Slashdot Mirror


OpenBSD 2.6 released

Lots of you wrote in with this -- we've been holding back at Theo's request until the CDs were available, but OpenBSD 2.6 is now released and available from the FTP sites, or by ordering CDs. There are lots of technical enhancements to this release (which are detailed below), and if they don't grab you, check out the very cool CD cover art.

The complete list of changes to 2.6 is too long to list here. However, some of the highlights are:

  • Add ssh (OpenSSH) to the base system
  • Reliability patches for the PowerPC port
  • Improved support for ext2fs
  • Perl 5.005_03 in the base system
  • Support Joliet filesystems
  • More security fixes
  • USB support
  • Fixes to the ATAPI support
  • Speed up the install process
  • Many manual page updates

and much more.

228 comments

  1. I love openBSD by mAIsE · · Score: 1

    If it was just more intuitive. ( i would be in heaven )

    1. Re:I love openBSD by BJH · · Score: 1


      Out of interest - in what way is OpenBSD not "intuitive"? Compared to what?

      No, this is not a flame - I really want to know.

    2. Re:I love openBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've installed OpenBSD and several RH Linux.
      Red Hat's 6.1 with its neat-o graphical install is alot easier than OpenBSD's. Both found my DHCP set up no-prob, though with no trouble on my part so that was cool.

    3. Re:I love openBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its slightly harder to use (default programs isntalled, default setup, etc.), not much, but enought that its irritating for someone new.

    4. Re:I love openBSD by mAIsE · · Score: 1

      I really love the idea of what openBSD is, but there isnt much documenation. It's not very intuative to someone who is used to system V trying to be productive with out good docs or nice utilitys.

    5. Re:I love openBSD by Bishop · · Score: 1

      I use OpenBSD on a Sparc (SS2 :-) and Debian/Linux on an AMDx86. I like both and am becomming more and more impressed with OpenBSD. I find OpenBSD to sometimes be confusing, but I wouldn't say non-intuitve. Off the top of my head: what is tun0 and tun1 and some of the other interfaces from a `ifconfig -a` ? Also, there is lots of documentation, but sometimes I feel that I am missing something. I find that the docs are well geared towards the long time sys-admins and not first time users. I find the whole system feels that way. I will also admit that I prefer GNU style command line parameters.

      I have been waiting for the past week and a bit to install 2.6 on a new (to me) Sparc10. Knowing it would be ready for Dec 1, I schedueled my whole day as being in "meetings." :-)

    6. Re:I love openBSD by Mark+Pitman · · Score: 1

      tun0 and tun1 are "tunneling" interfaces. For using VPN. Similar to ppp0 and ppp1.

    7. Re:I love openBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the OpenBSD man pages are 10x as good as Linux man pages. I'm serious. 10x!! -- .j0hn [john@maKintosh.com]

    8. Re:I love openBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      that's my biggest qualm with the bsd's. Many of the utilties have awkward parameters (if you are coming from GNU/Linux that is) and many programs are stripped compared to their GNU counterparts. I shoudl probably install gnu utils on my fbsd box heh.

    9. Re:I love openBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RedHat 6.1 is probably simpler when it works, BUT its installation process graphics is a straight-jacket... I've already run in trouble with it on several accounts. For instance, a pcmcia network card that works, but that somehow was forgotten from the graphical interface... good luck getting the redhat dummy install process to discover it has a working network, even in `expert' mode... or a DUMB disk partitionning tool that INSISTS on making a swap area... no matter that you want to share the swap with the BSD side, and just need to finish that damn install to be able to recompile the kernel to recognize bsd disklabels...

    10. Re:I love openBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conversely, if you come from a BSD background, some of the SysV/GNU tools are a bit annoying (and BSD pre-dates SysV, GNU and Linux, so the blame for this divergence doesn't lie with it).

