Slashdot Mirror
OpenBSD Gains Commercial Support
Dave Brooks writes "It looks like a company called Network Security Technologies, Inc. will be providing commercial support for OpenBSD Integration. This is a huge step for the OpenBSD community." Good to see. Theo, in an impromptu interview, said that he is happy others believe in OpenBSD, and that the project has a much better financial situation these days, though it is still supported entirely by CD and shirt sales.
Support or no support, BSD is waning as most geeks don't see it as 'cool' enough and most buisinesses are still under the thumb of M$, that, and what non tech CEO has even heard of it?
You say you want a revolution....
BSD is less well-known than Linux (or GNU/Linux if you prefer) but it is a slightly more reliable OS and since it is binary compatible with Linux, there is no major shortage of apps for it (although I'm not sure if KDE and GNOME will run on it). My point, however, is that once people become familiar with Linux, it is relatively easy to switch over to one of the BSD variants. I think that once Linux has completed it's transition to a 'mainstream' OS, BSD will recieve more publicity.
Where can I read the impromptu interview with Theo?
That guys a nut. Soon he'll be dropping F-bombs on 'em.
OpenBSD is great for firewalls, DNS servers, and other applications where you *really* do NOT want any chance of an intrusion. It is heavily audited, tightly locked down by default, and perfect for these applications (both because of the security and because of the license).
It isn't meant to replace Linux or FreeBSD, it can't even run on multiprocessors yet (AFAIK)! But it does its stated job very well.
Contrast this with NT or Linux and you'll better understand this. You don't tell the CIO or CTO "I'm setting up a Linux firewall", you say "I'm setting up the most secure firewall on the market" and they gratefully fuck off.
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
I mean, is OpenBSD really this down on their luck?
While I'm not a *BSD user, I'm always glad to see another "alternative" OS getting some recognition. As I remember, the coming of LinuxCare was one of the first major stories in the rise of Linux and I really hope that this is the first of many wins for the BSD camp. Keep up the good work team, someday we'll be able to show every computer user in the world what it means to run a stable, powerful operating system.
I've been playing with BSD as of late, and I must say, I'm enjoying the experience.
I have alot of trouble understanding where the angst between Linux and BSD derives, particularly among the hacker cores. My guess is that the semi-infamous bad attitude of BSD developers was directed against Linux in its growth years, and after years of having their work called immature and unstable(even when it began being much less so), Linux developers and users completed the "circle" of mutual distrust.
I wasn't around back then, so I'd like some better perspective.
Regardless, BSD has been quite the experience. OpenBSD, with its security-centric design, is something I plan to play around with for the specific reason that existing Linux Distributions run wayyyyyy too many network services by default, and the idea of an OS I can slap on a box and trust to be secure is very appealing.
Hearing that Theo's baby, OpenBSD, now has commercial support behind it is something that I am proud to hear. Theo's focus on security is making Linux better, and many of the apps that run on BSD were originally developed on Linux.
Congratulations to everyone involved.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Then what does that do to the elaborate castles of theory people have been building on the "Open Source Movement". Pundits from the credible (think ESR) to the credulous (think Jon Katz) have been pounding their shoes on the pulpit about the unstoppable force that is community code. More than one reputation is now founded on the premise that open source is "unique" and provides marvellous, unheard of benefits that tightly controlled products never could enjoy.
But the BSD's are not nearly so open, as I understand it. Yes, much of their codebase is contributed, but the maintainers carefully vet submissions and frequently reject code they feel will contrast with their envisioned implementation. If I'm correct in that interpretation (and I might not be - please correct me) the BSD's are much more like Netscape's model than Linux's model.
So if the BSD's succeed in gaining considerable market share, doesn't that mean most of the rhetoric we've been reading about open source is mostly hot air? Wouldn't it imply that, really, strict central control is a good idea for a software project?
Just a thought.
-konstant
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Excellent. Regardless of your opinion of BSD vs Linux, OpenBSD support is a win for both camps and the Open Source movement as a whole.
Hopefully, with OpenBSD starting to pick up steam, a beneficial competition will develop between the two systems that envolves more coding than arguing.
Anyways, score one for the home team. Begin the happy dance of your choice.
Sig:
Barbeque is a noun. Not a verb.
