Slashdot Mirror


OpenBSD 4.6 Released

pgilman writes "The release of OpenBSD 4.6 was announced today. Highlights of the new release include a new privilege-separated smtpd; numerous improvements to packet filtering, software RAID, routing daemons, and the TCP stack; a new installer; and lots more. Grab a CD set or download from a mirror, and please support the project (which also brings you OpenSSH and lots of other great free software) if you can."

178 comments

  1. October 18th is also its birthday by wb8wsf · · Score: 5, Informative

    OpenBSD is 14 as of today.

    Today would be a great day for even a little gift. ;-)

    1. Re:October 18th is also its birthday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is also my birthday, although I am a bit older than that.
      Some parts of OpenBSD suck, but I always keep coming back for more.

    2. Re:October 18th is also its birthday by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Does BSD support "Q" yet? Linux stole the "P" code ages ago and implemented "Q" but released it under a restrictive license that prevents the original authors from using the new features. Come on, get with it BSD!

    3. Re:October 18th is also its birthday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you didn't want that to happen you should have chosen a different license.

    4. Re:October 18th is also its birthday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux didn't steal - dude, the code wanted to be free, man

    5. Re:October 18th is also its birthday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Actually, no.

      OpenBSD stole "P", released it as "Q", then when asked politely threw a hissy-fit, removed "Q" altogether, and called the Linux devs "inhuman" for asking.

      Then the OpenBSD maintainer went on a witchhunt to find something in Linux that had been "stolen", but all he could find was a mailing list post of some rejected code, which he promptly sized as "stolen" and started foaming at the mouth again.

    6. Re:October 18th is also its birthday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The code was already "free". In fact it was free-er before slapping a new license on it. :)

    7. Re:October 18th is also its birthday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps it is ok that they took the code but it is not ok to be smug about it.

    8. Re:October 18th is also its birthday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a gift: who cares. Wow, software raid... too little, too late. Yawn.

    9. Re:October 18th is also its birthday by aldm · · Score: 0

      Many happy returns of your day. Many happy sales and donations.

    10. Re:October 18th is also its birthday by jonadab · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Does BSD support "Q" yet?

      It always has. You might want to check your keyboard layout settings. I think they're in /usr/local/config someplace. Look around.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    11. Re:October 18th is also its birthday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to google BitLocker as well. It's that good!

    12. Re:October 18th is also its birthday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When they implement LVM and start accepting the cleanroom reverse engineered documentation of wireless firmware blobs so they'll stop their cute "pity us" propaganda campaigns I'll start caring. Until then, forget it.

    13. Re:October 18th is also its birthday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they didn't want people to be smug about it they should've written it into the license conditions.

    14. Re:October 18th is also its birthday by http · · Score: 1
      Get your word usage right.

      Does BSD support "Q" yet? Linux stole the "P" code ages ago and implemented "Q" but released it under a restrictive license that prevents the original authors from using the new features. Come on, get with it BSD!

      GPL's restrictions are not on feature usage.

      --
      If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
      3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
    15. Re:October 18th is also its birthday by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      Stallman's already announced plans to put that in GPLv4.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
  2. OpenBSD pf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used OpenBSD as a router for awhile, I'm using FreeBSD now. I can't seem to filter packets from a natted jail to my LAN. I don't know if OpenBSD has jails, but I wonder if it would work under OpenBSD. I don't want packets getting from the 10.0.0.1 jail to my 192.168.0.0/24 network. But the jail has to access the internet. If someone could send me a pf.conf for that I would appreciate it.

    1. Re:OpenBSD pf by Dr.+Smoove · · Score: 3, Informative

      ah, that's super easy, have you ever even tried to read the docs? If 10.0.0.1 is a gateway that people are nat'd behind, something like block in from 10.0.0.1 to 192.168.0.0/24 in pf.conf, done. pfctl -n -f /etc/pf.conf to check that the grammar is correct, and pfctl -F rules -f /etc/pf.conf to reload the rules. If you mean you need to set up the openbsd box to *do* nating it's still pretty simple. All it takes is a quick look at the PF documentation.

      --
      "If you plant ice, you're gonna harvest wind."
    2. Re:OpenBSD pf by lastgoodnickname · · Score: 0

      All it takes is a quick look at the PF documentation.

      Don't you have to do something after looking at the documentation?

    3. Re:OpenBSD pf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is all on a FreeBSD 7.2 machine. Just for the record, 10.0.0.1 is a jailed alias on the external interface. Since there is a NAT rule for 10.0.0.1 to access the internet, it seems even adding at the top of the filtering rules "block in quick from 10.0.0.1 to 192.168.0.0/24" and reloading the rules will have no effect on blocking packets from 10.0.0.1 to 192.168.0.0/24 (I can still ssh to 192.168.0.1 from the jail for example [and the sshd logs verify the address it sees coming in is 10.0.0.1). I had the doods in FreeBSD on #efnet IRC try to help me, I used www.pastebin.com and gave my config. i_love_goats, and Darius were both stumped and I could tell they knew their shit. I really think it is not my fault. I think it's a bug in the order of operations of pf.

      To clarify, I was wondering if OpenBSD would have this seeming lack of filtering in a natted jail. Of course if I remove the NAT rule for the jail, the filtering rule does work. Hmmm... strange. Unfortunate. :-(

  3. Thanks Theo and everyone else. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    I just want to give a huge Thanks to Theo and the rest of the OpenBSD developers. They're doing a fantastic job. I'll order my CD soon.

    1. Re:Thanks Theo and everyone else. by munctional · · Score: 1

      Just wondering, but are you unable to simply download the sources/ISO files? Unless you collect the CDs or something, it seems strange in this day and age. That said, I will be donating to the project today. :-)

      --
      Functional programming... for real men!
    2. Re:Thanks Theo and everyone else. by plaukas+pyragely · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be better to download iso and the donate those $'s for CD to OpenBSD project?

  4. Now There's Some Software Engineering! by yup2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Doing what others only dream... a scheduled release, early!

  5. Torrent? by DragonDru · · Score: 1

    They have lots of mirrors and they likely work well, but with a torrent I could help pass it around.
    What is with projects not offering the option?

    --
    20 characters max for the password? How will I use my favorite poems as passwords?
    1. Re:Torrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OpenBSD is, if nothing else, a very conservative OS. It's not particularly surprising that they don't adopt the new shiny if their current system is working just fine.

    2. Re:Torrent? by Jared555 · · Score: 1

      Their main CD is not very large at all. If I remember correctly most of the files are downloaded during the installation.

    3. Re:Torrent? by Jared555 · · Score: 1

      Was looking at the wrong file, guess it is 200MB but they probably have their reasons for not offering a torrent by default

    4. Re:Torrent? by rivaldufus · · Score: 1

      They didn't have a full install iso until somewhat recently, as they felt that it would hurt their CD sales. I suppose they will do a bit torrent sometime, but probably not for a release or two.