      In my experience, most of the additions provided by the GNU tools (versus the original BSD and SysV versions) are unnecessary. The classic example is the colour ls. While there's nothing wrong with it, I don't use that feature, and I'm quite happy that colour ls (GNU and other versions) is optional in *BSD.

  2. BSD vs. Linux by Chocobo219 · · Score: 0

    This is probably off topic, but what exactly is the difference between BSD and linux? Or Solaris or unix for that matter... I'm sorry, I'm fairly new to linux and I don't know much about their backgrounds. Chocobo219

    1. Re:BSD vs. Linux by pb · · Score: 3

      BSD and Solaris are both offshoots of the original (v7?) Unix source, one side developed by Berkeley, the other side by AT&T, with a lot of cross-pollination. Linux was independently developed to be compatible, without the original source.

      Read about the history of unix by one of the original dudes... (dmr).

      FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD should have no proprietary source left, they've been cleaned up so they could open the source. OpenBSD is a latecomer, basically a distribution/offshoot (of NetBSD?) designed for security, both by hopefully fixing security problems before they are exploited in the code and having a secure default configuration.

      I've messed more with SunOS, Solaris, and Linux than I have with any of the *BSD's, tho...
      ---
      pb Reply or e-mail rather than vaguely moderate.

      --
      pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
    2. Re:BSD vs. Linux by Webmonger · · Score: 1

      The essential differences:
      FreeBSD is based on the original BSD source
      Linux was done from scratch.
      It's legal to distribute modified BSD without releasing the source.
      It's illegal (breach of the GPL contract) to release Linux without the source.
      Linux is developed by anyone and their dog.
      FreeBSD is developed by a smaller group of elite programmers.

      Oh, and Solaris IS unix--it's just a particular brand.

    3. Re:BSD vs. Linux by BJH · · Score: 1

      To add a few points:

      FreeBSD (and the other *BSDs) may be *based* on the original BSD source, but they removed any AT&T "tainted" bits a long time ago.

      The GPL is not a contract. It's a copyright license. (Yes, there IS a difference.)

      Linux is *not* developed by anyone and their dog. Patches that go into the kernel are looked over quite thoroughly by a group of programmers that are just as "elite" as anyone on the FreeBSD core team.

    4. Re:BSD vs. Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your right, its NetBSD. Go read Theo's archive (theos.com), its pretty interesting.

      You should also note that BSD license is different from the GPL, that BSD netowrking code is considered top notch and used in almost every OS, and that the systems are generally geared towards solving a project goal, not to do everything possible like Linux.

      Otherwise, the two are very similar, though Linux has many distributions and until Debian/FreeBSD, which may not deserve the title of distribution yet, the BSD OSes are from one source, and are considered for the most part to be better organized. For the goals of the projects, the BSDs outperform Linux, but on exterior goals, Linux may outperform, or may not, depending on the varients.

      Wouldn't Anon.. but found my recent history being 50+ posts was just depressing.

    5. Re:BSD vs. Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Debian/FreeBSD is a bastard product, and one that may never see the light of day (it's a LOT more difficult thatn many people think to integrate the two.)

    6. Re:BSD vs. Linux by Mark+Pitman · · Score: 1

      When you say "they" removed any AT&T "tainted" bits, which they do you mean? The original BSD people, or the FreeBSD people. I think the original BSD people removed all the AT&T stuff so they could release the source in the first place. I could be wrong though.

    7. Re:BSD vs. Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, your history must look like my history. I didn't really want to mention any of the other issues just because of their flame-potential, but here goes...

      From what I've heard about Theo, I'm not impressed. Maybe he can code, maybe he's got a point or two about securing the OS, but past that I don't think I'd want to work with him either.

      Yep, the BSD license is really free, while the GPL protects from what that freedom allows... Sometimes this is good, and other times it's a pain. For instance, I'd like it if Apple couldn't just take the BSD code and attempt to make an OS on top of it, and screw it up. However, if it ultimately replaces MacOS, that'll be an improvement. :)

      I've heard the same things about the BSD networking code, but I haven't really seen a good comparison. Of course, BSD was the first Unix to have networking, but that's no reason to assume it's the best at it. It must be pretty good just from the anecdotal evidence, but I have yet to see some proof.

