Slashdot Mirror


OpenBSD Foundation Announced

OpenBDSfan writes "KernelTrap is reporting on the creation of the OpenBSD Foundation, a Canadian not-for-profit corporation intended to support OpenBSD and related projects, including OpenSSH, OpenBGPD, OpenNTPD, and OpenCVS. The announcement explains, "the OpenBSD Foundation will initially concentrate on facilitating larger donations of equipment, funds, documentation and resources. Small scale donations should continue to be submitted through the existing mechanisms.""

92 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. Accounced? by Shambhu · · Score: 5, Funny

    s/check-it-out dept./spell-check-it dept./

    --
    Rome wasn't bilked in a day.
    1. Re:Accounced? by jkrise · · Score: 1, Funny

      s/check-it-out dept./spell-check-it dept./

      Heh... actually, the spell-check-it dept. accounced they are absconscding, it seems they have abandondoned /. after spelling nazis attack them everyday!

      --
      If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    2. Re:Accounced? by ettlz · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Thankfully, nautral lagnuage has evolved enough redudnancy to provide for fairly reliable error corectiuon.

    3. Re:Accounced? by Mattintosh · · Score: 1

      The brain has some kick-ass error correction built-in. That's why your statement can stay readable when condensed to this:

      Thkfly, ntrl lngag hs evlvd engh rdndncy to prvd fr frly rlibl err crrctn.

      Even better, it's compressed, and can be decompressed by using the error correction already present and running. Score!

    4. Re:Accounced? by ettlz · · Score: 1

      OK, which joker modded me "Redundant"?

    5. Re:Accounced? by Lockejaw · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but there's more decompression overhead here than I'd like to deal with.

      --
      (IANAL)
    6. Re:Accounced? by quantum+bit · · Score: 1
      This is how I read what you posted:

      Thankfully, neutral language has evolved enough redundancy to provide for frilly ribald error correction. Hmm, seems there's still some margin for error.
    7. Re:Accounced? by Mattintosh · · Score: 1

      You have contextd deactivated. Fire it up and try again.

  2. OpenCVS? by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yep, cause this license ain't free enough and, besides, we don't want anything that is better than CVS.

    You're a codin' machine Theo, but I wish you could learn to play well with others.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:OpenCVS? by timmarhy · · Score: 1, Troll

      we already have something that's better then CVS, it's called SVN. all this bickering and duplicated effort does is help the bad guys win.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    2. Re:OpenCVS? by QuantumG · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Yep, I agree. It seems that the OpenBSD folks (not just Theo) think that SVN is too complicated to be secure. They want to stick with the "proven" CVS protocols and RCS file formats. And yeah, they always start from scratch because they've gotta make it BSD licensed.. and besides, it gives them a feeling of ownership.

      This is a pretty common pattern. Complex == insecure to them. Which, to me, implies that secure == poverty. I like security as much as the next guy, but living in poverty because you're paranoid about security is not healthy.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:OpenCVS? by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Complex == insecure to them. Which, to me, implies that secure == poverty.

      No, you have your negation wrong.... If Complex == Insecure then !Complex = !Insecure, and thus Simple = Secure. The funny thing is: you cannot argue with that: simple is easier to audit and thus easier to audit. It really is that simple (Dah-dum!). Simple doesn't equate poverty, or a Lotus Elise is a poor-mans-car. (Having no radio, AC, etc...) Sorry for the "bad car analogy"(tm).

      You also forget the target demographic for OpenBSD: this is not for your Desktop, nor even for your high-load server. You can use it for that, but the niche in which it lives is firewall, NAT, transparent bridging. Places where security matters more than anything else. Sure, a bit more complex to set up, you need to work more, but this is not your moms OS.

    4. Re:OpenCVS? by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, I believe there was a good reason to create OpenCVS. Lots of sites still use CVS, but development GNU CVS is a mess and has become effectively unmaintained (leaving several vulnerabilities open). OpenCVS is intended for those sites who, for whatever reason, wish to continue using CVS, but also want some degree of security.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    5. Re:OpenCVS? by Noryungi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just read up a little bit about OpenBSD, and you'll notice they are not afraid of complexity. Examples that come to mind are pf, OpenBGPD, W^X, etc.