    5. Re:Torrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The OpenBSD ISO is just a move to keep whiners quiet. And the CD is so Theo can eat.

      Using the release/stable versions is not supported/recommended at all, even when they are the latest.

      Patches for vulnerabilities in the base system are provided for the latest version, so if you run ssh/sftp server or a PF router you are okay, otherwise, you should update regularly to stay CURRENT.

      Backporting bugfixes for obsolete versions of third party software is not something OpenBSD can afford to do.

    6. Re:Torrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those worrying about speed of download, please do not underestimate the bandwidth of your CC as the SYN and the mail service as the ACK. OpenBSD needs those sales to continue to host the free files.

    7. Re:Torrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, I had my 4.6 discs in the mail two weeks ago. Bittorrent would only be faster if it could somehow send the data back in time...

    8. Re:Torrent? by incripshin · · Score: 1

      Don't ask why I'm looking at such an old story. I love OpenBSD!

      They want you to buy the discs, I think.

  6. Re:Soft RAID? by rivaldufus · · Score: 4, Informative

    OpenBSD has had the RAIDframe driver for a long time. This releases is adding some sort of RAID 4 and 5 implementation.

  7. Still no torrent? by phantomcircuit · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Come on! FreeBSD has been releasing via bittorrent for a while now. Get with it OpenBSD!

    1. Re:Still no torrent? by Jared555 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most distros have at least one or two really good mirrors nearby. Maybe when they don't offer a 4GB file (their install.iso file is 200MB) they don't see the need.

    2. Re:Still no torrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you make a torrent to distribute a 6MB CD .iso?

    3. Re:Still no torrent? by dayid · · Score: 1

      The x86 install disk is less than 6MB. Maybe when they have 4GB DVD iso's available like FreeBSD they'll feel the pain and go torrents?

    4. Re:Still no torrent? by DragonDru · · Score: 1

      But one would make a torrent for the 200 MB iso.

      --
      20 characters max for the password? How will I use my favorite poems as passwords?
    5. Re:Still no torrent? by phantomcircuit · · Score: 1

      Even a 200MB iso would benefit from bittorrent.

    6. Re:Still no torrent? by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      That's only the net install ISO, not the full disk.

      --
      SSC
    7. Re:Still no torrent? by dayid · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except if you're following installation directions (and for some reason not using bsd.rd, etc, to install), you would be downloading the 6MB cd64.iso, not the 200MB install46.iso. http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq3.html#ISO

    8. Re:Still no torrent? by phantomcircuit · · Score: 0

      Funny that just says that the iso files available are not official. I do not see where it says that the 6MB network installer is more official than the 200 MB installer with all of the file sets on it.

    9. Re:Still no torrent? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      NetBSD has torrents as well. About as year ago I wanted an AMD64 iso to I got the torrent but it turned into a straight download so I may as well not have bothered. I wonder if the actual demand for openbsd is enough to justify the effort.

    10. Re:Still no torrent? by dayid · · Score: 2, Informative

      For those that need a bootable CD for their system, bootdisk ISO images (named cd46.iso) are available for a number of platforms [...]. ...

    11. Re:Still no torrent? by blhack · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe when they don't offer a 4GB file (their install.iso file is 200MB) they don't see the need.

      Every openbsd installer I have ever downloaded has been 10MB...

      --
      NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
    12. Re:Still no torrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most distros have at least one or two really good mirrors nearby. Maybe when they don't offer a 4GB file (their install.iso file is 200MB) they don't see the need.

      FreeBSD has a boot-only ISO image that's 40 MB. You then do an network-based (e.g., via FTP) install after you boot from that.

    13. Re:Still no torrent? by phantomcircuit · · Score: 0

      Just because cd46.iso is a bootable cd does not mean that install46.iso is not.

    14. Re:Still no torrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The slightly more conservative NetBSD even has bittorrent releases as the preferred method of distributing their disk images. Sometimes OpenBSD seems a little big and crufty in comparison, especially with the performance gains made by NetBSD in the last few releases.
       
      I still remember being a high school kid trying to install OpenBSD on my 486 HP Vectra with 16MB of RAM. It should have been enough (16 was the OpenBSD minimum requirement), but the installer was slow, noticeably messy, and it even crashed at times. Eventually I switched to the more minimalist NetBSD, and it worked very nicely without the slowness and crashing. To this day, I think that NetBSD is one of the best and cleanest systems for people who want to learn Unix. While I appreciate the ideals of OpenBSD, it seems like their delivery is never as graceful or as smooth as it could be. By focusing on different security threats so much, maybe they miss the larger principles of clean design and simplicity.
       
      In any case, no matter what version of *nix we use, we should be thankful to the OpenBSD people for their work on OpenSSH (including SFTP), which is remarkably useful for many purposes.

    15. Re:Still no torrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because while some people know how useful torrents are to distribute files, a non-trivial number just like using the word "torrent" because they think it makes them l337, or whatever.

    16. Re:Still no torrent? by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      http://openbsd.somedomain.net/index.php?version=latest+release

      List of all their torrents, by architecture and type. Search for the text "install" to find the binary install images (rather than source code or package bundles).

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    17. Re:Still no torrent? by Jared555 · · Score: 1

      Funny that just says that the iso files available are not official. I do not see where it says that the 6MB network installer is more official than the 200 MB installer with all of the file sets on it.

      I am guessing that statement is just outdated since at one point in time some or all of the .iso files they release now were not available in the past and other people made and distributed unofficial ones.

    18. Re:Still no torrent? by Jared555 · · Score: 1

      install.iso is 200MB, the iso that has just the installer on it without packages is around 10MB.

    19. Re:Still no torrent? by Jared555 · · Score: 1

      The 200MB iso is meant primarily for installing on networkless or low speed connections so the packages are already available. A comparison would be a linux network install cd/floppy vs the live cd/cd with packages on it.

    20. Re:Still no torrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I started using OpenBSD at version 2.6. At that time I put it on an old 486 with 8MB of RAM that I got for free since someone was discarding it. My experience was similar to what you described. But eventually I figured out that if you compiled a kernel that didn't include support for "newfangled" things like PCI and USB, it ran very smoothly. I just had to do the initial compile on a better machine, since that thing swapped like mad with 8MB on a stock kernel. :P

      But yeah, I used to run it that way for several years... I think I even kept up with the new releases now and then. Painful because of I required a custom kernel each time, but with a custom kernel I could compile even on the crappy machine with only 8MB of RAM. Now I'm not longer a penniless student so I have actually decent hardware. :-) Just finishing up the upgrade to 4.6 right now, finished sysmerge and now I'm at pkg_add ....