      I like Linux because it has hardware support for the freaky devices I get. Of course, that means it might end up being less stable depending on how supported that is... However, for a good hardware configuration, that's well supported by the OS, it shouldn't really matter which one you use.

      The BSD's probably are better organized, and move slower, because of the way their development works. Contrast this with Linux: it's fast and sloppy, and furiously patched together, but it somehow works, and they spend time stabilizing the patches and looking for bugs too...

      Also, Linux is getting a lot of attention lately, with corporations funding its development in various different areas, and contributing back, in the hopes of getting a great, compatible Unix OS running on their hardware, and also getting good publicity and saving money in the long run...

      The same thing could have happened to BSD, but it was too late, and not as sexy, not as much of a success story about the lone hacker, etc., etc. And that penguin is just too darn cute. Aww... :)

    8. Re:BSD vs. Linux by BJH · · Score: 3

      There's probably more detailed information on the FreeBSD web site, but basically what happened was:

      - USB released a bunch of UNIX code that was supposedly "free". This formed the basis for 386BSD, which begat FreeBSD.

      - AT&T sued USB (and also BSDi, I think) for infringement of copyright, claiming that some of the code in the original release was under AT&T copyright.

      - The case was settled out-of-court, and the FreeBSD team threw out all the AT&T-tainted code and rewrote those sections.

      Unfortunately, the AT&T lawsuit made corporations wary of BSD-based products, thinking that what had happened once could happen again. Luckily, most people aren't bothered by any of that now.

    9. Re:BSD vs. Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, good post. I mentioned the issues just because if said right, like you did, they are not flames. On can respect the GPL but not like it, and the same with the BSDL. Both have different models, both which work very well. Neither is better than the other, as they are geared for different target audiences, though users may often find in themselves where both camps have good support.

      Tux may be cute (hey, he's on my credit card :-), but fox has ome style to it, and the beastie is well in the middle.

    10. Re:BSD vs. Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hehe, you mean UCB. Intel's USB has never done anything good for anyone.

    11. Re:BSD vs. Linux by BJH · · Score: 1

      Sure, Theo is not exactly a candidate for "Mr. Nice Guy 1999", but that can be said for a lot of people - take Tom Christiansen (please...) as an example. Many developers can change into real bastards if you push the right buttons, the same as any other person.

      I'm not going to get involved in a license flamewar, so I'll just ignore the comments on the BSD license...

      The BSD TCP stack is generally agreed to be very good. It has had its problems (just as the Linux stack, the Solaris stack, the WinNT (blech) stack...), but it performs very well.

      For freaky devices, take a look at some of the stuff that NetBSD supports on its various platforms.

      And as for the last bit about the *BSDs being "too late", the BSD kernel codebase has been around for a lot longer than the Linux kernel...


    12. Re:BSD vs. Linux by BJH · · Score: 1


      Oh, shit. Didn't catch that on preview, either...

    13. Re:BSD vs. Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you met the man? There is no question he can code, but in person, he seems affable enough. Perhaps he doesn't put up with bullshit well, but should you expect him to?

    14. Re:BSD vs. Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, he never said anything to start a license flamewar, IMHO.

      As for Theo, and Tom for that matter, I don't find either of them to be bad or 'real bastards.' Tom's posts are definately opinionated, but he is quite willing to explain his view when asked, where as most people bashing him refuse to do it on anything but an emotional front. I haven't seen Tom try to demean those that have good arguments against him, where as I have, and have been in, arguments with Linux advocates that try to demean or just leave conversations in order to 'win.' That's my experience, though I believe any developer can be cruel, or nice.