      Besides, choosing a stable and secure algorithm is not a bad idea. See this post for a valid example.

      Finally, I can't help but notice that Subversion is available as an OpenBSD package, so quit your yakking already.

      Sheesh, anti-OpenBSD trolls these days.

      --
      The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    6. Re:OpenCVS? by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 2, Informative

      simple is easier to audit and thus easier to audit.

      Should be: simple is easier to audit and thus easier to secure.

    7. Re:OpenCVS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      CVS has the advantage that it is a fairly simple system compared to for example subversion, and it has also been stable for a long time. This means that it is much easier to audit and secure the code, compared to more complex tools. I have yet to see anyone claim the subversion is inherently more secure than CVS, or the securing subversion is somehow easier than securing CVS.

    8. Re:OpenCVS? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      the niche in which it lives is firewall, NAT, transparent bridging So not a revision control server which sits behind a firewall and therefore doesn't need to be as secure?

      Yeah, figured.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    9. Re:OpenCVS? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Dude, we're just saying for them to not re-invent CVS. There's better systems available. Move on. All the time they spend rewriting CVS to be secure they could spend auditing SVN and help more users than just themselves.

      All we're saying is that we should work together instead of fragmenting all the time.

      Why is that a troll?

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    10. Re:OpenCVS? by MaoTse · · Score: 1

      CVS stays very much relevant to whole BSD community (not only OpenBSD).
      It's because of the tradition, sure - and rather faint convicting force of some other version control system ...

      Just look at the way CVSup http://www.cvsup.org/ is used.

      These people just need a CVS software they would like to maintain for some time in the future.

    11. Re:OpenCVS? by nacturation · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, you have your negation wrong.... If Complex == Insecure then !Complex = !Insecure, and thus Simple = Secure. Technically you should say the following, where "->" is the symbol for "implies":

      If Complex -> Insecure, then:
      !Insecure -> !Complex; and
      Secure -> Simple

      Otherwise your method of reasoning would go like this:

      Square = Four-sided-figure
      !Square = !Four-sided-figure

      . . . which doesn't make sense because then you could say "and thus, a non-square rectangle isn't a four-sided figure".

      Good old Wikipedia has the details.
      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    12. Re:OpenCVS? by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It works either way. And if you're auditing it twice, that might be more secure.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    13. Re:OpenCVS? by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Dude, we're just saying for them to not re-invent CVS. There's better systems available. Move on. All the time they spend rewriting CVS to be secure they could spend auditing SVN and help more users than just themselves. Or you could stop telling people what they should or shouldn't do in their spare time. If someone has a passion for writing really great CVS software, what's it to you?
      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    14. Re:OpenCVS? by zyche · · Score: 5, Informative

      What people seems to forget is that even if CVS usage is replaced with something else (like for example SVN) it doesn't make all the old CVS repositories go away. So, 20 years into the future (when we have flying cars which runs on water) you sit there (on your levitating chair) and wants to extract some files from an old CVS repo you found in the company's archive. No problem, except that GNU CVS isn't available on SuperDuper Windows Extra Deluxe 2027, due to the fact that code base and build system is such a mess that no one manages to make packages for Cygwin anymore (that and the fact that Microsoft (Operating Systems Division) does not any longer permit that GPLed software is used on its products.

      Ok, I'm exaggerating, but the point is that there is no fault in having a clean and maintainable code base for the future - even if it's only used for handling legacy projects.

      Besides, who are we to tell these people how to use their spare time? If anyone want to re-implement Unix in Brainf*ck, then let them.

    15. Re:OpenCVS? by timmarhy · · Score: 1
      We aren't "telling" them what to do, we are pointing out the blindingly obvious fact that a better CVS already exists.

      hell it might save them wasting their spare time, get the point?

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    16. Re:OpenCVS? by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      You do realise that their revision control server is accessible from the outside world over the internet, don't you? It probably sits behind a firewall, but the CVS ports must still be open.

    17. Re:OpenCVS? by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      To be fair openssl and openssh are far more widely used than CVS. Also although in my opinion it's a waste of effort to rewrite GPL software under the BSD license that's the developer's choice, they can develop whatever they want. If they dislike the GPL code or the GPL license enough to want to rewrite it that's their business.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    18. Re:OpenCVS? by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 4, Funny

      Logical terminology! So We Meet Again, My old Arch Nemesis. ;-)

      That's for clearing that up, you are of course 100% right.