    21. Re:Still no torrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Come on! FreeBSD has been releasing via bittorrent for a while now [freebsd.org]. Get with it OpenBSD!"

      BFD! Next you'll be complaining about the color of their mascot. Whimp.

  8. Re:Yahoo! by Dr.+Smoove · · Score: 1

    Most places using it use it for site-to-site VPN, routers, firewalls, etc, so A. only people from significant sites probably know the answer and B. it's not really what it's known for being great at.

    --
    "If you plant ice, you're gonna harvest wind."
  9. Re:openbsd kernel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the fuck are you talking about? A hardened userland is totally useless without a bulletproof kernel underneath it. Security has to start at the deepest levels, and work its way upwards.

    And most of the OpenBSD-specific userland libraries and apps have already been ported to FreeBSD. If you're actually a FreeBSD user, which I suspect you aren't, you'd know how to install them, too.

  10. Where's the song? by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

    Where's the song? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering song!

    1. Re:Where's the song? by dayid · · Score: 4, Informative
    2. Re:Where's the song? by pddo · · Score: 1

      That is some of the funniest/wierdest music I've ever heard.

    3. Re:Where's the song? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I swear the release songs are what excites me the most about each OpenBSD release song. :-)

      I also find myself agreeing with most of them too. This last one is particularly poignant. I feel the same way a lot of the time, that the technology is trying to be too controlling, that there is too much (technological) power in the hands of the big monopolies, that our choices are dwindling and we must defend them.

      Don't ask me to rationally defend all these positions. I just don't like one-button iPods, locked down formats, binary-only blobs, and whereas most every other user of technology is happy with them, I am not.

      Give me back my free software, please.

  11. Software RAID? by WarlockD · · Score: 1

    Anyone know of the preformace? Been using mdadm for a while and been liking it.

    1. Re:Software RAID? by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 2, Informative

      Now if mdadm only had the ease use gmirror/geom does in freebsd, then it might be more widely adopted.

      mdadm is a perfectly functional package, but it's setup is quite awkward. gmirror however is a breeze to setup, and it's performance kicks the crap out of most hardware controllers I've tried(admittedly few). I imagine OpenBSD implementation is also a good performer as software raid. This states a 30% speedup for certain cases. http://www.openbsd.org/plus.html

      --
      brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
    2. Re:Software RAID? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mdadm's limitations arise when you attempt to mirror your existing root disk without destroying the data. You'd think such a task would be easy, but it's not. If you don't configure the mirror during install, it's a real headache. This can't be an uncommon situation either, with people who start out with a single disk and then later decide to add some redundancy.

      Solaris DiskSuite does this very nicely. A few commands, modify /etc/vfstab, reboot, then attach the other disk to the mirror and let it sync.

  12. ISO Policy Explained by nuckfuts · · Score: 3, Insightful

    OpenBSD's FAQ explains their choices regarding ISO images.

    I like to install OpenBSD from a floppy image - only 1.44 MB! I then choose an FTP mirror and install whatever parts I want on the fly.

    1. Re:ISO Policy Explained by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

      You can install it from your running Linux or something to a free partition if you don't want to burn a CD.
      It is a good finger exercise to do without a CD.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    2. Re:ISO Policy Explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      In summary, buy the cds they come with cool stickers and they're only $50.

      I got my cds in the mail on friday.

      Already have the OpenBSD 4.6 stickers on my lappy :D

      cyphercell

      ps - it really is a drop in the bucket compared to my other work expenses this year.

    3. Re:ISO Policy Explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yay, just as expensive as a Windows Vista copy from Dell. fffff

    4. Re:ISO Policy Explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow you use floppies? Our servers don't even have floppy drives anymore. Would a USB key be not a better solution, call me crazy.

    5. Re:ISO Policy Explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My computer does not have a floppy drive...

    6. Re:ISO Policy Explained by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 2, Informative

      So put the floppy image on a USB stick (instead of a floppy disk) and boot from that. Sheesh, do we have to hold your hand, or do you need us to type the commands for you, or what?

      --
      If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
  13. Re:openbsd kernel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm waiting for OpenBSD to give up on creating a modern kernel and focus on what they do best: create hardened network applications & a clean base system. A freebsd / openbsd fusion would give linux a run for their money.

    I wish that were so. *BSDs (all of them) still lack HA and failover clustering software. Until that is there, *BSD is not a viable alternative.

  14. Re:openbsd kernel by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 3, Funny

    *BSDs (all of them) still lack HA and failover clustering software.

    Ironic in a story about an OS release that features improved HA networking.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  15. Re:Yahoo! by hotfireball · · Score: 1

    No, why troll... First, Yahoo is not only on BSD. Second, BSD is widely in a Cisco stuff, mostly for network appliances, routers, firewalls etc. It is very good firmware-like OS for network stuff.

    For everything else you've got Solaris... :-)

  16. Re:Yahoo! by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
  17. Re:openbsd kernel by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 1

    Do you have any clue who is responsible for developing Common Address Redundancy Protocol?

    You have other options too,

    http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/sysutils/heartbeat/

    or for a DRBD eqiv, try ggated + gmirror

    http://serverbbs.ccw.com.cn/thread-14564-1-1.html

    --
    brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
  18. Ah, that time again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I like about OpenBSD is every six months I have to look at the upgrade guide to decide what new accounts to create and config files to synchronize with etcXX.tgz, then I "upgrade" with cp and tar. OK, the upgrades are a bit more painful than using aptitude on a Linux box, but the results are always good. :-)

  19. Update link in story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The story points to plus46.html which isn't useful for a general distribution announcement like this. Here's a much better choice (which includes a link to the plus46.html page):

    http://www.openbsd.org/46.html

    or

    http://www.sigmasoft.com/~openbsd/archives/html/openbsd-announce/2009-10/msg00001.html

    1. Re:Update link in story by pgilman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The story points to plus46.html which isn't useful for a general distribution announcement like this. Here's a much better choice (which includes a link to the plus46.html page):

      http://www.openbsd.org/46.html

      or

      http://www.sigmasoft.com/~openbsd/archives/html/openbsd-announce/2009-10/msg00001.html

      for the record, i submitted it with different links. plus46.html was originally linked from the text "and lots more." they "improved" the links in the story before they published it.

      --
      if i'm a grammar nazi, you're an illiteracy nazi.
  20. Re:Soft RAID? by x2A · · Score: 1

    Aye, just notice the use of semicolons and commas in the sentence :-)

    Becomes:

    Numerous improvements to: (packet filtering, software RAID, routing daemons, and the TCP stack);

    (but yes I did read it for a moment as saying that one of the new things was a TCP stack!)

    --
    The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  21. make by tirnacopu · · Score: 0

    Make floor(3) round towards -inf instead of towards zero.

