · Score: 0

Its running inetd by default, which has ident, daytime and time running and accepting remote connections. Considering how the inetd used in popular linux distros before xineted, as well as xineted have had numerous holes, I think openbsd is doing pretty good.
OpenBSD pwnz! by n3v · 2007-05-02 10:22 · Score: 0

A truly proactive OS that sticks to their objectives.
a bit of "attitude" by nurb432 · 2007-05-02 10:47 · Score: 1

Well, it is Theo remember.. what else would you expect?

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
OpenBSD team works very hard by nurb432 · 2007-05-02 10:50 · Score: 1

And the FreeBSD people dont? Or NetBSD? Or K/Ubuntu? Its his work, and its his choice, but i also agree with many its a bit of an 'elitist' attitude, that really isnt necessary. Its not about the cost, its about the attitude.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
1. Re:OpenBSD team works very hard by Brandybuck · 2007-05-05 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  ...its about the attitude.
  
  And that attitude is "gimme gimme gimme!" Not Theo's attitude, yours.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
2. Re:OpenBSD team works very hard by nurb432 · 2007-05-05 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Give me a break. he's the only one out there that thinks he's above the rest of us. You ever read his writings? Do you know why he was kicked off the NetBSD team? ( or even that he was? )
  
  If not, then id suggest you go find out before you make a fool of yourself again. Sure, he's a really smart guy that has done a lot of great work, but Theo has an attitude, and he admits it freely.
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
The old song.. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 17:29 · Score: 0

You prolly mean this song:

Join us now and break the software
You'll be free, hacker, you'll be free..

Or something.
Complete with copyright violations by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-02 18:37 · Score: 0

at a web site near you!
It's Official... Slashdot is dying. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-05-04 03:36 · Score: 0

Slashdot is dying.. Netcraft confirms it...
When osnews and undeadly have all this stuff a day before anything even shows up here, what's the freaking point of /. anymore - if all I can see here is the latest linux and microsoft nonsense. /. has been coopted by corporate whores feeding us only what they want us to hear, everything remotely useful is hidden off in pathetic little gulags of "non-mainstream" categories - where
non-mainstream is anything that isn't that wouldn't be directly of interest to microsoft bashers, linux sycophants, or gamers - I might as well be watching CNN or Fox, or Goosociatedpressle News. "News for Nerds - Stuff that matters" has become "News for Posers - Stuff that makes the site look cool"