I found OpenBSD to be easier to install than any Linux distribution I've ever used (and I've used quite a few). I just replaced my Linux partition with it a few weeks ago, and it's now my "main OS" (I also use BeOS). I encourage anyone to try it out... it's rock solid, easy to configure (or at least no harder than Linux :) ) and _extremely_ well put together.
Like every linux distro.
1. It offers another flanker to "the Boyz in Redmond." With enough (including Be, FreeBSD, Linux, Apple, etc.) targets showing up on their radar screen, with the trial closing, with the issues that they will have with Y2K, and with the rather obvious problems they are having with W2K; World Domination (for whomever) moves forward. The more platforms/technologies to take aim at, the more cluelless the FUD-throwers will prove themselves. Maybe it will even cause the corporate version of a nervous breakdown/meltdown or some other implosion-type event (we can hope, can't we?) Commercial support hastens this process. Doubt it? Re-read some of the defenses contained in the Halloween documents, and some of MS's biggest worries listed there.
2. Theo's code devtree is not THAT different from Linus' and Alan's. It concentrates (differently) on issues having to do with security and the stability/performance of the network. We all learn much from the *BSD hackers (and they from us). Also, the exercise of "ports" to the various platforms (OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Linux, etc.), besides being intellectually challenging, gives us practice in what WILL lead to eventual World Domination (and the hoped-for demise of the Evil Empire) in the shorter term: ports of OSS apps (under whatever license-flavor) to more commercial Unices, such as HP, Sun, and IBM. Effective (and clueful) commercial support can only improve this process, and continue the merging of the devtrees for app developers. It also affords more jobs for us (hey, we all gotta eat).
3. Finally, anything that encourages knowledge sharing; helps to educate developers and users alike; AND encourages the corporate types to "experiment" is a VERY good thing. Commercial support hastens this result, since no CIO in his or her right mind wants to "own" the source code (for personal, as well as business reasons); ESPECIALLY without commercial support. We are still a long way away from a time when source is the rule, rather than the exception (if ever)in the corps...but we can hope those days come soon. Credible commercial support helps move us in this direction.
Remember guys, this is Amerika. Just because you have the most votes, doesn't mean you get to win.--Fox Mulder
1. It offers another flanker to "the Boyz in Redmond." With enough (including Be, FreeBSD, Linux, Apple, etc.) targets showing up on their radar screen, with the trial closing, with the issues that they will have with Y2K, and with the rather obvious problems they are having with W2K; World Domination (for whomever) moves forward. The more platforms/technologies to take aim at, the more clueless the FUD-throwers will prove themselves. Maybe it will even cause the corporate version of a nervous breakdown/meltdown or some other implosion-type event (we can hope, can't we?) Commercial support hastens this process. Doubt it? Re-read some of the defenses contained in the Halloween documents, and some of MS's biggest worries listed there.
2. Theo's code devtree is not THAT different from Linus' and Alan's. It concentrates (differently) on issues having to do with security and the stability/performance of the network. We all learn much from the *BSD hackers (and they from us). Also, the exercise of "ports" to the various platforms (OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Linux, etc.), besides being intellectually challenging, gives us practice in what WILL lead to eventual World Domination (and the hoped-for demise of the Evil Empire) in the shorter term: ports of OSS apps (under whatever license-flavor) to more commercial Unices, such as HP, Sun, and IBM. Effective (and clueful) commercial support can only improve this process, and continue the merging of the devtrees for app developers. It also affords more jobs for us (hey, we all gotta eat).
3. Finally, anything that encourages knowledge sharing; helps to educate developers and users alike; AND encourages the corporate types to "experiment" is a VERY good thing. Commercial support hastens this result, since no CIO in his or her right mind wants to "own" the source code (for personal, as well as business reasons); ESPECIALLY without commercial support. We are still a long way away from a time when source is the rule, rather than the exception (if ever)in the corps...but we can hope those days come soon. Credible commercial support helps move us in this direction.
Remember guys, this is Amerika. Just because you have the most votes, doesn't mean you get to win.--Fox Mulder
I'm very glad to hear this, especially after reading that interview with Theo that was posted a few weeks back. I have a lot of experience with Linux and FreeBSD and have been happy with them and had no need to switch to something else, but what I read in that interview made me want to locate a spare box to give OpenBSD a try.