    19. Re:OpenCVS? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Logical terminology is a bit like the Master in Doctor Who. Despite being burned/flamed to death attempting some evil scheme on numerous occasions, he always appears in later episodes unharmed.

      --
      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;
    20. Re:OpenCVS? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Ok, maybe OpenBSD isn't aimed at the desktop, but apparently PC-BSD is.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    21. Re:OpenCVS? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Then you use the CVS-to-SVN migration tool.

      I tell ya one thing though.. all those pig-headed people who are reluctant to upgrade their CVS servers already are even less likely to do it if OpenCVS is a success.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    22. Re:OpenCVS? by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes? Which is based on FreeBSD and not OpenBSD. FreeBSD which is also used by many people on the desktop (I did a while ago, but that laptop died, unrelated to FreeBSD of course ;-) ). They are really only related by their name and their license. OpenBSD is a fork of NetBSD, which came from 386BSD which also forked into FreeBSD. Let's say OpenBSD and PC-BSD are something like cousins.

    23. Re:OpenCVS? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 3, Insightful
      the license for CVS is perfectly fine

      Perhaps for your purposes. However, the CVS license it not consistent with the goals and philosophies of OpenBSD. So they created OpenCVS with a license that is appropriate.

      the main source of theo thinking SVN isn't secure, is because that control freak didn't write it himself.

      Do you have a link pointing to his quote on that?

      openssl and openssh are 2 packages responsible for huge security holes over the years, both of which are his babies.

      OpenSSL is not Theo's "baby".

      OpenSSH's security, while not perfect, has been excellent. Your unsubstantiated attribution of "huge security holes" to it seems to be intended as little more than a troll, since you did not provide any citations.

    24. Re:OpenCVS? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      OpenBSD has a long history with CVS. It was the first open source project to run a public CVS server; previously all open source projects had run a private CVS server that only a few people could access, and published snapshots as tarballs.

      They have a lot of revision history in their CVS repository, and feel it's important to maintain this due to the way in which their auditing process works. They might switch to something else at some point, but for now CVS is the best way they have of ensuring compatibility with CVS.

      Currently, they use GNU CVS, but there have been a number of security problems with it in the recent past. Part of this comes from the fact that, when it was written, GNU projects used the private-CVS-public-snapshots development model, so only trusted people got access to the CVS server anyway. After fixing a few security holes in GNU CVS, the team decided that the code was in such a state that doing a full audit and getting it up to the standard required by OpenBSD would be more effort than writing a replacement, so they decided to replace it instead. So far, they have OpenRCS, which is a drop-in replacement for GNU RCS (on which CVS is built). Now they are working on the CVS component, and seem to be making good progress.

      It's really not hard to understand. Considering the code quality of the rest of OpenBSD, I'd be more inclined to use their version than the GNU one if I needed CVS. Take a look at the recent BIND vulnerability that affected every platform except OpenBSD for an example.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    25. Re:OpenCVS? by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      I feel the OpenBSD guys are right. In general, a simpler system is less likely to have bugs (and hence security holes) than a more complex one. Indeed the first rule of programming is 'keep it simple'. CVS is an old program, having started life as a collection of shell scripts around RCS and then been gradually borged into a C program. CVS development hasn't exactly been rapid in the past few years and it is barely being maintained (look at the CVS site on Savannah).

      CVS has had plenty of security holes and still does (like this one I found recently). In many ways it's a classic example of the kind of crusty traditional Unix program that the OpenBSD people have done such a good job securing, rewriting and replacing over the past decade.

      As for moving to Subversion - plenty of people are happy with CVS; it has its limitations, but what it does, it does well. The project has a lot of infrastructure built round CVS and if the development process ain't broke, why fix it?

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    26. Re:OpenCVS? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The reason OpenBSD didn't do this is that the CVS-to-SVN migration tool does (did?) not properly migrate all of the history information. I suspect this is a very hard problem, given the semantic differences between CVS and SVN. If it's solved, then there becomes much less of a need for OpenCVS, but until then some people would rather use a maintained and audited version of CVS than an unmaintained insecure one.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    27. Re:OpenCVS? by Noryungi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the main source of theo thinking SVN isn't secure, is because that control freak didn't write it himself. which is ironic because openssl and openssh are 2 packages responsible for huge security holes over the years, both of which are his babies.

