Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

OpenBSD Drops Support For Loadable Kernel Modules

Posted by Soulskill on from the loadable-kernel-modules-have-had-it-too-good-for-too-long dept.

jones_supa writes: The OpenBSD developers have decided to remove support for loadable kernel modules from the BSD distribution's next release. Several commits earlier this month stripped out the loadable kernel modules support. Phoronix's Michael Larabel has not yet found an official reason for the decision to drop support. He wagers that it is due to security or code quality/openness ideals.

82 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. If they're doing it, it's correct. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    As far as I'm concerned, the OpenBSD developers are as close to infallable as software developers could ever hope to get.

    If they've decided to do this, then it's just the correct thing to be doing.

    1. Re:If they're doing it, it's correct. by ZorkZero · · Score: 5, Funny

      That sound you just heard in the distance? The puckering of a million Linux fanboys' butts.

    2. Re:If they're doing it, it's correct. by ThePhilips · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As far as I'm concerned, the OpenBSD developers are as close to infallable as software developers could ever hope to get.

      If they've decided to do this, then it's just the correct thing to be doing.

      HP rep - a HP-UX sales guy - once told me that their kernel doesn't support loadable modules to prevent even the remote possibility of a malicious driver.

      But why OpenBSD choose to do it, I have no idea. Frankly, I was under impression that OpenBSD didn't support loadable kernel modules at all.

      To some the kernel drivers might seem a norm, but even 15 years ago they were still considered a novelty. And everybody was still making jokes about Microsoft's Plug-n-Play.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    3. Re:If they're doing it, it's correct. by afairch · · Score: 2

      Actually that was more than 15 years ago. Dynamically Loadable Kernel Modules (DLKM) have been available in HP-UX since version 11.0, released in 1997.

    4. Re:If they're doing it, it's correct. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They were vulnerable because openssl took specific measures to counteract the defense mechanisms present in openbsd. See this writeup.

      Even Coverity could not detect the problem.

    5. Re:If they're doing it, it's correct. by gweihir · · Score: 1

      For different values of "the norm". I usually run Linux kernels without loadable modules as well. It increases stability and security.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re:If they're doing it, it's correct. by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      They had in the past, but they really really didn't like it. So I guess they finally fixe it.

    7. Re:If they're doing it, it's correct. by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      Why is it that the individual words seem to make sense, but when reading them together, it's all nonsense?

      Do you normally just ramble on all over the place in real life as well?

    8. Re:If they're doing it, it's correct. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      No... that was just Theo's excuse. He called OpenSSL's memory allocation strategy an "exploit mitigation countermeasure."

      Actually, that was just a side effect, and what OpenSSL does that "counteracted" the defense is extremely common in software and software libraries.

      It's also generally a good idea as far as performance is concerned ---- and with a library such as SSL which needs to process network traffic (HTTPS, for example); adequate performance is pretty darned important.

    9. Re:If they're doing it, it's correct. by metrix007 · · Score: 2

      OpenSSL did not take specific measures to counteract "defense" mechanisms in OBSD. That implies intent, and is downright disingenuous.

      OpenBSD was famous for auditing all code in the base system. The famously deny they need any advanced security measure such as MAC, file signing, or even an ACL.

      NetBSD tends to be a much more secure system, without any of the hype. Less reported vulnerabilities, veriexec, PaX (similar to W^X) and TrustedBSD extensions.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    10. Re:If they're doing it, it's correct. by imac.usr · · Score: 1

      I call shenanigans, nobody in their right mind would claim to be interested in selling HP-UX. /shudder.

      --
      I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
    11. Re:If they're doing it, it's correct. by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

      Hey! My past employer willingly bought it!

      ...Oh. That's probably why they are "past".

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    12. Re: If they're doing it, it's correct. by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      What basis is there to assume there was?

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    13. Re:If they're doing it, it's correct. by chriscappuccio · · Score: 1

      Instead of making vague fucktard analogies, why not actually explain what is wrong with LibreSSL ?

    14. Re:If they're doing it, it's correct. by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      I don't see that this is the base problem. Heartbleed worked because the custom malloc() allocated memory that was not initialized, allowing the bad guys to read whatever happened to be in that buffer. Ideally, SSL would have wiped memory when freeing it, but if the attacked buffer had simply wiped its memory when allocated there would have been no way to exploit this. In other words, calloc() rather than malloc() would have prevented Heartbleed.

      I saw some arguments that it showed that security software shouldn't be implemented in C, but it seems to me that a defect that could have been removed by using one standard and widely used call rather than another doesn't suggest that C is at fault.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    15. Re:If they're doing it, it's correct. by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      OpenBSD tends to take some very conservative security choices (see OpenSSH) but then turns around and does stuff like LibreSSL forks of OpenSSL, instead of fixing the problem, they make their own version of the problem.