As we all know, a strong leader with unflagging devotion to the project and a good sense of perspective (eg, don't take themselves too seriously) is perhaps the most important thing for its long-term success.
Three cheers for OpenBSD!
I know this post will be reduntant, but congrats Theo. It's about time you got support!
A great move for this company too. I know I respect them now..
fou aje oym asoyf ueyf jaffaq afset su!6j!/\ op 'ua>|7!>| ppn7
> Like every linux distro.
That is funny, why can't I seem to find a slackware shirt? Red Hat is pretty much alone in the crass commercialization respect.
And actually, they don't sell any good shirts either, you have to go to copyleft for that.
I would very much enjoy a tux smoking a pipe slackware shirt....
The same person who got the "F1RST P0ST!" on this thread. Now do trust him?
No offence to OpenBSD.
Who the heck is Johann von Neumann ? A contemporary of Ricardo Feynman and Amadeus Wigner ? Get a life !!
Warning: The comments contained here are from a very new OpenBSD user... (Operation system in place for about a week. Got interested in it about three weeks ago).
No, OpenBSD's install is not as friendly as the new Linux installs. The disk partitioning is really exciting. Hint: Start with a totally empty disk. When you manage to get partitions where you want them, put a small DOS partition on and work around it. Another hint: If you don't grab a calculator or at least a piece of paper, you are either very good at memorizing numbers and doing math in your head or you just nuked that partition you were trying to work around. The first time I installed it on a Compaq (with the configuration partition), I wiped the disk completely clean. Not even the OpenBSD partition survived the install! I think it took me two or three additional attempts (i.e., reloads) before I got it right. Suddenly, it becomes easy, even logical 8). I'm *very* serious about practicing on a "spare" hard disk first.
I found the FTP install actually worked very nicely with OpenBSD, something I could NOT get to work with the otherwise more friendly FreeBSD.
I will dispute any claims that documentation is better on Linux than *BSD. The Linux documentation is certainly BIGGER, at least on mall store shelves, but hardly better. You see, Linux is a rapidly moving target. The details of every distribution change every release, and in fact, some of the products might even be perceived as completely different OSs by a non-X familiar person. While I have been playing with Linux for YEARS (key word: Playing. I'm not yet a Linux master), I've been pleased that OpenBSD seems to be more "familiar" quickly based on my Unix experience. *BSD is much more standard Unix than Linux is. A book on RedHat v5.2 will not do much to help you get RedHat 6.0 up and running.
This is good from a learning perspective. Unix books cover both OpenBSD and FreeBSD much better than they do Linux. On the other hand, I really miss 'bash'. HOWEVER, *I* will impliment bash, I will know how it got there, I will know how to remove it or change it or whatever. You loose this in the modern Linux distributions. It is all done for you.
Another problem with Linux documentation is the quality. Everyone sees it as a cash cow, everyone is writing a book. Most of them stink. Several years ago, I bought a book on Linux. Durring my first five minutes with the book, I spotted THREE blatent FACTUAL errors (Linus wrote Minix then improved it to Linux was one of them). A few are good. Most are obsolete.
As far as I can tell for multiple booting, to boot OpenBSD, set the partition active. Therefore, it will probably work with most boot management software.
Hardware support: Well, OpenBSD seems to support "standard" stuff. IDE, main-stream SCSI. Haven't played with the sound. It recognized every network card I threw at it (at least four totally different cards). Forget USB for the time being, and I wouldn't wait up.
A *BIG* comment: I know a lot of people (I do it myself once in a while) seem to think the magic of a new system is installing it. This is not true. Not at all. As long as you think installing it is the major hurdle, you haven't really learned the product. The magic is what you do ONCE it is installed. How you set it up for efficient use. How you back it up. How you recover it when you woof a hard disk (or a few strategic files). How you recover it when you woof or upgrade a main board. I clean up a lot of networks set up by people who didn't understand that installing the software is just the very, very tip of the iceberg.
Try it. On an empty hard disk at first. 8)
Nick.
I just hope the corporate world is prepared for the day when EVERY word in EVERY language has been appended to "Network" to form company names.
Network Associates
Network Solutions
Network Security
....
