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.

Comments

Re:Will it make it?

[drachen]

"Geeks don't see it as 'cool' enough?" That's crap. I would venture to say that most "geeks" who check out BSD will (as myself) believe it to even be "cooler" than Linux. (I can see this comment being moderated down right now...) I've used Linux since around 1994 and BSD since around late 1995. Right now I am using BSD on all my computers. Why? Well first of all BSD provides everything for me that Linux provides. It is an extremely stable (even more stable than Linux) platform, and is highly secure and robust. Code throughout all three BSD projects are constantly being sifted through to make them better. Their developmental models are much to be praised. Things are very organized within the projects. The ability to have seperate "versions" (i.e. a -STABLE or a -CURRENT branch) is also nice. Sure I see there are also developmental versions of the Linux kernel but often they are not as seamlessly integrated with the rest of the operating system and sometimes can be quite unstable. (Yeah yeah.... I KNOW NOT ALL OF THE TIME...)

To say that BSD is waning is just not true. As Linux's popularity increases, so does the popularity of the BSD's. Many BSD users are FORMER Linux users. A question to you... have you even used BSD? Have you checked out with what versatility you can compile to kernel and so forth? Have you checked out the nicely formatted and standardized configuration scripts for BSD? Have you tried to do a cvsup or make world with it? I would guess that most people who have used BSD will see it as "cool." I began a popular linux channel on Efnet (and still frequent it) and even in there many of the ops use *BSD. (no not just FreeBSD I mean NetBSD and OpenBSD) I personally see this commercial support as a giant step forward for BSD. Look at what happened to Linux when it got those big name sponsors... BSD is up and coming. Whatever you base your argument on that BSD is "waning"... you've got to show me more evidence than it's not "cool" enough.

James Crawford
drachen@thepcmaster.com

One Geek's experience with BSD

[Effugas]

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

This is a good thing because:

[Ded Mike]

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.

Re:If the BSD's succeed

[SEE]

Well...

1. Both *BSD and Linux let anybody read the source code.
   
2. Both *BSD and Linux let anybody distribute and use the code.
   
3. Both *BSD and Linux let anybody fork their own code.
   
4. Both *BSD and Linux, for the last few years at least, let anybody propose changes to the "official" system.
   
5. Both *BSD and Linux, for the last few years at least, have a small group of people who allow/deny changes to the "official" system.
   

The big difference is really that the *BSDs give you a whole unified distro, while Linux has no established official distro.

But an entire distribution is outside of the scope of the catherdral/bazaar paradigm anyway, especially since outside the a central core the BSDs and Linux use the same software anyway.

OpenBSD

[NickHolland]

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.

Linux vs. BSD: One User's Experiences

[peterb]

First off, let me say that I am not posting advocacy or flamebait. I have used both Linux and *BSD for years and like both a heck of a lot.

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

Re:Misinformation

[Arandir]

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?