      Maybe (pure speculation) the OpenBSD team considered the human processes around the OpenSSL code to be the real security problem. Heartbleed did seem a tad bit too convenient to be an accidental bug...

  2. Not Your Typical Loadable Kernel Modules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's probably because OpenBSD's "LKMs" are so ancient, limited, and inflexible that nobody bothers to use them. I imagine if there were demand they would have adopted a more modern loadable module system, more akin to what's found in FreeBSD, NetBSD, Linux, etc.

    This isn't news. It's more Phoronix spam.

  3. Phoronix, why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "...Michael Larabel has not yet found an official reason for the decision to drop support. He wagers that it is due to security or code quality/openness ideals."

    I know Phoronix is infamous, but, wow...

    The OpenBSD mailing lists are right there. You're already reading them! Many developers frequent them daily. All you need to do is post a question! Hell, send an email to Ted himself if you're that shy. Why bother writing this article without doing the most basic of research?

    1. Re:Phoronix, why? by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

      Sez Larabel: "security or code quality/openness ideals". As if, aside from these three, any other signifcant ideals remain in programming.

    2. Re:Phoronix, why? by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Ted? The text editor? Or did you mean Theo?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    3. Re:Phoronix, why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Presumably, AC meant Ted Unangst, the OpenBSD developer who authored the lkm removal commits.

    4. Re:Phoronix, why? by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well that's no fair, you must've RTFA!

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  4. OpenBSD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I hope OpenBSD becomes much more popular. I remember nearly 15 years ago when BSD was being touted for its performance and media capabilities. Now I want more alternative, free, and open-source OSes that tout security and privacy. Privacy while using technology has become practically extinct, well, at least so it seems to me.

    1. Re:OpenBSD! by eneville · · Score: 1

      Lightweight Portable Security, http://www.spi.dod.mil/lipose.... perhaps? Might be a good place to start, but I don't know if you're aware of this one already.

      --
      Why UNIX?
  5. Re:SYSTEM-D SUCKS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "amazingly customizable kernel with"

    Clearly you've never used OpenBSD before. Kernel hacking is one thing they explicitly frown upon. Too easy to break important things and compromise security.

  6. Re:SYSTEM-D SUCKS! by basketcase · · Score: 1

    And OpenBSD's init system (rc) is about as non-modular as it gets.

  7. Re:When was the last time you compiled a kernel? by preaction · · Score: 4, Informative

    I use ports all the time, and I've never compiled my own kernel. From what I recall, everything available in the OpenBSD kernel is always enabled by default. The only reason to compile a new kernel is to remove something from the default kernel.

    Removing the LKM means someone can't maliciously load a module that screws everything up. The malicious entity would have to replace your kernel and then force a reboot.

  8. Keep up the good work.. by 0dugo0 · · Score: 2

    Now if they could also drop support for shared libraries I might consider upgrading my warezed copy of NetBSD 0.8.

  9. Not Your Typical Loadable Kernel Modules by chriscappuccio · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is it. Old implementation, low quality, and NOTHING USES IT. Bye bye!

  10. Re:Djeezus by BenLutgens · · Score: 1

    wat

    --
    "If you love someone, set them free. If they come home, set them on fire." - George Carlin
  11. Re:SYSTEM-D SUCKS! by eneville · · Score: 2

    Since it's a script, you can do what you want with it. run-parts style, if you like. It's a script, bring your own fun. Quite the opposite of systemd, if you will.

    --
    Why UNIX?
  12. Re:Djeezus by ndato · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The official changelog also says they removed LKM http://www.openbsd.org/faq/cur...

  13. Code compression by Theovon · · Score: 3, Funny

    The OpenBSD developers are so awesome that they've found a magical way to make modules unnecessary: Magical code compression with zero runtime overhead. As a result of this new approach, every possible kernel module (including ones that haven't been written yet) is stored in less space than an otherwise completely stripped kernel from the prior revision.

    1. Re:Code compression by Theovon · · Score: 1

      Holy crap, dude. It was a joke. Things like "magical" and "zero runtime overhead" and "including ones that haven't been written yet" didn't clue you in?

  14. But that's not all by Minwee · · Score: 2

    They also removed Sendmail and BIND. Where's the outcry there?

    1. Re:But that's not all by unixisc · · Score: 1

      What's the replacement?

  15. Re:Djeezus by X0563511 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm more alarmed that procfs is going away.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  16. Holy crap... by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    https://bitbucket.org/braindam...