Waiiit a minute....is it a coincidence that two of these three companies are pure evil?
I THINK NOT!
The Cabal (TINC) had better keep a close eye on this "Network Security" outfit...
This is Great !!!
Been using unices for a few years now...just
glad to see *BSD getting its coverage now, too.
Gotta thank the Linux community for getting me
into unix, and I've also gotta thank some of them
(you AC's know who you are !) for giving me
enough reasons to want to give *BSD a try also.
Just don't want to admit that the Linux crowd has become populated with so many of them...sorry for those skilled Linux users out there who still put up with it....darn squeaky wheels sure need to be greased...anyway....
screw install routines...nothing wrong with having a great install, but that should never be the priority it seems to be with some distros now.
It's a shame that when a developer writes some good code, people (who wouldn't appreciate it anyway) just want to see how easily it goes into and out of their systems.
oh yeah (gratuitous PORTS plug ahead !!!! )
everyone NEEDS to use a system
like ports
viva *BSD !
...used to be a library...now it's just a mind-cemetary
Why do you GNU freaks get so mad at the BSD license? Some company uses my code for its product, good. At least people are getting some use from it. You wouldn't have made any money by going GPL. So why the big deal?
i've long suffered from windows instability and decided to try unix clones when hearing that even hotmail is running under FreeBSD! as a rookie, how large should i set partitions for Linux and OpenBSD, to try them out? 1-2 GB?
I have worked at a commercial ISP that used BSDI's BSD/OS, and at home I have run Free, Net, and OpenBSD. I liked all of them. The differences between them are fairly minor, IMHO, and which one to run generally depends on which hardware platform you're using. Sometimes you have some obscure card that FreeBSD supports but NetBSD doesn't, or vice-versa, and you install whatever supports it. From an operational perspective, they are nearly indistinguishable.
I've just recently switched back to Linux because I'm developing for that platform now. I like the hardware support. I like the packaging job RedHat has done. I kinda like RPM's (although I think FreeBSD's ports/package system is a little better).
There is one thing about Linux I don't like: the lack of usable system documentation. I have a very simple definiton of "usable documentation". When I see a file in /etc -- let's say its called "veryimportantfile" -- I should be able to type "man veryimportantfile" and get an explanation of the file format, and pointers to related documents.
I can do that on *BSD. I can't do that on Linux. I can't begin to describe how much this irritates me. Searching the net, while fun, may not always be a solution -- what if I'm installing a new server on a site without a net connection? Should I really need a telephone line to read crucial documentation? Sure, I can read the source, but it would be nice to not have to.
I appreciate the HOWTOs and FAQs on the net, but I'd personally love to see the LDP concentrate on simply documenting, via man pages, the system configuration files.
But my summary of this is that I use both Linux and BSD whenever possible, and hope that I never have to stop using either! -Peter
I'm curious how many comments that start with "I'll bet this gets moderated down" or whatever get moderated down, how many don't get moderated at all, and how many get moderated up.
Perhaps "I'll bet this gets moderated down" is usually just a (sometimes a bit whiny) rhetorical comment, rather than a genuine prediction that the comment will be moderated down to Flamebait Hell.
BSD IS OPEN SOURCE AND FREE SOFTWARE!
I don't know who's been feeding you these lies, but stop listening to them. BSD code is "freer" than Linux code, and more "open". BSD is community code.
Where you may be confused is in the development structure. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Open Source, but who is in charge of the project. Linus and Alan let most of the submitted "good" code into the kernel. The BSD's on the other hand only let in good code that conforms to the current vision. BSD, Linux, Apache, Sendmail, KDE, Gnome, etc., all have their unique development styles, but they are all equally open source.
But a lot of this is largely perception, however. BSD is very mature and needs few additions or fixes outside of drivers for new devices. Linux, although now grown up, is still an adolescent with plenty of additions and fixes needed. Which would you rather work on, something that doesn't need work, or something that does?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
And I agree that by default, RedHat has WAY too many services going.
And its getting even better - linux is steadily trying to beat Microsoft by positioning Linux as a better Windows - adding all sorts of candy-coated useless interfaces, all sorts of "idiot-proof" install scripts.
FREEBSD IS UNIX. ITS NOT TRYING TO BE WINDOWS.