      On Theo, though, where do you find him being a bastard? His archive doesn't show him being to awful, maybe a bit of a brat at times, but its not as if the NetBSD core team helped the situation, rather they ignored it. As with Theos-software, him posting those letters wasn't great, but many have done the same. He is also known for doing this as with his archive, and any lawyer fighting to take down his site should have the decency to glance at it.

    15. Re:BSD vs. Linux by Bishop · · Score: 1

      And as for the last bit about the *BSDs being "too late", the BSD kernel codebase has been around for a lot longer than the Linux kernel...

      Correct. However before the first free/open source BSD could get going it get held up by legal disputes over AT&T code in the BSD source preventing free distribution. By the time that got straightened out Linux was already out and had gained considerable support from kernel hackers. In that sense *BSD was "too late." I once found this story burried on the FreeBSD web site and I am probably missing some details.

    16. Re:BSD vs. Linux by BJH · · Score: 1

      I should have been clearer - the "bastard" comment was not specifically referring to either Theo or Tom.

      That said, Theo has never had much patience with anyone (more politely put, he does not suffer fools gladly), and his replies on the OpenBSD mailing lists tend to be rather terse. Tom tends to be a bit "inflammatory" in his comments about the GPL, and don't try and tell me that he doesn't get emotional about that particular subject.

      As for the flamewar thing - I didn't say that the previous poster was starting one; I just didn't want to say anything that would be picked up by some frothing GPL/BSD/Artistic/etc. maniac and turned into a flamewar.

    17. Re:BSD vs. Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tom is perpetually angry because he was gang raped in Attica. Plus, he's a fat, gay turd.

    18. Re:BSD vs. Linux by BJH · · Score: 1


      *Sigh*

      I know about that - see my comment about the AT&T dispute earlier in this discussion.

      However, the original poster didn't make clear in what way he thought the *BSDs to be late; too many people seem to think that Linux was the first free OS.

    19. Re:BSD vs. Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh he's definately passionate, I merely meant he will battle with logic to explain his passion and reasons, where as those that bash and attack him rarely seem to use logic. They say, well, look at the other poster. I'll respect a license and its supporters whether I agree with them or not, if we can have a logical and passionate argument/conversation. I don't respect either if its just passion, because a lot is lost. That's why I respect Tom, many Linux users, etc, I just haven't seen those attacking/arguing with Tom do that very often. Tom does get inflammatory, but then its entirely out of passion, whereas most just like to follow the crowed, thus fake passion.

      And of course, Theo was never known for patience. :)

      Oh, and thank god we don't have a religious flame war brewing, I entirely agree there.

    20. Re:BSD vs. Linux by lunatik17 · · Score: 1
      And as for the last bit about the *BSDs being "too late", the BSD kernel codebase has been around for a lot longer than the Linux kernel...

      He's not talking about the codebase. Because of the lawsuit early on, Linux was able to get a head start on BSD (not sure what flavor, though). Since then it has been playing catch-up. Otherwise, it would probably have been the dominate *nix OS.

      --

      Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?

    21. Re:BSD vs. Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      flameing BSD on its happy day is really naughty. now.... about the famous hardware support.... in my ex. my D-Link TXE-540 was not discovered and working currectly on my Linuxes (I've tried Red Hat and mandrake) which were happily discovered by OpenBSD and FreeBSD (haven't tried NetBSD). as for software... all BSDs are able to run Linux and solaris binaries.... so there.

    22. Re:BSD vs. Linux by uberchicken · · Score: 1

      When I go to the Perl website, I see links to resources that compare Perl with Python, C, Tcl/Tk, etc. Great! Horses for courses. It would be extremely helpful to see the same kind of links from each of the unix sites.

    23. Re:BSD vs. Linux by GregWebb · · Score: 1

      Oh, I hope that whoever moderated this one down is truly ashamed of themselves. A perfectly sensible post, an entirely legitimate question.

      Anyone got moderator points to move that one back up?

      Greg

      --

      Greg

      (Inside a nuclear plant)
      Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!