    These are some of the worst and most uninformative commit messages I've ever seen...

    1) Why are there so many commits to achieve the same thing?
    2) Any commit message that is only a single line other than "fix typo" is a bad commit message

    Seriously, even some of the worst/most incompetent Android kangers have written better commit messages than the shitpile of LKM removals I'm seeing there.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    1. Re:Holy crap... by tibit · · Score: 2

      That's just someone's private repo. You've fallen for clickbait. Nothing to see here.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    2. Re:Holy crap... by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Any commit message that is only a single line other than "fix typo" is a bad commit message

      "Fix typo" is a bad commit message. After all it doesn't explain what it was. Did it not build (in which case it would be "fix broken build"? Was a variable renamed because its name had a typo (in which case it should be mentioned in case it broke something)? Was it merely a typo in a comment?

      Was it a bad #define that suddenly works and exposes new code?

    3. Re:Holy crap... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      It's a perfectly good commit message, look at the actual diff to see what the typo was...

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    4. Re:Holy crap... by TheBilgeRat · · Score: 1

      This.

    5. Re:Holy crap... by idontgno · · Score: 1

      You clearly have no use for or expectations of commit messages at all, if your blanket answer is "look at the diffs".

      That tells exactly as much as no commit message at all.

      You probably don't comment code, either; I mean, the code's right there, amiright? Or else, your comment is a mindless regurgitation of the code, like "add 1 to pointer".

      Complete waste of time, attention, and bytes. Don't insult the intelligence of the community with such brainless drivel. Add some value or don't use the thing at all.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  17. Re:Djeezus by tibit · · Score: 2

    Exactly. The editors should be ashamed. The post was carefully engineered to promote someone's private fork. OpenBSD uses WebCVS for crying out loud! How stupid can people be?!

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  18. Re:Djeezus by tibit · · Score: 1

    What wat? Just look at the link in the fine article. It's not to any official openbsd repo, because it's not even CVS, and OpenBSD uses CVS (yes, they do). That's wat. Again, how stupid can one be?

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  19. Puzzling by DaMattster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As an avid OpenBSD user and fan, this puzzle me because it would seem like a giant step backwards. Yes, loadable kernel modules do weaken the security some but it makes adding hardware drivers difficult. I really like OpenBSD as the OS does so many things very well but the team members are far from fallible. The community isn't as supportive and tends to be very exclusive, responding with RTFM sometimes a little too often. I can understand RTFM, but I cannot understand being told to read when I've read it already and I'm still unclear.

    1. Re:Puzzling by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      For whatever its worth, I've been using OpenBSD primarily for firewalls for the past 15 years and in that time I have never once needed to either add a module not already installed on the system to a running system or load a module at any time other than at boot time. For me and the entirety of my use cases (and, I suspect most other people as well) the only effects this change will have will be to increase theoretical security significantly and increase performance slightly.

    2. Re:Puzzling by Noryungi · · Score: 1, Interesting

      As an avid OpenBSD user and fan, this puzzle me because it would seem like a giant step backwards. Yes, loadable kernel modules do weaken the security some but it makes adding hardware drivers difficult.

      Again: compiling the OpenBSD kernel is an emergency measure only. Most of the time, patches distributed by the project require you to compile the userland only.

      As for adding device drivers, you usually do not need to: the standard kernel works very well with most hardware configurations.

      I have motherboards burn on me, restarting the OpenBSD server usually was a question of taking the drive out of the machine, connecting it into a new machine and powering the system. The kernel just picked up and accepted whatever new hardware was in the replacement machine. Much, much easier than Linux.

      --
      The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    3. Re:Puzzling by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 1

      The kernel just picked up and accepted whatever new hardware was in the replacement machine. Much, much easier than Linux.

      Wow. That seriously sounds too good to be true.

      --
      I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
    4. Re:Puzzling by the_B0fh · · Score: 2

      What nonsense. Name me one kernel module you have loaded. OpenBSD discourages rolling your own kernels and I'm unaware of 3rd party modules. If you are a true fan, you should know that. Why would you claim to be a fan, when you obviously don't use it?

    5. Re:Puzzling by Nikademus · · Score: 1

      kqemu. But that's about the only one I can think of. And it's old and deprecated nowadays.

      --
      I gave up with the idea of an useful sig...
  20. Poor moderation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Do slashdot moderators click on any of the links for stories before sticking them on the slashdot front page? I'm thinking not in this case.

  21. Devel/Debug by bradgoodman · · Score: 1

    I shutter to think of how this would impact the development/debug cycle of an otherwise simple device driver.