    Floor? Really? Who was so bored they looked at a 20-year old function (the ANSI C standard was written in '89) and said: yes, there is room for improvement here!

    At least they could have changed it to accept input in XML format :p

    1. Re:make by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      "floor" is one of those functions... ugh.

      Depending on what language/program/whatever you're using, it'll either round towards -inf (as apparently they've patched this one to do), or towards 0. The mathematical definition of the term "floor" is -inf, so I guess this change makes it "more correct." But God help you if you have a program that relied on the previous behavior.

    2. Re:make by Undead+NDR · · Score: 2, Informative

      But God help you if you have a program that relied on the previous behavior.

      Well, IIUC, that would just entail converting all floors on negative numbers to ceils:

      double floorToZero (double n)
      {
              return (n < 0) ? ceil(n) : floor(n);
      }

    3. Re:make by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      Depending on what language/program/whatever you're using, it'll either round towards -inf (as apparently they've patched this one to do), or towards 0.

      This cursed wrongness of many implementations of floor (returning closest integer not further from zero) has caused me no end of hassle through many different environments. The bugs can be quite subtle, but significant, and occasionally really weird. This uncertainty in floor behavior is not limited to c-libraries, but can also be encountered in some higher-level analysis packages, such as in graphical programming environments and interactive data analysis packages. After being bitten in the butt too many times, I now always supply my own floor function with the correct behavior (returning closest integer not greater than input) in source code, or add a DLL or lib with such a module to any packaged environment.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    4. Re:make by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Once you notice the bug... after possibly years of extremely subtle incorrect accounting errors.

      I'm not saying it's hard to fix. It's hard to find.

    5. Re:make by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's a huge fucking pain. One of those functions you have to look up for every environment-- even though you know exactly what it's "supposed" to do, you have no idea if it's right in any given environment.

      I haven't gone as far as just writing my own all the time, but if the library version is prone to changing from one implementation to another, I really should... that's a bug waiting to happen.

  22. Re:Soft RAID? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    raidframe is kinda unsupported, this is legacy stuff with code that hasn't been touched for a looong time.

    softraid is the new shiny software raid solution on OpenBSD.
    softraid supports raid 0,1,4,5 and crypto.
    it is still work in progress, but with 4.6 you get rebuild for raid1 so it is usable in production.

  23. Re:Yahoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Netcraft? Is this some kind of joke?

  24. Re:Yahoo! by DaMattster · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I use it for my father's site-to-site VPN and the ease of configuration of OpenBSD's ipsec.conf makes it wonderful. It is highly reliable and, in the two years I have had it implemented it went down due to the failure of the onboard NIC in a Dell Server. I simply threw in a spare INTEL PRO/100 (em) and it was back up within 5 minutes.

  25. Re:Netcraft confirms: *BSD is Dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lulz

    This shit never gets old.

  26. Re:openbsd kernel by DaMattster · · Score: 2, Informative

    Funny, I thought that was what CARP and pfsync were. They are for failover but I don't know about clustering and load balancing.

  27. OpenBSD - not that secure... by metrix007 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    OpenBSD security is in large part overstated, and at worst, a myth.

    Let us look at 3 main points, of which the last is the most important.

    1. Secure by default. Yes, having services turned off by default is a good move. It also actually has nothing to do with the security of what you actually have running.

    2. Auditing. Only the base system is audited. The ports are often quite far behind. Most attacks are not against "the base system".

    3. Lastly...OpenBSD, by design, is not a secure system. A secure system is much, much more than just a lack of vulnerabilities. It is the ability to have controls and lock down things, to prevent unauthorized access. Instead, the OpenBSD approach does it's very best to assume that people don't get in, but does little to help when something does go wrong. Or, you know, if you even wanted to actually restrict access with more than just the user/group scheme. Hell, they don't even have a basic ACL. VMS was a secure system. Very recent editions of Windows are well on their way to becoming secure systems. OpenBSD is not.

    In fact, as it stands, Linux is a far, far more secure system, because of access to things like SELinux and RSBAC. These frameworks allow you to lock down and control every aspect of your system. Anything you want to restrict and how, you basically can. It takes the "everything is a file" philosophy to the next step. These systems are more secure for one simple reason. You should be prepared in case someone does, not simply try to eliminate all bugs all together, which while noble, is a flawed attempt. Not to mention the inability to restrict legitimate users on the system in a limiting way...

    Instead, if someone successfully gets root on OpenBSD..then they have root, This is getting better with privilege separated stuff, but Linux had this in 3rd party patches about 10 years ago. With SELinux and RSBAC, you can remove the concept of root. If someone hacks a webserver...well, the webserver does not need write access, except maybe to tmp, it won't need execute access, it won't need to initiate outgoing connections, and it won't need write access, only append access to /var/log. The attacker can't do anything, and you simply can't do something similar with OpenBSD.

    In fact, despite Theo being staunchly opposed to such attempts, there was one. Systrace. It was nowhere near as powerful or flexible as the aforementioned frameworks, but it was a start. Instead, The developers decided to use an insecure technique, system call interposition, shown to be insecure. After this they gave up.

    OpenBSD is an extremely quality codebase, and it is more secure for small stuff and does make a good router or firewall. It is by no means a secure system though, and should not be hailed as one.

    --
    If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    1. Re:OpenBSD - not that secure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You raise some valid points but you completely lost any credibility you had when you named SELinux. Which makes you a troll at best.
      About OpenVMS purported security. When I start seeing webservers using OpenVMS, or they release their source, I might believe it. Until then it seems to me they and their customers still live in the 80s.

    2. Re:OpenBSD - not that secure... by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      What problem do you have with SELinux? Perhaps you don't understand correctly how it works. It has a bad rep for being cumbersome, but it isn't terribly hard to learn if you're willing. There are several examples of it blocking exploits and 0 day attacks, because of the method I describe. You may find this article interesting, with links to some of Dan Walsh's blog posts.

      As for VMS, it is widely considered to be one of the most secure systems. Just have a quick look at it's vulnarability history. It puts OpenBSD to shame. More info.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    3. Re:OpenBSD - not that secure... by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      Oops, sorry. OpenVMS security overview here.

      http://www.blacksheepnetworks.com/security/resources/openvms/

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    4. Re:OpenBSD - not that secure... by Spit · · Score: 3, Informative

      OpenBSD's focus is preventing the exploits in the first place with many overflow vulnerabities in third-party software being non-exploitable on OpenBSD. After running it for 10 years, I trust OpenBSD's record. It has some of the best in the business probing it, and with the most serious flaw in years being a subtle IP6 attack, I think that trust is well founded. If you were to prove otherwise, I'm sure you would instantly be a big name in security.

      Although sound design, role security is added complexity which increases scope for vulnerabilities. From coding errors to implementation errors, complexity breeds insecurity. They also create a false sense of security: having implemented RBAC on Solaris I was initially impressed until I realized one could bypass it with suid bombs.