    24. Re:BSD vs. Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you think mailbombing FreeBSD or NetBSD
      mailinglists "passionate", then Theo really is.
      But I wouldn't call that a "battle with logic to explain his passions and reasons".

      Search the FreeBSD mailinglists to know what I mean.

      But that's past. I guess (hope?) he has evolved now and won't behave so childish anymore.

    25. Re:BSD vs. Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am an embedded developer with XXIXes being my primary development environment. As a work environment administered by somebody experienced enough there is practically no difference between various XXXIXes.

      I do install/administer/configure a few Linux'es myself. I tried to install/configure FreeBSD just a few days ago. The most noticeable difference I found is that Linux is much better documented (both by HOWTOs and by information on the web). At the same time BSD has its own logic which is quite easy to follow once you figure it out.

      It is quite possible that my opinion is affected by the fact that all other XXXIXes, beside Linux I ever had to administer were of SVR3.2/SVR4.0 variety.

    26. Re:BSD vs. Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux is *not* developed by anyone and their dog. Patches that go into the kernel are looked over quite thoroughly by a group of programmers that are just as "elite" as anyone on the FreeBSD core team.

      Yes, and then anybody and their dog takes that kernel, slaps on whatever they think should be in a Userland, kludges together whatever they think should be in the startup sequence, and rolls out yet another Linux distribution.

      The BSD releases consist of integrated whole systems designed by a single base of developers.

    27. Re:BSD vs. Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Perhaps he doesn't put up with bullshit well,
      > but should you expect him to?

      I'd certainly expect that from anyone who wishes to publicly represent a volunteer OS project.

      Those who are unable to deal professionally with the public should leave that task to those who are able, while contributing in other ways. A contributor to a volunteer OS project who generates a negative public perception of that project is just as damaging as one who contributes poorly-written code.

    28. Re:BSD vs. Linux by wass · · Score: 1
      I don't fully understand the BSD license, but here's my question anyway. What is to prevent someone from taking the OpenBSD sources and making their own kludged changes, and releasing that as MyVeryOwnBSD?

      Upwards on this thread it stated that one could make changes under the BSD license and release an executable without releasing the source code. Doesn't this imply that they can thus also produce MyVeryOwnBSD, placing themselves in the MyVeryOwnBSD governing elite in the process? (of course they had better be a damn good coder to justify it).

      "In a world without walls, who needs Windows" - Someone from LinuxToday

      --

      make world, not war

    29. Re:BSD vs. Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FreeBSD systems administration is well-documented in The Complete FreeBSD, by Greg Leahey. The FreeBSD web site also contains a great deal of useful information (superior, in my view, to the available Linux documentation, though it may be more difficult to navigate, with fewer step-by-step instructional documents).

      The internals of BSD UNIX are covered in The Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating System, by McKusick, et al., as well as a vast number of academic papers (with FreeBSD-specific improvements documented on the FreeBSD web site). The documentation in this respect is first-rate, and considerably better than either the System V UNIX, or Linux, equivalents (where such equivalents exist at all).

    30. Re:BSD vs. Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What is to prevent someone from taking the
      > OpenBSD sources and making their own kludged
      > changes, and releasing that as MyVeryOwnBSD?

      Nothing at all. However, since OpenBSD is already a complete system, with a well-known layout (a fairly standard BSD UNIX one), there isn't much of an incentive to create a separate version.

      If you have a specific project goal which isn't addressed by one of the existing projects (e.g. a system which is fully UNIX-98-compliant), it might make sense to create a new BSD tree with that goal in mind.

      The reason distributions have become central to Linux is that it's just a kernel. From its inception, distributors have had to package it with other components in order to build complete systems. BSD actually started as a `distribution', as it were, of Bell Labs Research UNIX (back in the 1970s), so it's always been a full system.