    1. Re:Devel/Debug by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      I think you meant shudder, and if you've only ever compiled Linux kernels I think will find that the recompile time of the OpenBSD kernel when applying patches is shockingly quick; quick enough to make you wonder why they'd have ever bothered with loadable modules in the first place.

    2. Re: Devel/Debug by bradgoodman · · Score: 1

      But then you'd need to reboot to load it, I'd assume.

    3. Re:Devel/Debug by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      Since it's typically the kernel developers who write these device drivers, I'm not sure why you would be so worried for them. I mean, it's the kernel developers who are ripping this out.

      Am I missing something here?

    4. Re:Devel/Debug by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      it doesn't, running "make" to compile a changed .c file or two then link a 10MB kernel is freaky fast. Modules typically are how device drivers were written

  22. once every three years we get a story by Thud457 · · Score: 1, Informative

    WTF /. !!! The url says bsd.slashdot.org, but the theme isn't red anymore. Just another casualty to OMG beta! I presume.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  23. Re:Every hardware component?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Are you trolling, or do you genuinely not know the difference between OpenBSD and FreeBSD?

  24. Re:Djeezus by brynet · · Score: 1

    Why? It mostly used for compat_linux(8) anyway, which is i386 only. Nobody was using mount_procfs(8) without the ancient -o linux option. It was broken for months before anyone noticed.

  25. Re:Yet another bombshell. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Linux or OpenBSD?

    BSD seems to be strengthening (all BSDs). More and more serious businesses I know are considering FreeBSD. I used to run 6 BSD/OS servers and short of HW issues, never had an issue. In fact, we got to work about 9, went to lunch at 1130, hung out wherever until about 1330, came back smoked on the loading dock and left for home by 4. Rarely had issues. The Windows and Linux guys? Always something wrong.

  26. Re:Djeezus by Noryungi · · Score: 1

    Well, I was surprised by the bitbucket link as well, but a lot of developpers (OpenBSD or not) use git these days. The repo linked to seems to be a copy of the official OpenBSD CVS.

    A better link could be, for instance:

    http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-...

    Or:

    http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-...

    The interesting thing is that the diff just before Ted Unangst is more than 11 years old -- which means LKMs really haven't been used for a long time in OpenBSD...

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
  27. Re:In other news. by brynet · · Score: 2

    If any vendor has proprietary drivers for OpenBSD, they would undoubtedly be using better kernel interfaces directly. Especially for something like a driver for a hardware RAID controller. LKM(4) support has mostly been only "compile tested" for years. Nothing uses it seriously, at the time of it's removal.. the ports tree contained a single port making use of it.. a firmware flasher for some Dell systems.

  28. Re:Djeezus by Noryungi · · Score: 1

    See my answer above: OpenBSD dev also use git. LibreSSL - portable is maintained on Github, for instance.

    Then again, you probably don't know a lot about OpenBSD... Do you? A simple Google search could have given you the links I included in my previous answer.

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
  29. Re:Not surprising. by Noryungi · · Score: 1, Informative

    Yes, yes, little troll, you just demonstrated your total lack of knowledge when it comes to OpenBSD.

    Straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq...

    And I quote the aforementioned:

    Why do I need a custom kernel?

    Actually, you probably don't.

    The only time you need to recompile OpenBSD kernel is when a major security issue has been found and your system is vulnerable.

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
  30. Re:OpenBSD is dead by x0ra · · Score: 1

    OS X is not "based" on FreeBSD. At best, some parts of OS X are at best close relatives of FreeBSD, but the similarity stops there.

  31. Re:SYSTEM-D SUCKS! by basketcase · · Score: 2

    I didn't say it wasn't good I said it wasn't modular.

  32. Re:In other news. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Interesting

    OpenBSD market share drops as it no longer supports third party hardware.

    That's basically already the case, their hardware support is pisspoor. Which is okay if you're building a machine around openbsd, who cares? But it's a bummer if you want to use what you have lying around.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  33. Re:OpenBSD is dead by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

    The OS X kernel code is taken from FreeBSD and Mach, It is a hybrid of both kernels. So part of OS X does come from FreeBSD.

  34. Re:SYSTEM-D SUCKS! by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

    To expand. If it's a script it has a script handler. If it has a script handler it can be rewritten.

    There's no reason they couldn't add a few features from newer scripting languages to enable forking of functions or "own fun". If the kernel (the one running said script with said script handler) supports multiple cores/threads it could easily be the more modularized, etc.

    All still from one script.

  35. OpenBSD - Android by emil · · Score: 1

    http://undeadly.org/cgi?action...