      Except, of course, you have no fscking idea what you are talking about, since OpenSSL is not developed, or related to, OpenBSD and Theo de Raadt in any way.

      As far as OpenSSH security holes are concerned, please excuse me while I laugh. Most of these vulnerabilities are either denial of service, or someone who messed up with their OpenSSH implementation. A lot of people think they can improve on a perfectly good product by adding security holes in it.

      As far as OpenCVS is concerned, they explain their rationale quite clearly:

      The OpenCVS project was started after discussions regarding the latest GNU CVS vulnerabilities that came out. Although CVS is widely used, its development has been mostly stagnant in the last years and many security issues have popped up, both in the implementation and in the mechanisms.

      Now, let me ask you: what part of "development has been mostly stagnant in the last years and many security issues have popped up" don't you understand?

      Allow me to finish by adding this: read up a little bit before you start trolling. But that would be a waste of a perfectly good troll, right? Sheesh. Go back under your bridge, little troll.
      --
      The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    28. Re:OpenCVS? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      APR is a fairly complicated project, but a lot of that comes from the 'portable' part. It would probably be relatively simple to write a non-portable version for OpenBSD. This would allow SVN to be used on OpenBSD without the dependency on Apache 2.0 code.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    29. Re:OpenCVS? by MrNaz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Given that OpenBSD is a fork of a fork of the parent of FreeBSD, it's more like OpenBSD is FreeBSD's nit picking, purist pain in the ass nephew while FreeBSD is the sagely, less idealistic uncle. I guess that makes NetBSD is the slut Aunty for running on everyone's hardware.

      --
      I hate printers.
    30. Re:OpenCVS? by k8to · · Score: 1

      If I needed to run a world-facing CVS implementation, yes. The original CVS and current gnu CVS do not impress me from design to implementation. When I needed to set up CVS for remote developer access, I required developers to go through a signup process which involved setting up an SSH key for each, by which they accessed CVS. I had every faith that CVS was a leaky, dangerous server, easily exploited, and we were a moderate target.

      However, I must echo the sentiments above. CVS is problematic partially because its design is so old it stems from an age when internet security was not on the radar. But its age comes with all kinds of other problems too. That anyone who needs a secure publically-accessible versioning control system would seek to reimplement CVS instead of cooperating with one of the healthy active growing version control systems...

      Hmm, I guess I will not take the cheap shot.

      --
      -josh
    31. Re:OpenCVS? by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      True... However, pointing out that PC-BSD is for the desktop is like pointing out that Ubuntu Linux is for the desktop when the discussion is about Freesco....

    32. Re:OpenCVS? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Dude, RMS made a whole movement of zealots and encouraged the creation of billions of lines of code.. doesn't change the fact that he's a smelly hippie.

      You seem to think that me saying Theo doesn't get along with others is somehow belittling his work.. it isn't.

      It's belittling his ability to get along with others.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    33. Re:OpenCVS? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've worked with CVS. It's limitations are why OpenBSD exists: Theo de Raadt was kicked off of the CVS commit list for NetBSD, with excellent cause, andn this left him unable to gracefully publish his own fork for others to review or integrate.

      Almost every other major source control system would have allowed him to maintain his own fork and publish it, keeping his software synced with or development integrated with the main source tree: Bitkeeper, git, Subversion, Perforce, etc. CVS fails this task pretty seriously.

    34. Re:OpenCVS? by RazzleDazzle · · Score: 1

      And you forget the most important reason for them to write OpenCVS. Each developer works on whatever project or program that he or she wants to. Theo and others might encourage others onto certain projects but he does not dictate programmer XYZ needs to work on program ABC. They do what interests them and what is useful for them. Now, if it happens that your needs/desires matches up with 1 or more programmers' desires then you are in luck and likely good things will happen on what it is you're interested in. Fortunately for those of us that are interested in having an overall secure OS, we're in luck as all or more of the OpenBSD developers also have security as a key design and implementation goal in all of their programming for the OS.