People who actually LOVE using unix almost always prefer BSD.
Linux developers are trying to beat Microsoft at their own game. FreeBSD developers are choosing their own turf.
We often see statements about how *BSD-positive comments are routinely moderated down, but it's funny, they usually are moderated UP, especially if they aren't just taunts.
/. reviewers would just as soon ignore BSD stories if they aren't Linux related. Quite surprising in light of a certain future /. Section.
It's clear to me that Slashdot covers BSD a great deal and for the most part this coverage is warmly greeted by the community here. The Open Source community continues to prove that it's very Open.
1999-10-01 18:28:20 FreeBSDCon '99 Program verview (articles,bsd) (rejected)
1999-10-04 15:45:09 FreeBSDCon '99 Schedule of events (articles,bsd) (rejected)
1999-10-06 21:20:58 FreeBSDCon '99 Schedule of Events (articles,bsd) (rejected)
And these are just mine. At least 5 other people have submitted this at least twice. (The FreeBSD-Advocacy mailing list archive is updated weekly.)
It's clear to me at least that some of the
Here it is though, since it'll apparantly never make it on the main page:
The FreeBSDCon '99 (Oct 17th - 23rd) website now has a complete Schedule of Events. The two "FreeBSD Internals" tutorials by Kirk McKusick are sold out, but it looks like it's not too late to register for the conference itself.
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
this site has the slides accompanying Barry Caplin's FreeBSD@USWest talk to be presented at FreeBSDCon. I found them rather interesting.
----------
The open source advocates never said that nothing else but open source could work. They said that open source *works*, and works well. I tend to agree.
KDE, Gnome, Linux kernel - with all due respect to Theo and OpenBSD, I think they are larger in scope than fine-tuning and improving the security of an existing operating system. I don't think projects of this magnitude could have been done without massive open-source community involvement.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
If you do not know who he is, then you should grab a huge hammer and slam your computer into tiny bits. I would prefer that, but if you don't like that idea, go ask altavista. Next you will be asking who is Hemos or Commandertaco.
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
BSD is not directly binary compatiable but emulated- there is a difference. Second of all, why would someone try to run GNOME/KDE binaries (like you suggested) on a BSD machine? I am half sure there are BSD binaries out there for those desktops and if not one could compile the source!! Just lay off your stash because that stuff has you talking non-sense.
Both of you err.
It is a joke. He made fun of the first name mentioned ("Johann") instead of the commonly used "John" because he seems to think it is wrong.
In fact both names are appropriate as this link might show.
And what should Slashdot do to protect itself against bogus "news"? A recent thread on the FreeBSD advocacy list suggested flooding Slashdot with BSD press releases in the hopes that they would get on Roblimos nerves and force him to post them as "News" just to shut up the malcontents. Isn't that dishonest?
That HAPPENS to be Roblimo's suggestion. But you left that little tidbit out didn't you?
Before I go further let me assure you that my post was not meant to be hostile. I was bringing to attention the fact that the FreeBSDCon story was apparantly being rejected simply because it was BSD, and it seemed odd considering what's to come.
Slashdot was founded as a site for Geek news. Linux is predominant because that's what Rob uses, and it's his site. Still, BSD has it's place here. Slashdot apparantly thinks so too, or the soon to be announced new section wouldn't be forthcoming. Surely you saw reference to that while you were in the -Advocacy archive eh?
I wouldn't expect to see Linux stories on BSD sites(Daemonnews, FreeBSDRocks, FreeBSDZine, FreeBSD Advocacy, etc) any more than I would see BSD stories on sites such as Linux.com.
There was a FreeBSDCon story on Slashdot when it was first announced. It's NOT too much to ask to follow up on that when a full schedule of events is released.
When participants tried to register for the FreeBSD event, the hotel manager didn't know what the heck they were referring to.
Funny, I had no trouble whatsoever.
The behavior of WC CDROM is exemplary. They are the primary financial backer of the FreeBSD Project, and there's nothing shady about them booking the room. All such Conferences have Sponsers, and you see their names all over them. Why would this be any different, and why should they try to conceal their identity?
And no one who reads your comments will go read the archives for themselves. A Shame.
Have you ever worked for Microsoft? Maybe in Marketing?
- Avid Linux User and BSD Advocate.
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.