Slashdot Mirror
Celebrating 20 Years of OpenBSD With Release 5.8 (openbsd.org)
badger.foo writes: 20 years to the day after the OpenBSD source tree was created for the new project, the project has released OpenBSD 5.8, the 38th release on CD-ROM (and 39th via FTP/HTTP). This release comes with four release songs instead of the usual one, and a long list of improvements over the last releases. (Probably a good time to donate to the project, too, even if you don't use it directly, because of all the security improvements that OpenBSD programmers contribute to the world.)
It's worth checking out in a VM. I've been enjoying GhostBSD quite a bit and have been thinking of installing it on bare metal instead of just using it in a VM. I will miss Opera though. At any rate, congrats and thanks - I'll have lots of fun poking at it. I've only played with FreeBSD and GhostBSD so I might as well give this one a shot too.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
No, I don't know of any OpenBSD 'features' that involve pissing off its userbase with half-functioning, amorphous garbage code like systemd.
That is as it should be. Restarting a service (or not) is dependent on the nature of the service and that nature of its crash. You can easily end up DoS-ing your machine by automatic unconstrained restarts. Hence service restart and service management has no place in an init-system or actually in the OS. Done right, it is a part of the service. It is also not hard to do and there are several packages that can serve as a basis for this.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
For variable values of "improvements". Some people (usually ones with a lot of experience and insights) think that the makers of systemd do not understand how Unix works or how to do professional system administration and hence view systemd rightfully as a step backwards.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You are mixing apples and oranges here. You should still give to both. By OpenSSH alone, OpenBSD has saved a lot of lifetime (although in smaller pieces than Doctors Without Borders) from getting wasted. And it is a critically needed fall-back if Linux continues to go down the train.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Unix is an evolving class of operating systems and they work the way we make them work. Sometimes we come up with new ideas that may or may not improve it. Almost no one agrees that Unix of the 90s was at perfection and that nothing would ever have to be changed again.
We did complain, but the minority in charge deleted threads and banned anyone that said a word against it, that happened at both Debian and Arch. It was a total fsck up and I'll happily go to bsd before having anything to do with that shit that is systemd and any users that use it deserve it, reboots and all.
http://chimpbox.us
GNOME depends on an dbus api, that logind implements, and logind is part of systemd. GNOME does not directly depend on systemd or logind. If you implement the API then GNOME will work just fine.
That there's no point in talking about "how Unix works" since Unix has never been consistent unless you're talking about some of the really old AT&T releases. Once there were multiple Unix vendors things started changing all the time. What we're seeing now in the Linux space is no different from what has always been the case.
I didn't say it did, I was pointing out that complaining to $DISTRO is a futile thing to do, I didn't mention the guy what so ever.
http://chimpbox.us
That is as it should be. Restarting a service (or not) is dependent on the nature of the service and that nature of its crash. You can easily end up DoS-ing your machine by automatic unconstrained restarts. Hence service restart and service management has no place in an init-system or actually in the OS. Done right, it is a part of the service. It is also not hard to do and there are several packages that can serve as a basis for this.
Crash management is probably the least interesting bit, it's the power management (sleep/suspend/resume/hibernation) and hotplug/dynamic devices (plugging in/unplugging monitors, headphones, USB devices, Bluetooth, wired and wireless networks) with dependency management that makes people want to turn the init process into a general service management system. Being able to restart a crashed process is just a spin-off and it's pretty easy to set generic constraints so it won't go in an infinite crash loop. Sure it's better to have software that doesn't crash but in the real world you often have to run the buggy software to keep availability up as downtime costs $$$ while you debug to find a solution. Maybe it was a wacky race condition that happens once a decade or a mystery bit corruption, you can't just shut down everything every time you run into a bug and keep it down until you've fixed it.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The UNIX philosophy was always groups of simple tools that do one thing and do it well. You pipe them together and parse the data however you want. Systemd does the exact opposite of that. One monolithic service doing everything but poorly. None of these new ideas have undergone any real testing other than shipping the distro when they compile. You're beta testing this bullshit.