      OpenBSD's simple design and sound default permissions mean that even with a local account, it is very difficult to gain root access. The base system is comprehensive so usually there's little reason to go to ports to implement OpenBSD in its perimiter focused role.

      You would do well to back up your claim that OpenBSD is snake-oil.

      --
      POKE 36879,8
    5. Re:OpenBSD - not that secure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What problem do you have with SELinux?...

      Gee, what problem haven't I had with SELinux! I dunno if it's SELinux or the Fedora distro, but one of the first things almost everyone does is nuke SELinux. Then things work and logs don't get full of meaningless messages. Does anyone really understand each and every one of the (hundreds? thousands?, more?) rules in the SELinux policy? If not, then whats the point? Whatever SELinux is, was, or hoped to be, it just isn't working.

    6. Re:OpenBSD - not that secure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also enabled the recently discovered "everybody and their pets can run in kernel mode" feature.

    7. Re:OpenBSD - not that secure... by munctional · · Score: 1

      SELinux has nothing on GRSecurity. http://www.grsecurity.net/

      --
      Functional programming... for real men!
    8. Re:OpenBSD - not that secure... by atarashi · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, I beg to differ (what else ;-)

      OpenBSD does help you, when something goes wrong:
      like for example with immuteable files, or append only files, so no one can delete your logfiles! At least you have the chance to look at what the "bad guys" did. Indeed a very fine feature for a logserver, isn't it?
      Or OpenBSD secure modes?
      Plus, you can put your WEB-Server in a jail, so *IF* someone breaks into your WEB-Server, well, the whole system is still NOT compromised.
      Jails work very well! Maybe even better the the comparative Linux stuff...

      And sorry, but SELinux is such a PITA, I've never seen anyone using it, mostly it is simply disabled, because it is the root cause of many problems.

      Yes, VMS was a great system, but it is even deader the the *BSDs ;-)
      No, really, Application support on (Open)VMS is not so great, and Drivers for many addon-cards are noexistent. So, even if it was (is) good, it is in no way mass compatible.

      To me, it seems you tried to put down OpenBSD in favor of something else (no namecalling, please!), but you failed, because your Points are rather incorrect.

      But, what should I say more, be happy with whatever OS you're running and may you never be hacked.

    9. Re:OpenBSD - not that secure... by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Indeed. For example, I believe OpenBSD was the first production (non-research) OS to implement Address Space Layout Randomization. This is the kind of forward-thinking and comprehensive defense-in-depth approach that OpenBSD takes; even if an application vulnerability is found, it's hard to make an exploit that will *do* anything.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    10. Re:OpenBSD - not that secure... by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      Rubbish. The problem is you simply ignoring messages because you don't understand them, instead of bothering to get acquainted with the technology in the first place.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    11. Re:OpenBSD - not that secure... by metrix007 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My point was that OpenBSD is not a 'secure system', despite being quality code.

      It provides no ways to limit or control the system, or to limit access if an attack does occur.

      It is good practice to assume that an attack may occur, and be prepared for it.

      I never said OpenBSD was snake oil, simply that it is not the secure system people seem to think it is.

      And, no, you can't bypass RBAC with SUID bombs if it is set up correctly.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    12. Re:OpenBSD - not that secure... by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      "Only two remote holes in the default install, in a heck of a long time!" just isn't the impressive statement it used to be.. When was the last Windows/Linux remote hole in a default install. Last I can remember was blaster, and you can bet Windows will have a hell of a lot more people looking for holes in it than OpenBSD.

      Things like NX which OpenBSD rushed to emulate in software are now implemented in hardware on every modern computer. It's not the late 90s/early 2000 when robust security was a real selling point.

      (FYI I use pf, openssh and freebsd, I'm not close-minded but I wouldn't feel any safer on OpenBSD)

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    13. Re:OpenBSD - not that secure... by Spit · · Score: 1

      You can bypass RBAC on Solaris. Covert root to a role as per doco, then as a user not associated with root role run sudo. Assuming the user has root role in sudo, that user becomes root.

      --
      POKE 36879,8
    14. Re:OpenBSD - not that secure... by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand RBAC.

      If the users role has access to sudo, and sudo has access to change to the root role, then everything is working as it should. You can easily change the policy to prevent this. A bad configuration is not a design flaw.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    15. Re:OpenBSD - not that secure... by Spit · · Score: 1

      I think you should test my observation before poo-pooing my incompetence.

      --
      POKE 36879,8
    16. Re:OpenBSD - not that secure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OpenBSD's focus is preventing the exploits in the first place with many overflow vulnerabities in third-party software being non-exploitable on OpenBSD. After running it for 10 years, I trust OpenBSD's record. It has some of the best in the business probing it, and with the most serious flaw in years being a subtle IP6 attack ...

      You have a short memory, then. I used OpenBSD for a few years and even contributed a very small patch (localization related), but the "secure by default" and "no remote exploits for N years" mantras were just myths (not to mention BS). I vividly recall a remote ssh exploit and a local kernel exploit (http://wideopenbsd.org/ lists them, they're quite old as I stopped running OpenBSD quite a while ago). Granted, other systems have similar exploits published, but they also have more functionality out of the box - and they're not security focused systems per se.

    17. Re:OpenBSD - not that secure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL that site reminds me of timecube. Put your money where your mouth is and post your exploits.

    18. Re:OpenBSD - not that secure... by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      Sorry? I have, and do. I work closely in this exact field, and so I know that what you are saying id due to a lack of understanding. Otherwise, please show this apparent flaw in Solaris RBAC documented somewhere meaningful other than a slashdot comment.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
  28. Re:Soft RAID? by rivaldufus · · Score: 1

    It's true, but the OpenBSD FAQ only lists RAIDFRAME and not softraid. I suspect that will change in a release or two.

  29. The web server can finally serve large files by Mr.Ned · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When I looked at the release notes sent out by email, I saw this under "New functionality":

    "httpd(8) can now serve files larger than 2GB in size."

    I'm very surprised by this.

    1. Re:The web server can finally serve large files by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0
      "Two Gigabytes ought to be enough for anybody!"

      Seriously, this just reflects the conservativeness of OpenBSD, just like DOS back in the day. They move slowly, if at all. Users are expected to be grateful for improvements made years ago in other OSes.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:The web server can finally serve large files by vlm · · Score: 1

      When I looked at the release notes sent out by email, I saw this under "New functionality":
      "httpd(8) can now serve files larger than 2GB in size."
      I'm very surprised by this.

      apache has been able to do that since 2.2. Of course, a web page larger than 2 gigs is a bug not a feature...

      http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/new_features_2_2.html

      Large File Support
              httpd is now built with support for files larger than 2GB on modern 32-bit Unix systems. Support for handling >2GB request bodies has also been added.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:The web server can finally serve large files by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      apache has been able to do that since 2.2. Of course, a web page larger than 2 gigs is a bug not a feature...