      --
      ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
    35. Re:OpenCVS? by Dr.+Smoove · · Score: 1

      Flamebait? This AC speaks truth. Sick of seeing all the Ubuntu fanboys talking shit on here.

      --
      "If you plant ice, you're gonna harvest wind."
    36. Re:OpenCVS? by 'nother+poster · · Score: 1

      No, your telling them what to spend their time on. It is their right to reinvent the wheel if they want. You never know, maybe they will make a better one. Then again, maybe not.

    37. Re:OpenCVS? by cromar · · Score: 1

      I am reimplementing Unix in Brainfuck, you insensitive clod!

    38. Re:OpenCVS? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      they are not afraid of complexity. Examples that come to mind are pf

      I don't know about the backend, but pf's frontend is a study in elegant simplicity. Seriously, it's just about as clean as such a potentially complicated system can be made. If it's underlying code really is complex, then I'd say that they made the tradeoff of keeping the frontend simple because that's what most people will see and shifting the tricky bits to the hidden backend where the experts can hover over it.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    39. Re:OpenCVS? by chriscappuccio · · Score: 1

      when opencvs was started, subversion was not ready to replace it

      and the drive to keep it going was partially fueled by the desire to have a home grown system that the developers understand, can easily modify, and that is completely compatible with the current cvs tree

    40. Re:OpenCVS? by j-pimp · · Score: 1

      Yep, I agree. It seems that the OpenBSD folks (not just Theo) think that SVN is too complicated to be secure. They want to stick with the "proven" CVS protocols and RCS file formats. And yeah, they always start from scratch because they've gotta make it BSD licensed.. and besides, it gives them a feeling of ownership.

      This is a pretty common pattern. Complex == insecure to them. Which, to me, implies that secure == poverty. I like security as much as the next guy, but living in poverty because you're paranoid about security is not healthy.

      CVS is ok if you don't go moving and renaming files. Due to the nature of OpenBSD, that does not happen very often. Granted, I think OpenSVN would be a much better use of there efforts in terms of it benefiting the rest of us, but they are free to do as they want.

      You are right that Theo and friends take the simplicity a bit too far and functionality does suffer. However, OpenBSD does have its niche in my world. If I wanted to use an old machine to act as a firewall or a box with SSH access to the world, I would chose OpenBSD over anything else. As soon as I needed to "get stuff done" I'd switch to linux or FreeBSD though.

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    41. Re:OpenCVS? by junglee_iitk · · Score: 1

      Do you know where can I download OpenRCS? Google doesn't seem to help too much.

      Sorry, I am a newbie :)

    42. Re:OpenCVS? by Bananenrepublik · · Score: 1

      So why don't they fix the cvs-to-svn tool? The gcc guys did just that before switching from CVS to SVN. Once you're out of the land of CVS' RCS-inherited braindeadness, it's easy to switch the VC tool.

    43. Re:OpenCVS? by zyche · · Score: 1

      What in the world are you talking about?! The OpenBSD tree was originally created from source that was downloaded as source tar balls (in some way or the other) from NetBSD since no project before OpenBSD allowed anonymous access to their development tree! The NetBSD CVS server was not publically available. CVS (and atleast Subversion) requires that you have access (and sufficient permissions) to the revision system server to be able to create a branch. Thus, it wouldn't had matter what revision system software they were using.

    44. Re:OpenCVS? by dadragon · · Score: 1

      It's pretty complex on hardware that doesn't have support for it in its MMU.

      --
      God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
    45. Re:OpenCVS? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The sources are in src/usr.bin/rcs in the CVS repository. Just check it out and run make (might need to be a BSD make, not a GNU make). Or install a recent version of OpenBSD.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    46. Re:OpenCVS? by Hucko · · Score: 1

      If you need to ask, you shouldn't be here...

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    47. Re:OpenCVS? by junglee_iitk · · Score: 1

      Thanks!

      It seems I cannot compile it on linux :(

    48. Re:OpenCVS? by k8to · · Score: 1

      Most modern version control tools allow *more graceful* development on a *seperate system*. The idea is not to create a branch on a central server, but elsewhere.

      That said, subversion does not support this type of thing, although the other tools do to a larger or smaller degree. (Perforce very much smaller; git, bitkeeper very much larger.)