  36. Re:SYSTEM-D SUCKS! by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

    You don't know how to call a script from inside a script? Also - my openbsd box seems to have an interesting number of rc.d scripts.

    $ uname -sr
    OpenBSD 5.2
    $ ls /etc/rc.d
    amd apmd bgpd bootparamd cron ddclient dhcpd dhcrelay dnsmasq ....

    76 scripts in total.

  37. Re:When was the last time you compiled a kernel? by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

    bloody nonsense. I've been using OpenBSD for nearly 20 years and never had to recompile the kernel to use anything in ports.

  38. Re:In other news. by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

    Are you shitting me? You think the various hardware vendors actually write drivers for OpenBSD? *ARE YOU SHITTING ME?*

    Seriously?

  39. Re:OpenBSD is dead by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

    For someone who doesn't care about OpenBSD, you sure sound off a lot on it.

  40. Troll? Fuck you. Get some experience. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I can't use several of my machines because of lack of drivers for horribly common hardware which is nearly identical to supported hardware and for which a fix has actually been submitted on the mailing list. In spite of it being only some changes in values and not in the basic functionality of the driver, they begged off adopting the changes because of concerns with Linux copyright, which has already been shown to not apply in this case. Just NIH. Well, fuck 'em. I'll use something with some support.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  41. Re:In other news. by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
    I don't know where you get your hardware from, but I dont recall any serious problems with OBSD hardware support. The only kit I have personally owned that was not supported was an Sbus SCSI card used in Sun Enterprise servers, and I had an alternative card anyway.

    I have had more hardware support problems with Windows and Linux.

    I regularly have uptimes of over a year, and bug reports generally produce a next day response. Try getting that elsewhere.

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  42. Re:SYSTEM-D SUCKS! by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
    from newer scripting languages

    Why would anyone want a newer scripting language? That is like wanting to build a house from new bricks. If you know the old language, you can use it. If you don't, then perhaps you should not be messing with the system initialisation?

    Its not like normal admins have to write these scripts - the people who manage ports supply them for you, and have a tool that puts them in the right place.Most people run OBSD because they want to have a system that runs their apps, not so they can experiment with the boot process. OBSD boots really fast. (Unless you screw up your fstab - like I did last week - In which case it might not boot at all).

    Do you also complain about the type of pipe clip your car manufacturer uses on the under-bonnet pipes?

    If you want to use Java to write a systemd replacement, then go ahead - I wont stop you. Do like Linus, and write your own damned OS.

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  43. Re:In other news. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    I regularly have uptimes of over a year, and bug reports generally produce a next day response. Try getting that elsewhere.

    Back when I ran obsd I had panics and problems with network card drivers that almost cost me a job. The machine was rock solid under Linux and the NICs were bog-standard eepro100s. Now I have a netbook and a laptop I can't use because of a lack of NIC support. Linux supports both NICs without ndiswrapper. I want to use these machines for low-end servers, but I can't without adding a NIC (dongle hell) or in one case, swapping out minipci. And I could do that, but it was cheaper to install Linux.

    obsd lacks support for common hardware which everyone else supports. That's simply not arguable.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  44. Puzzling by funky+womble · · Score: 1
    Since there were *no* examples of writing a hardware driver using an LKM on OpenBSD, and there are plenty of examples of new ones being added to the static kernel, I don't think this in any way makes adding hardware drivers more difficult. To my knowledge over the last 16 years or so, the only real uses for LKMs have been kqemu (discontinued upstream) and dellflash (perhaps it works on laptops but it never worked on any poweredge which I tried it on). Note that neither of these are hardware drivers.

    Some of the less-helpful "community" members could do with a kick up the arse though, better to not post than to post an RTFM without at least pointing out which bit of TFM to R. I'm sure that often they don't know the answer themselves. (Not to be mistaken with mails from time-starved people that are equally short but do actually point people in the right direction...)

  45. Re:OpenBSD is dead by Nikademus · · Score: 1

    Not that there's anything wrong with that. OpenBSD will remain a niche product run by a handful of users that otherwise run Macs (oh, citation needed? http://assets.keltia.net/photo... ) and other than being primary sources of OpenSSH and hopefully systemd shims, completely irrelevant.

    It seems you took a picture of FreeBSD users, which indeed often run Macs. But FreeBSD runs on Macs too...
    systemd shim is useful to simplify porting software that idiots thought it was useful to make systemd dependent. The most popular of this software is something I stopped using years ago because the devs were taking bad decisions, so that's not new.

    --
    I gave up with the idea of an useful sig...
  46. Now if only there was a Unity port for OpenBSD... by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

    No, seriously!