OpenBSD 6.2 Released (openbsd.org)

basscomm writes: OpenBSD 6.2 has now been released. Check out the release notes if you're into that kind of thing. Some of the new features and systems include improved hardware support, vmm(4)/ vmd(8) improvements, IEEE 802.11 wireless stack improvements, generic network stack improvements, installer improvements, routing daemons and other userland network improvements, security improvements and more. Here is the full list of changes.

Comments

*BSDs are rendering Linux irrelevant.

[Anonymous Coward]

The *BSDs are quickly rendering Linux irrelevant, especially now that nearly all Linux distros have started using systemd which has caused stability and reliability problems for lots of users.

OpenBSD is proving to be an excellent server OS. Its focus on security is more important now than ever before.

FreeBSD is proving to be an excellent general-purpose OS. It can be used very successfully on servers, as well as on workstations. It probably has the best hardware support of all of the BSDs, and its ZFS support is remarkably useful.

NetBSD is proving to be an excellent embedded OS. It supports a huge range of systems, both new and ancient.

DragonFly BSD is proving to be an excellent testbed for next-generation technologies. Its HAMMER filesystem is superb, and it has long had excellent support for multi-CPU systems, and its virtual kernel support is extraordinarily useful.

It's getting to the point where Linux really doesn't offer any substantial benefits over the *BSDs. In many ways the *BSDs offer significant advantages over Linux.

The *BSDs are becoming the go-to operating system for a wide range of computing needs, from servers to workstations to embedded systems.

Re:*BSDs are rendering Linux irrelevant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can somebody please mod up the parent comment? It shouldn't be at -1. It's very relevant, and more importantly, it's correct. I've been involved with moving some servers from Linux to FreeBSD, and it has been an excellent experience so far. Unlike modern-day Linux distro developers, the FreeBSD developers clearly respect the UNIX philosophy, and it shows in the high quality of FreeBSD. It works very well as a web server and as an application server, and we've had great success using it to run PostgreSQL. Our developers have also started using FreeBSD as their main development OS, and they're loving it. To paraphrase one of our developers, "FreeBSD is what Linux should have been."

We're starting to investigate using OpenBSD for some of our servers, and so far the testing has been going very well. Our only complaint with OpenBSD is that it isn't as user-friendly or convenient to use as FreeBSD is. But we can overlook that because we know it's offering us a very robust and trustworthy system. Personally, I can't wait until we've moved all of our computing systems over to FreeBSD or OpenBSD. I have far more trust in the systems running FreeBSD or OpenBSD than do in the systems running Linux.

Re:*BSDs are rendering Linux irrelevant.

[Anonymous Coward]

The various BSD forks are generally worked on by real operating system developers who care about the conceptual integrity of the system as a whole, not only the kernel itself. There are Linux distributions with a similar philosophy, but most Linux development now is done by either large commercial interests who are adopting an MS-like attitude or random incompetent people who only want to leave their mark on something, whether it's a good idea or not.

BSD is more elitist, and that's a good thing for the quality of the system.

Re:*BSDs are rendering Linux irrelevant.

[Billly Gates]

The various BSD forks are generally worked on by real operating system developers who care about the conceptual integrity of the system as a whole, not only the kernel itself. There are Linux distributions with a similar philosophy, but most Linux development now is done by either large commercial interests who are adopting an MS-like attitude or random incompetent people who only want to leave their mark on something, whether it's a good idea or not.

BSD is more elitist, and that's a good thing for the quality of the system.

The BSD guys are interesting. Not more elitist .. hell go look at the forums of ARCLinux MY GOD but rather conservative. The BSD guys are really good at documentation and creating teams like the ones making /usr/share/docs and the FreeBSD handbook and great manpages which also include Unix history.

The BSD guys want something done well with great input from experts rather than just throw yet a another million userspace daemon when problem solving. BSDs are also a full OS and not just a kernel, a distro, and a few user apps are thrown in and grown and linked together with a hope it will work.

My take is read the manual is added because they trust their own manual. If a newbie say well that doc SUCKs and they will examine it and quickly email the documentation guy to fix it etc. There is a real documentation effort as the kernel guys don't want to answer noobie questions and many are at all skill levels and needs. What is cool about FreeBSD at least is they have examples you can uncomment out to do things and hacks like CVSUP. It encourages you to play.