      It's a kind of silly observation though since essentially none of those tools were available at the time.

      --
      -josh
  3. Interesting by ilovegeorgebush · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wonder what Theo will say about all this? 9 times out of 10 he tends to scorn things, so I wonder if he'll embrace this with open arms, or just shun it like he does most things.

    Either way i'm happy. At least there's even more support for open source software and anything non-windows related.

    1. Re:Interesting by NicM · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > I wonder what Theo will say about all this? 9 times out of 10 he tends to scorn things,
      > so I wonder if he'll embrace this with open arms, or just shun it like he does most things.

      This is an official OpenBSD effort, all of the directors are OpenBSD developers. I'm sure
      Theo was pretty central to setting it up, he is unlikely to shun it.

    2. Re:Interesting by Noryungi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Given the fact that it was stated by Bob Beck, a member of the OpenBSD programming teams, I think he will be OK with it.

      Besides, the OpenBSD Foundation stated very clearly that it will focus on large donations (of funds, hardware, etc) and that small donations should be sent directly to OpenBSD through the usual channels. RTFA and all that.

      I do think Theo will be A-OK with that.

      --
      The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
  4. Did anyone notice the spelling error? by Cyberllama · · Score: 1

    OpenNTPD I'm pretty sure they meant "OpecCTPD".
  5. NOT a mispelling. by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 2, Funny

    'Accounced' is an openBSD style announcement - one that can be held accountable

    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    1. Re:NOT a mispelling. by RuBLed · · Score: 1, Funny

      well hmmm.. like.. "Yay we're almost #1 in google rankings for accounced!" and given the reputation of the site, the word and definition would be retrieved from the internet by alien lifeforms thus coming to earth saying, "Accouncing Peace to all Toons..."

  6. Re:WTF by Antarius · · Score: 4, Funny

    I was accounced once. It's on my permanent record.

    Another time I accounced my neighbours dog for barking while I was trying to sleep. I used a teaspoon. It was fun.

  7. Accounced by LittleImp · · Score: 4, Funny

    Slashdot is according to Google already the Nr. 2 Source for accouncing!

  8. Netcraft confirms it! by Glowing+Fish · · Score: 1, Funny

    BSD is ACCOUNCED!

    --
    Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
  9. Re:The communism is not dead by JamesRose · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Most governments are actually pretty good systems, and in theory they work, the reason countries got ruined by communism was corruption, a less corrupt system would have succeeded, and I think we'll soon find countries like Afganistan abusing democracy to become a theocracy and it'll be just as bad.

  10. Accountable, but... by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    'Accounced' is an openBSD style announcement - one that can be held accountable


    Yes, that's great. But... does it actually have drivers for modern hardware? ;)
    1. Re:Accountable, but... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      OpenBSD hardware support is generally very good, with one exception; 3D graphics. There is no DRI port to OpenBSD yet, and it's not a priority for any of the developers. Everything else works pretty well. If you've got a modern PowerPC Mac, for example, you're likely to find it better supported with OpenBSD than any other operating system short of OS X.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Accountable, but... by epee1221 · · Score: 1

      If you've got a modern PowerPC Mac, for example, you're likely to find it better supported with OpenBSD than any other operating system short of OS X.
      This has certainly been my experience. There are a few issues I had in Linux that I never got around to trying on OpenBSD, but I can definitely say the only OS that supports more of my hardware than OpenBSD is OS X. Actually, at the time I installed, I chose OpenBSD because it was the only BSD with support for USB 2.0.
      --
      "The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
    3. Re:Accountable, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "OpenBSD hardware support is generally very good, with one exception; 3D graphics."

      OBSD's focus is not a multimedia desktop. Routers, bridges and wireless access points don't need 3D.

  11. Re:The communism is not dead by nagora · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    my country used to be in its shadow and now it is ruined.

    I very much doubt that. I suspect that what your country was in the shadow of was Stalinism. Just because the nice American man said you were living under communism doesn't mean anything as Americans generally can not tell the difference between Communism, Stalinism, and Socialism (and assume they're all Stalinism).

    Communism, like capitalism, is based on a model of the world which only works if everyone acts in exactly the way the inventor of the model thought they should. Neither work in reality; both need socialist elements to prevent them turning into a nightmare for all but the top 500 or so people in a country.