      You *are* aware that HTTP is used to transfer more than just HTML, right?

    4. Re:The web server can finally serve large files by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1

      apache has been able to do that since 2.2. Of course, a web page larger than 2 gigs is a bug not a feature...

      You *are* aware that HTTP is used to transfer more than just HTML, right?

      Like he said, it's a bug not a feature. Torrent and FTP are much more efficient, especially when handling interrupted transfers. HTTP doesn't. Unreliable networks can make a net-based installation process drag on and on or even freeze.

      --
      Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    5. Re:The web server can finally serve large files by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Torrent and FTP are much more efficient, especially when handling interrupted transfers.

      Bullshit. Bittorrent isn't appropriate for all applications, and for large transfers, HTTP and FTP are basically a wash as far as efficiency goes, while HTTP handles resumes just fine (the browser needs only to send along a start offset in the request header). Meanwhile, unlike HTTP, FTP doesn't play well with firewalls or caches.

    6. Re:The web server can finally serve large files by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      I know, isn't it great? :-) They're still working on the 8.3 filename limitation, but let no-one say UFS is standing still!

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    7. Re:The web server can finally serve large files by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      HTTP has handled partial transfers since version 1.1. ... does OpenBSD not support HTTP 1.1 yet either?

    8. Re:The web server can finally serve large files by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Torrent and FTP are much more efficient
      FTP wastes server resources and complicates interactions with firewalling and NAT by using seperate control and data connections. FTP and HTTP both have resume functionality nowadays.

      Torrent is designed for peer to peer distribution, of peices this can save the server a lot of bandwith but also adds a lot of checking overhead and is somewhat controversial.

      Unreliable networks can make a net-based installation process drag on and on or even freeze.
      That is more likely a case of poorly chosen timeouts and retry logic than any fundamental problem with the http protocol.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  30. Looks like a typical OpenBSD release by fadir · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Rock solid, thought through and very conservative.

    They have their niche and do their best to serve it as good as they can. I'm very glad that this project exists even though I don't use OpenBSD but various of its offsprings (OpenSSH/SSL, etc.) only.
    Theo is a very controversial person but at least he keeps the project on focus and going. Congratulations for that and best of luck for the future.
    I don't see myself using OpenBSD anytime soon but I know a few people that do and they are happy with it. So keep going, the community needs you!

    1. Re:Looks like a typical OpenBSD release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despire their similar naming styles, OpenSSL isn't actually part of the OpenBSD project:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSSL#Misconceptions

  31. They're behind - way behind . . . by greenreaper · · Score: 1

    FreeBSD is already at 7.2! No way they can catch up now, unless they pull a Windows.

  32. softraid by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

    Apparently, softraid is also included in the GENERIC kernel. This means that, unlike with the old RAIDframe, you don't have to compile your own kernel before you can use it.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  33. Re:openbsd kernel by jimicus · · Score: 1

    CARP and pfsync can provide a virtual IP address managed by a cluster to act as a frontend to N web servers, but AFAIK (and no I haven't RTFA) they don't have anything else to help like a clustered filesystem, a web server that clusters so sessions can fail over within the cluster or anything fancy like that.

  34. Re:Yahoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yahoo is an example of major Internet failure. They were a good company at one stage when they were the dominant search engine and had a decent instant messenger. Now their front page looks like crap, is bloated and tacky and the value of the company is going down. They shut down the news forums, which while being a troll haven was actually quite fun and kept many people coming back. The Linux vs. Windows discussions on there were hilarious. Buying, trashing and then shutting down Geocities... shameful. And what happened to yahoo games, well it's still there, looking like it was designed 10 years ago.

  35. Installing OpenBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Setup a user? (enter a lower-case loginname, or 'no') [no]

    yes

    No really, what is the lower-case loginname, or 'no'? [no]

  36. Re:Soft RAID? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OpenBSD has had the RAIDframe driver for a long time. This releases is adding some sort of RAID 4 and 5 implementation.

    And next you're telling me that OpenBSD has had TCP stack for a long time?

  37. Support OpenSSH? by klapaucjusz · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    > please support the project (which also brings you OpenSSH Is it possible to support OpenSSH without the money being wasted on OpenBSD?

  38. Hardware Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love the idea of OpenBSD, but I've found it lacking in hardware support, even when a driver exists in FreeBSD/Linux.
    I know Theo has a thing against binary blobs (and that's adorable), but even hardware that is well supported by hte manufacturer is notably absent.

    For example, does this version of OpenBSD support the SUPERMICRO AOC-SAT2-MV8?
    This is a popular card because it is extremely cheap and works in pretty much any modern PCI port.
    The source code for the driver comes with the card on a CD (although I'm not certain what license).
    The driver on the CD can be compiled for Windows or Linux (and I think the driver is in most base Linux distros).
    Also, FreeBSD has supported this card for some time. (So even if there is a licensing issue, there is still some BSD licensed code that they can steal.)

  39. w00t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    whoop de fucking dooo!

  40. No it isnt by KlaasVaak · · Score: 1

    OpenSSH is developed solely for OpenBSD, to not bloat the code, then they have a separate team working on making it portable to other OSes

    --
    Dyslexics are teople poo
  41. Security advantages over Ubuntu Server by lordmatrix · · Score: 1

    Comparing the latest OpenBSD to the Ubuntu Server, what are the security advantages of OpenBSD that would warrant it's usage over Ubuntu Server? Ubuntu Server home page boasts quite a lot of security features and I presume it's faster than OpenBSD as well.

    1. Re:Security advantages over Ubuntu Server by Ash-Fox · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Comparing the latest OpenBSD to the Ubuntu Server, what are the security advantages of OpenBSD that would warrant it's usage over Ubuntu Server?

      A far more secure kernel. User-land wise, there is a lot of manual configuration to get things right which Ubuntu just does out of the box.

      Ubuntu Server home page boasts quite a lot of security features and I presume it's faster than OpenBSD as well.

      OpenBSD is certainly faster on a single core system on a dual core system the difference is not as apparent unless running extremely high loads. Hardware support on the other hand - When it supports your hardware, it supports it really well. When it doesn't support it, you're out of luck.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    2. Re:Security advantages over Ubuntu Server by yup2000 · · Score: 1

      Of Speed: In my experience, testing hypothesis is better than untested presumptions. Also, is speed your only concern - is your server that highly utilized?
      One example, OpenBSD chroot/jails Apache by default, Ubuntu doesn't. If someone hacks your website on OpenBSD they are limited to /var/www/ instead of the default in Ubuntu which lets the attacker start at /

    3. Re:Security advantages over Ubuntu Server by lordmatrix · · Score: 1

      The system has heavy traffic and is using nginx http server and PHP workers. We are a high profile target so security, stability, availability and performance are paramount. Some critical components are VMs and have VMware Fault Tolerance enabled on them (essentially, the VM runs on two physical machines).