As an engineer who knows the pain of debugging someone else's locking problems, I lost it when I read this release note:
Just 5 years ago there's no way we'd be celebrating 20 years of open bsd on slashdot.
Seriously? Even Haiku releases get celebrated here.
This space intentionally left blank
Agreed 100% that post #50754359's AC is an uninformed blowhard ... however ...
XNU (OSX's kernel) does have a bunch of Mach-based code running in it, and it is being "used"; in fact it is performing critical functions:
Preemptive multitasking and multithreading
Memory protection
Virtual memory management
Inter-process communication
Interrupt management
Real-time support
Kernel debugging support
Console I/O
There is also a bunch of FreeBSD-based code running in XNU, implementing essentially all the other kernel functions, including POSIX support, filesystems
Is XNU microkernel-based? That's one for the semanticists to debate. Arguably the Mach-based code is not performing microkernel functions. What is not debatable is that there are or have been Unix-"alike" OS'es baed on microkernels. Minix is one. Hurd is another. They are as Unix-alike as Linux is. I would say POSIX defines Unix-ness, and there is absolutely nothing to prevent a microkernel from implementing POSIX just as fully and faithfully as a monolithic kernel.
However, package managers are not able to express dependency on APIs. The only dependencies they can express are on other packages, or libraries. Now, dbus as an independent package has been terminated, so as it stands at present the way package managers express GNOME's true dependency on the DBUS API is to just list a dependency on systemd.
If you want to know how Unix works, this is a good place to start.
If you want to know why systemd doesn't follow the Unix way (which means it's lousy), I discuss parts of it here.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Well, those that do not understand Unix are bound to re-invent its mechanisms, poorly. Systemd is a text-book example of that. Unfortunately, with the Linux community growing, far more idiots came in in recent years than people with a clue.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
If a Poettering-like asshole was detected anywhere near OpenBSD, they would be shot down like an aircraft flying over the White House without clearance.
Only one allowed per project (cough Theo De Raadt cough). I do grant that Theo's stuff works.
This page accidentally left blank
OSX uses a microkernel. Besides, there are/were plenty of Unix that used microkernels: OSF/1, Digital Unix/Tru64, etc.
The point is moot any way, most of you aspies don't understand the debate is moot because Linux is not unix.
The debate is moot because too many people involved in the debate are using "Unix" as a hammer to beat down anything that provokes their nerd rage.
I'd say that "the Unix philosophy" is spelled out by the various documents that the Wikipedia "Unix philosophy" page cites. Whether it covers mechanisms such as the init system, much less the kernel-mode code, is, well, subject to debate.
And something doesn't have to "be Unix" in the trademark sense or in the "you can draw some line of descent by which the code derives from Bell Labs Unix" sense to be Unix-like enough for people to debate whether it conforms to the Unix philosophy or not. As far as I'm concerned, Linux is Unix-like enough for that, and it pretty much works as well as other Unix-like systems, whether they're "Unix(R)" or "V7-derived" or not, in that regard. (And most of those systems probably support the -v flag to cat. :-))
It seems to be the classical Windows/Unix split: Some people want a system that assumes they are dumb and does everything for them. Others want control and understanding. Traditionally, the dumb ones standardized on Windows. Now some of them have seen that Linux actually has advantages, and they demand that dumbing-down on Linux as well, hence systemd. That this removes the main reasons to use Linux completely escapes them.
Those on Linux because it gives them access and control, and even a thing like the userspace part of the boot system can be understood with not a lot of effort, understandably do not want that. At all. The nice thing about Linux is that it turns a desktop or even a laptop into a server-grade Unix-like system. Systemd is out to stop that and make it again a windows-like, fragile, insecure, closed system that addresses users, not people with a clue. Sure, it does not go all the way (yet), but the direction this thing goes in is painfully clear. The rabid, fanatical, clueless followers that come with systemd are also no surprise at all. Windows has had them for a long time, but usually they could just be ignored.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.