    TWW

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  12. When spell-naziing, don't ever forghet by wiredog · · Score: 1
  13. You are VERY confused. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    There are no bad guys, and there is no contest to be won or lost. Why do so many slashtards try to push their irrational FUD on to open source projects? If you want to win something then go compete at something. The OpenBSD team is just making an OS they like because they like it. There's no way to lose at that.

  14. The Race for funds begins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I think this is great. Now it should be easier to see just how well the three *bsd camps are doing. FreeBSD has a list of donors on it's foundation web site. Heck, you can get listed for a $1-$19 donation. Sounds like they took a page from the OpenBSD folks, who would list donors on their web site and printed your name in the instructions with the CD for each release until there got to be too many. Now it is just on the web.

    But look at the overhead! NetBSD listed $10k in donations for 2006 and $2k in legal fees, while FreeBSD listed $87k in donations and $54k in payroll expenses. What! Does it take a full time person to collect $150k in donations in 6 months?

    On the other hand, OpenBSD prides itself in being run by volunteers, so I think it should have lower overhead. We will see, how the three compare in getting the dollars. My money is going to OpenBSD.

  15. That's the way to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Congratulations! That's the way to go. This should have done long time ago. Nobody wants to donate/contribute to individuals. Good luck and best wishes. - Sagara

  16. not-for-profit vs. non-profit by zenyu · · Score: 1

    not-for-profit was being used long before the US invaded Iraq the first time. Each State in the USA and each Country has it's own laws and names for non-profits. Some even have both not-for-profits and non-profits and there is a slight difference between the two. "non-profit" is a good generic term, but if you are going by what is actually filed, it may be one or the other.

  17. OpenBSD Logo by Santana · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm sure there are enough OpenBSD stories to open an OpenBSD section with the respective OpenBSD logo Puffy instead of FreeBSD's Beastie

    --
    The best way to predict the future is to invent it
  18. Canadian - It's got piracy written all over it! by VorlonFog · · Score: 1


    Don't they realize that by establishing a Canadian foundation, they're aligning themselves with the greatest piracy threat against the MAFIAA members' intellectual property? Everyone knows OSS is all about piracy and cracking, and basing it in Canada increases that threat!

  19. Not tax deductable! by Ritchie70 · · Score: 1

    From their Donations page:

    We are not a registered charity, in the sense that we do not issue tax deductible receipts. The reporting overhead (accounting and legal costs) to operate a registered charity in Canada is prohibitive without a sizable revenue stream. Currently, this would divert a great deal of resources that could be better utilized in helping build good free software. We do issue receipts (not tax deductable) for all donations.

    If it's so stinking hard to do in Canada, maybe they should have done it in the US. You know, where there are a lot more people and large companies who might like a tax deduction for their donation?

    If my mom can run a non-profit 501(c)(3) in the US and get all the paperwork done, anyone should be able to. But these BSD folks never seem to manage it.

    --
    The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
    1. Re:Not tax deductable! by shking · · Score: 1

      Will never happen, thanks to US crypto laws & software patents.

      --
      -- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
    2. Re:Not tax deductable! by Secret+Rabbit · · Score: 1

      Your mom ignoring potential legal consequences by not having a lawyer, etc. and (probably) submitting incorrect (b/c your tax system is FAR more complex than the Canadian one) tax forms, etc but not getting caught, doesn't mean that it is easier to run a charity in the US. It just means that doing things in certain ways PROPERLY is complicated and costly in Canada and getting away with things in the US is easier.

      You've also completely missed the point. That being that having a registered charity "would divert a great deal of resources that could be better utilized in helping build good free software." So, get your head out of your ass. They ARE doing this to maximize the money going to OSS.

      Think you can manage to grasp that?

    3. Re:Not tax deductable! by Ritchie70 · · Score: 1

      Well, first-off, my mom's 501(c)(3) has a board of directors which has on and off included attorneys and CPAs, and they have all been OK with the paperwork being done. There's lots of info on the web, and it's just forms to fill out. At least in the US, a few a year, and not that many. My personal taxes, as far as I can tell, are way harder, and I do them every year without any real problems.