Re:*BSDs are rendering Linux irrelevant.

[slack_justyb]

It's getting to the point where Linux really doesn't offer any substantial benefits over the *BSDs. In many ways the *BSDs offer significant advantages over Linux.

Welp I know this will get modded down, but hell why not play devil's advocate here? Vendor support. You have actual companies that will stand behind and certify software and hardware for Linux. Not so much for BSDs. Also, you kind of point out the problem with BSD. This BSD is good for this, this BSD is good for that. Not many businesses have the time to sit there and evaluate ten different BSDs to figure out which one provides the most bang for buck, where as much as everyone hates it, systemd homogenizes Linux. A single known Linux versus a half dozen BSDs where commercial support is iffy at best, guess which one is going to win in the mind of the non-technical person who write the check that will pay for the installation.

The *BSDs are becoming the go-to operating system for a wide range of computing needs, from servers to workstations to embedded systems.

I don't doubt that BSDs are getting deployed, but you are over stating the figure a bit. Newer folks in the industry are learning Linux and while the old hats like the way BSD works and feels, the newer folks don't really give a stink. Most of them will get ten seconds to have 100 servers up and running, ready for whatever software the PHB has selected. With BSD you'll be lucky to get past configuring disks in that ten seconds. With Linux you'll have an army of AWS boxes at your command ready to go before your first cup of coffee is poured.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not sitting here dissing the BSD folks, but there's a serious need for folks to look past systemd as the sole reason everyone and their dog is leaving Linux. That's not happening and people yelling this argument sound a lot like how people used to junk on Java for how poorly 1.2 ran all the way up to where Java EE and Spring is pretty much everywhere. It's seriously getting old and Linux's popularity hasn't gone anywhere and doesn't look like it is going anywhere anytime soon.

All the different BSDs are great and they have their place. However, I hear arguments about systemd and the majority of them are dated as hell, just like when Java 6 was out and people would rag on it like everyone was still using Java 1.2. So all the different BSDs, they're doing great, I mean look at Yahoo, they're still running all their stuff on BSD. There's a good amount of IoT that is running some version of BSD. I'm not saying BSD isn't some hot stuff right now. What I am saying is that Linux is way more known and a lot of folks know it as the go-to-solution, systemd and all. Additionally, systemd, while contentious, has not been the death knell for Linux that everyone would like to think. It has been an evolution, to try and put the best spin on the systemd situation, but there's actual vendors with money on the line who have a vested interest in seeing systemd become stable. For the most part, it has become a stable system. That's not to say everything is rosy now, but systems with systemd on the server and a person well versed in systemd are good enough for actual production systems, Amazon among others have shown that very clearly.

especially now that nearly all Linux distros have started using systemd which has caused stability and reliability problems for lots of users.

At some point Slashdot users need to break the stereotype that we all beat a dead horse into jell-o. One sided shit like this and everyone who chimes in with "MOD UP!" are all echoing a view that is years old, and yes, I'm pretty sure Slashdot will be first to amp to front page any failure of systemd, because that's what the mob likes, because Slashdotter just can't stop kicking the horse. But truth be told, every flipping OS on the planet has bugs and some of them are pretty damn serious and require fixes, that's how software works. But c

Re:*BSDs are rendering Linux irrelevant.

[AmiMoJo]

I've been meaning to try TrueOS for desktop out. Anyone tried it?

Their web site doesn't inspire confidence (scrolling is broken), so I might just try FreeBSD. Been about a decade since I last used it...

My standard distro test is to install Chromium and see if the mouse wheel works properly. I've found you can usually tell is a desktop distro is crap by how much effort they put in to making basic input devices work.

Re:*BSDs are rendering Linux irrelevant.

[slack_justyb]

Yes, systemd homogenizes Linux... Down to the level of utter, absolutely unstable crap like Windows.

Compared to the situation of Linux, with not "half a dozen BSD", but litterally HUNDREDS of distributions, I am not sure you are being serious...