    4. Re:Security advantages over Ubuntu Server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have used earlier versions of OpenBSD as a guest on VMWare ESX 3.5 and it behaved just fine, FWIW. There are ways to put the VMWare tools on it. (You should be able to download a virtual appliance with them preinstalled if you just want to test.)

      Security and stability are OpenBSD's strengths. That helps it considerably with availability, of course. (Though it sounds like you have redundancy handled in other ways, check out CARP.) Performance you'd want to test in your environment; OpenBSD's overhead is really low so it rocks on low end hardware, but whether that translates well to your high-end environment is a big "it depends".

    5. Re:Security advantages over Ubuntu Server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am too lazy to create an account to write this, so i write as AC. While I am a BSD guy, I definitely have to disagree that OpenBSD is faster than Linux on a single core system. Indeed, performance is my biggest complain about OpenBSD. In an old laptop with 256 Mb RAM, Linux gets a lot more performance. OpenBSD is swapping and doing it really slow, making the whole computer act like frozen for some seconds. And that really often. I would say that OpenBSD might be faster with a lot of memory, but not where the memory is limited.

      On the other hand OpenBSD 4.6 is first to get out of the box the intel graphic card to work (since "i810" got replaced with "intel") in the same laptop. All linux distros has recuired kernel recompilation and a lot of trial to get it to work. Kudos for that.

    6. Re:Security advantages over Ubuntu Server by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      I am too lazy to create an account to write this, so i write as AC. While I am a BSD guy, I definitely have to disagree that OpenBSD is faster than Linux on a single core system. Indeed, performance is my biggest complain about OpenBSD. In an old laptop with 256 Mb RAM, Linux gets a lot more performance. OpenBSD is swapping and doing it really slow, making the whole computer act like frozen for some seconds. And that really often. I would say that OpenBSD might be faster with a lot of memory, but not where the memory is limited.

      I have found the opposite. Comparing Ubuntu and OpenBSD.

      Ubuntu-server will certainly be more likely to swap out of the box, after removing a bunch of daemons to make room for whatever it is you wish to do under 256MB of RAM, in Ubuntu server, I have still found OpenBSD will handle the same task better.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    7. Re:Security advantages over Ubuntu Server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am the AC that wrote the comment earlier. Default Ubuntu eats RAM like a rabbit in the carrot garden, however, a customized installation of any Linux is swapping less (without changing sysctl values). I just know this as the harddrive was working without break with OpenBSD and a lot of bio_wait in the process list running the same programs as in Linux, in my case Slackware.

      Any installation of OpenBSD should be compared with a customized installation as you with OpenBSD have only the base tools and then add what you need with pkg_add.

      I never did any research if it was any sysctl values I could have been changing, all I know is with default settings OpenBSD is becoming really slow with 256 Mb (when the computer is running Firefox and a vim and a few other program) while linux was a lot faster.

      This was not happening once, it was happening each time I did a little bit more at once.

      But otherwise, OpenBSD is a nice operating system :)

    8. Re:Security advantages over Ubuntu Server by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Default Ubuntu eats RAM like a rabbit in the carrot garden.

      Not really, it's difficult to find new computers that come with less than 1GB of RAM these days and Ubuntu doesn't really eat that up at all.

      a customized installation of any Linux is swapping less (without changing sysctl values).

      I already mentioned when removing various things didn't seem to gain increased performance. I measure performance by how fast it takes to perform a task and when it takes several seconds extra to output pages in a PHP based CMS on a optimized setup running on ubuntu-server verses an OpenBSD where the configurations were replicated exactly, website content and databases and it loaded in 0.325s (according to fasterfox).

      Any installation of OpenBSD should be compared with a customized installation as you with OpenBSD have only the base tools and then add what you need with pkg_add.

      Which in my tests didn't make Ubuntu that much faster.

      Fun fact: I hate OpenBSD's userland and would prefer Ubuntu's ease of use in it. I am also not very fond of certain related communities involved in OpenBSD so please do not consider me to be a OpenBSD zealot.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  42. I want to build an AP with openbsd by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can someone recommend a good platform on which to run OpenBSD which will consume the lowest possible power and let me run a Wireless-G and a Wireless-N NIC in master mode at the same time? I also need 100baseT[x]. Ideally it would run from fairly broad DC power (8-18VDC). I want to spend minimal money :) So far in the running are PC Engines, Mikrotik, and Soekris, in my current order of preference from most to least. I'm willing to have my mind changed, though. SD, USB, or CF storage, I don't care.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:I want to build an AP with openbsd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard.

      I'm not a expert, but I believe it's GUI is stilling on top of BSD Unix.

      However, I sure their are experts out there the can tell you all about it in detail.

      Bruce ;-)

    2. Re:I want to build an AP with openbsd by Hatta · · Score: 1

      You can run OpenBSD on a PC Engine? Awesome!

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:I want to build an AP with openbsd by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      Oh boy you're in for a fun time..

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    4. Re:I want to build an AP with openbsd by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I guessed as much, which is why I asked. It's pretty easy to do with Linux if you buy the right hardware, and if I don't get any good replies I will try one or two other places and then just do it with Linux, for which I don't require any hand-holding because several companies are intelligent enough to sell me what I want.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:I want to build an AP with openbsd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a PC Engines ALIX 2d3 doing this right now, with a Ralink-based Mini-PCI card (speaking 11g -- OpenBSD doesn't support 11n, at least not yet).

    6. Re:I want to build an AP with openbsd by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      +1 for the PC Engines stuff. Never used BSD, but they run fine with every bit of hardware I've stuck in them (had some success with a crazy 2 PCI wifi + USB 3G setup under Linux).

    7. Re:I want to build an AP with openbsd by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It doesn't even sound like OpenBSD supports 802.11n, so I guess I will be using Linux. I appreciate OpenBSD's slower pace in most cases, but this is one of those times it's not acceptable (for me.) So far PC Engines does look like the winner.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  43. Re:Netcraft confirms: *BSD is Dying by wastedlife · · Score: 0

    How is this a troll?! Netcraft confirmed it!

    --
    Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
  44. Package management status? by bbasgen · · Score: 1

    When I last tried to use OpenBSD, package management was a big barrier to entry. In those days, I yearned for apt-get like ease to set updates and even distribution upgrades automatically. I noticed that OpenBSD added pkg_add several years ago, but I haven't really tried it in the enterprise. How is the package management system today? How easy is it to do hands-off administration of tens if not hundreds of these servers?