      I continue to not accept the assertion that not being able to accept tax-deductible contributions somehow improves their ability to FUND and FACILITATE the building of good free software. As far as I'm concerned, this is a fact: there are many companies that will match an employee's charitable contribution - but it has to be a legal, charitable, deductible contribution. So if I decide I want to give $250 to the foundation, they get $250. If they had tax deductible status, they would get $500.

      To me, the lack of deductability for something that, by all rights, SHOULD be deductible, makes it seem shady and suspect. You expect me to make a check out to Theo and mail it to him? That's just nuts, I'm not doing that.

      My head isn't in my ass - we just don't agree. So maybe you could pry your own far enough out to agree that disagreeing doesn't require getting insulting?

      Think you can manage to grasp that?

      --
      The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
  20. Is Theo Involved? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    If so, you can pretty much forget about it making a difference.

    While i respect him greatly for his technical abilities, as a marketing guy he sucks wind. His political views get in the way every time. ( and his abrasive personality does not help much either )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Is Theo Involved? by Ambidisastrous · · Score: 1

      Nope, the article lists 3 directors of the foundation and Theo isn't one of them. I expect this foundation to mostly leave Theo alone to do his thing, while independently drumming up bigger donations for OpenBSD projects.

      I remember a Slash article a few months ago discussing how Theo was super broke, at that discussion led to how OpenBSD's financial problems would be much more tractable if they'd just set up a foundation people or businesses could donate to. So, apparently other OpenBSD devs thought the same thing, and did it. This is good news.

    2. Re:Is Theo Involved? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      I wasnt able to read the article, but that sounds like its a workable plan, and yes i agree its good news.

      It would be a shame to see OBSD die out.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  21. Re:Forbes sucks, so don't listen to what they say. by RockoTDF · · Score: 1

    That and they are a financial magazine and not a tech one....one article I read they said there were only 3 different kinds of BSD!

    --
    There is more to science than physics!

    www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
  22. Re:CIS TOOL 1.x MULTIPLATFORM SECURITY TEST BSD FO by goarilla · · Score: 1

    how can a specific OS test be compared with tests for other OS'es
    they have created multiple tests for various platforms but that's not the point
    on your pic, i see PART 1 Service Packs and hotfixes, again this is something windows specific after that
    we go on and see registry permissions and file and registry auditing again this is mostly windows only
    the rest do seem to be platform independant ... file perms, etc
    but still you'll have to substract at least 12000 points from that score to be somewhat viable in comparison

    but let's not get over our heads, most server based os'es can be hardened a lot whether it's NT based or Unix based.
    and i must thank you for the 12 simple steps link since i'm about to reinstall and secure my sister's xp machine
    the point with me is and yes i've surfed technet a lot ... group policy does seem a lot more complicated to me than Unix's albeit simple user-group-world file permissions

    another important thing you're forgetting is that you ABSOLUTELY seem to thrust cisecurity.org
    this is a bad idea since you're putting your faith into this one particular security group
    to a lot of slashdotters this practice is viewed as stupid and that site is nothing other than yet another overzealous, we are the holy grail of security, security group with a public site
    those sites are everywhere on the net

  23. Do it, do it, do it! by Azuma+Hazuki · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't use OpenBSD at home (as mentioned, its niche is in firewalls and routers), but I think it's one of the most underrated and well-designed OSes in the history of modern computing. Theo de Raadt, abrasive as he is, is something like a thinner, paranoid RMS who showers once in a while, and I say that with only the best intentions. Like RMS, he may be hard to get along with, but he's nearly always right. Theo, if you're reading this, good luck!

    --
    ~Eien no Inori wo Sasagete~ Searching for my Hatsumi...
  24. a disadvantage of foundations by wikinerd · · Score: 1

    Organisations that handle lots of money tend to attract people who look for a job or opportunities for personal gain and have no interest in its original mission. Considering that the founding members will sometime retire or leave, how can a foundation ensure that its original culture and focus on its mission will pass on to all new members within generations? I always regarded this as a disadvantage of formal organisations. I am not saying this specifically for OpenBSD (which I highly respect), but I am just raising a point for discussion.

  25. Re:The communism is not dead by goarilla · · Score: 1

    true there is no such thing as a good/perfect system. hybrids are the way to go