Well now I'm confused because you're talking in circles. Additionally, if you're sitting there saying there's only three BSD but hundreds of Linux distros then you might as well toss in the towel on your argument. Only three BSDs, pfft. Okay, so you're willing to say Dragonfly BSD is just FreeBSD, but that same thinking doesn't hold water with something like CentOS is just RedHat? If you seriously think there's 100s of distros, I'll give you that, but you're going to have to abandon your idea of only three BSDs. Otherwise, you're just skirting facts to wax your ego.

Hilarious. Try getting actual, useful support from Red Hat and SuSE, to name just two of the biggest... Go on, I'll be waiting right here.

I've never had a problem with RedHat support. Of course, I don't call them and act like an asshat.

The level of incompetence in these companies is simply astounding.

Yes, which is why they're making money. Again, please refer to my "Slashdot users like to use dated examples that aren't in line with reality" point that I made in my previous post. You might as well convince me that Java is slow as dirt since v1.2 was so horrible and obviously no one can improve software. Or something like JavaScript couldn't possibly be used for serious software development. Or webapps suck compared to full desktop applications.

I could go on refuting your ridiculous arguments again and again

Wow, way to not act like the very stereotype I was referring to. I mean what with the whole inflated ego, I'm so much smarter than you I don't have time to even type things on a keyboard that's how beneath me your are... The, I know so much about AWS, let me demonstrate what words you are using incorrectly. I mean do you tell people who call it toilet paper, "NO!! IT IS CALLED TOILET TISSUE!!!"? You must be a peach to work with and I know, because I've worked with similar folks like yourself that spray themselves daily with eau de superiority. Just something about the IT field draws the folks with superiority complexes for some reason.

Actually, no, systemd IS the reason serious system administrators and quite a few devops are leaving Linux behind.

Well I'm guessing that number of people leaving Linux includes you and maybe a few of your buddies, wunderbar. So now that we've got that out of the way,
care to back that up at all with actual numbers? Are we just going to go ahead and assume your big brain knows better? It's not a chore to see that Linux adoption has pretty much been the same as it has been the last five or so years, that the number of jobs that ask for Linux skillset hasn't changed, that pretty much this massive decline that you speak of, it just isn't happening. Oh here's something for you, but by all means, feel free to put whatever you've got here (I mean only if the almighty has time to mingle with us simpletons of course) and don't let me try to convince you of anything. I'm so sure your opinion is way more accurate than market analysis, because, well you know.

Your level of ignorance is frankly stunning.

Sticks and stones buddy. However, I find your breed fun at a distance. Something about the blatant display of hyper-amped egos and the sheer level of tunnel vision is amazing. It is stunning really. Just one question, when you wake up are you able to see anything outside of the three degrees of your field of vision that's

Re:year 2038

[Anonymous Coward]

> And even security would be a bit better 'out of the box' :)

No. It won't Because OpenBSD refuses the concept of "layered protectoin", every user has the run of every component of the operating system that other users have failed to individually secure. And I *love* stealing unprotected SSH keys, because Theo de Raadt insists that "if your box isn't secure, you shouldn't have one", and refuses to permit a change to ssh-keygen to *stop* generating unencrypted SSH keys by default.

I particularly enjoy stealing them from CIFS and NFS shares and backups, because even if the OpenBSD box is "secure", people inevitably leave those convenient passphrase keys lying around. It's almost as fun as stealing Subversion keys for Sourceforge hosted source code.

Re:year 2038

[fisted]

Just for the record, this AC is full of shit.

ssh-keygen doesn't generate unencrypted ssh keys by default, that only happens when you skip entering a passphrase (same behavior as ssh-keygen on literally any other platform, because - who knew - it actually originates from OpenBSD). If you do enter a passphrase, it will even refuse to generate a key if the passphrase is too short.

As for layered security, there's plenty of that in OpenBSD, a good deal of which other OSs do not have. Most recent example would be the "pledge" system call (formerly known as "tame").

I particularly enjoy stealing them from CIFS and NFS shares and backups, because even if the OpenBSD box is "secure", people inevitably leave those convenient passphrase keys lying around.

Aha, the "passphrase keys". For the record, as anything else, the private key is created chmod 600. You're not "stealing" shit, you're making things up.