    1. Re:Package management status? by dayid · · Score: 1

      With your $PKG_PATH set properly, you install a program:
      pkg_add program

      To update a program:
      pkg_add -u program

      To delete a program:
      pkg_delete program

      To update all your installed programs:
      pkg_add -ui -F update -F updatedepends

      There's a lot more utility to it, but that's more than the basics that most will need to "get them started".

  45. Re:openbsd kernel by cyphercell · · Score: 1
    --
    Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
  46. Re:Yahoo! by yup2000 · · Score: 1

    but how does any of that reflect on OpenBSD?

  47. rant for the aged by epine · · Score: 1

    God help you if you have a program that [relies on floor() truncating toward zero]

    So true. Either the person writing the library or the person writing the program has no mathematical training or little concern over disregarding conventions long associated with quality software.

    The authors of APL back in 1963 worked very, very hard to define the computational equivalents of common mathematical notation to preserve and obey the maximal set of mathematical identities. Perhaps they worked harder at this than other language teams because identities are none too compelling expressed in Lisp notation.

    Later, when I learned many ideas about program correctness and defensive programming from Dijkstra, his notions of program correctness were highly APL compliant. People don't understand the full gravity of Dijkstra's lament APL is a mistake, carried through to perfection. The only language consistent with his notions of programming elegance was a failed enterprise out of the starting gate. His implied converse also interests me: X, for X != APL, is a valuable step forward, borked beyond all recognition.

    The people who brought you floor() truncating toward zero also brought you modulus operators where mod (x,N) == -mod(-x,N) Good luck using that to write an elegant loop dealing with possible negative values of x while ensuring that an array subscript is within the viable range [0..N)

    And how about malloc(0) aborting your program on the assumption that a program which correctly handles the empty set (a rare condition indeed) deserves to have multiple extra lines of conditional statements to permanently clutter code review, when falling through the primary code path could have been completely safe. ["rare condition" resolves twice: once for sarcasm, once for cynicism. Lisp notation ruins everything.]

    Too many OSes out there refuse to differentiate progress from borkage. Once you inflict enough paper cuts, one begins to think that bugs are a fact of life. Yet a few people out there who refuse to tolerate paper cuts manage to write large chunks of software near to entirely bug free. Mostly individuals, as it happens.

    OpenBSD is a bit of a sore point for many people out there who like to crow about their progress unsullied by their borkage. The deep issue here is what ultimately happens to the rotting pea under the mattress? Do all the layers of straw and cotton mask the problem from the princess on top? Or does it just fester down there causing endless problems and sleepless nights?

    This came to mind concerning the indicted IBM executive. I was thinking about the common career strategy of presiding over short term success, leaving at the top before the stink catches up with your actions, taking credit for a few brilliant quarters, then repeating the cycle with your next employer (who likely hired you after boning up on sharp trading practices). Our progress detectors are easily fooled.

    I think in larger projects, one generally has to burn a few boats to hit the release date. Nothing stops a project from pausing after the release cycle to clean up the mess. I've noticed, however, that several projects that took a significant hiatus to get things right were severely punished by the nattering nabobs of negativism (don't look now, if you're reading here, you're surrounded). Postgres, Mozilla, Perl 6, Snow Leopard all come to mind (as a list, that's a bit of a Lewis Carroll Sesame Street: three of these things aren't not like the other. The yin/yang of car/cdr.).

    Since I'm inclined to be dangerously open minded, I haven't made up my mind on Perl 6 yet, especially since the Python people have already released a darn good Perl 5.9

    Are there no parallels here between Parrot and OpenSSH? "Man, I don't know what those guys are doing over there, but *just look* at the tools they leave lying around, and the man page *actually explains* how to use it. Too bad about their misguided agenda / abject ind

    1. Re:rant for the aged by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      The authors of APL back in 1963 worked very, very hard to define the computational equivalents of common mathematical notation to preserve and obey the maximal set of mathematical identities. Perhaps they worked harder at this than other language teams because identities are none too compelling expressed in Lisp notation.
      Later, when I learned many ideas about program correctness and defensive programming from Dijkstra, his notions of program correctness were highly APL compliant. People don't understand the full gravity of Dijkstra's lament APL is a mistake, carried through to perfection. The only language consistent with his notions of programming elegance was a failed enterprise out of the starting gate. His implied converse also interests me: X, for X != APL, is a valuable step forward, borked beyond all recognition.

      Old geezer reminisces: APL was my first computer language, back in the 1970s. It's notational elegance is still my favourite, and I occasionally use it as a sort of pseudocode to describe a computation. A few lines of APL can convey an unambiguous algorithm equivalent to hundreds of lines of C or C++.
      FYI, Ken Iverson (inventor of the APL notation and abstract language in 1958) was also involved in the design of Mathematica, and produced an APL successor named J (before Microsoft assigned the name J++ to a totally unrelated language).

      The people who brought you floor() truncating toward zero also brought you modulus operators where mod (x,N) == -mod(-x,N) Good luck using that to write an elegant loop dealing with possible negative values of x while ensuring that an array subscript is within the viable range [0..N)

      A borked mod() nearly always goes with a borked floor().

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  48. Re:OpenBSD - quite secure, I'd say. by olden · · Score: 1

    You/kestasjk make it sound like OpenBSD had to play catch-up implementing NX. FYI, OpenBSD 3.3 was actually the first OS to ship with it (except they called this W^X, "write XOR execute"), 6.5 years ago.
    I'll give you that the new "in a heck of a long time" wording in their tagline is unfortunate. It must be ~11 years now, a pretty strong track record I'd say, but feel free to convince me otherwise...

  49. Re:OpenBSD - quite secure, I'd say. by Spit · · Score: 1

    Solaris supported Ultrasparc NX in the late 90s. OpenBSD's innovation was to enforce NX pages on i386 which doesn't have any such hardware support. OpenBSD supports hardware NX of course.

    --
    POKE 36879,8
  50. Lot New Affliction Belt DB Handbags Armani Sunglas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome TO Our Website:
            Http://www.tntshoes.com

    Hi friend, we are a prefession online store, you can see more photos and price in our website which is show in the photos
    if you are interested please email me by , hellow we have run a online shiping mall for many years, our website is pls see our website in the photos attached attached, we have all kinds brand new shoes,clothing, handbag,sunglasses,hats etc for sale, 6000000% best quality with the amazing price. our website is pls see our website in the photos attached attached, You will find more pictures and the price for our product in our website, please see below of the nike shoes we have, we take paypal as payment, . shoes SB dunk $28-42 free shiping.

      OUR WEBSITE:
                                                            YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn

                                                                    MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com

                                                                              Http://www.tntshoes.com

  51. Re:openbsd kernel by raddan · · Score: 1

    You want relayd, also previously known as hoststated.