    31. Re:BSD vs. Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      redhat and mandrake are the same thing

  3. YAY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Been waiting for this. Rock on!

  4. Placed My Order Already! Can't Wait! by Harbinger · · Score: 1

    Oh oh oh... A new toy. Just in time for Christmas. I look forward to getting this and seeing what improvements there are. OpenSSH is the big on that I'm looking for. Just a note: the ports tree for OpenBSD has grown a lot. If you have tried OpenBSD as a desktop before but never any of the ports ... do so. There are soe pretty cool packages available, and the download/install process is really slick. Good going to the OpenBSD project team. Missin' Calgary. Have a beer at the Ship for me Theo. Dave M

    --
    Be smart and work to create. Don't ride on the backs of others.
    1. Re:Placed My Order Already! Can't Wait! by Roundeye · · Score: 2
      I don't mean to put a damper on your excitement, but given the heavy package load this time of year, and the fact that 2.5 took a few weeks to arrive just a month ago (when 2.6 was imminent)...

      --
      "Cause there's 40 different shades of black, so many fortresses and ways to attack, so why you complainin'?"
    2. Re:Placed My Order Already! Can't Wait! by Harbinger · · Score: 1

      This will be my first time having to order the disks. When 2.5 came out I just got them from Theo (benefits of living in the same town as him). Hopefully I won't have to wait too long, but the BSD box is up and running nicely so I don't really have to upgrade it. I just like to play. :)

      --
      Be smart and work to create. Don't ride on the backs of others.
    3. Re:Placed My Order Already! Can't Wait! by SimJockey · · Score: 1

      The Ship??? Now I've seen everything at Slashdot. (I can see it out my front window. Definitely the best pub in Calgary by far.)

      Call me a newbie, but I didn't realize Calgary was such a hotbed of Open Source development. How can I not give it a try. Wish me luck :)

      --
      Laugh while you can, monkey boy!
  5. not to mention by pyg · · Score: 1

    ...improved OpenSSL integration and all the IPSec stuff.

  6. USB!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    whoa... they have USB support! I wish Linux had that... I guess I'll just have to be patient.

    -Too lazy to register

    1. Re:USB!?!?! by tialaramex · · Score: 1

      Can someone fill in how far along *BSD's support for USB is?
      I see a lot of references to it, on Linux-USB, but everyone's rather vague about just how much of USB (which is a big wide spec) has landed in the various BSDs

      Linux, I do know, will have HID (mouses, keyboards and stuff), modems, printers, some cameras, SCSI-like things and various other stuff in 2.4.0 when it arrives. Sound would be nice too, but that looks like a really eeevil specification.

      ISTR That enough of Linux's USB support was available at 2.2.x time for USB based iMacs to be usable, but maybe my memory is blurry.

    2. Re:USB!?!?! by BJH · · Score: 1


      Um... I may be wrong here, but IIRC, the USB support originally included with Linux/PPC was based on NetBSD's USB support.

    3. Re:USB!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it was based on the original Linux USB code by Iñaky Pérez González. This code was later replaced by a much simpler USB stack written by Linus.

      See http://www.linux-usb.org/ for more info.

  7. Not quite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oops...

  8. Here's my questions by the_tsi · · Score: 1

    Yeah, slashdot is a horrible forum for this and I know there's a dozen faqs and newsgroups, but the openbsd fans will be here in abundance and will love this chance to advocate... i hope. :)

    Do you guys support Aureal Vortex and/or SB Live?

    Also, I've heard about FreeBSD's linux emulation... does Open do this, too? How good is it? Can I run Netscape? How about unreal torney? :)

    -Chris
    (Someone who would LOVE the security of openbsd on the desktop, if it were possible)

    1. Re:Here's my questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      The SB Live stuff just came out and wasn't ready in time for 2.6. The Vortex is not publicly documented at all, as part of Aureal's continuing efforts to not have UNIX customers.

    2. Re:Here's my questions by Harbinger · · Score: 2

      Not sure about the sound cards ... All I've ever used is SB16.

      OpenBSD does have linux emulation (along with SCO, SunOS...) but I've never used it. I understand that you can get MEsaGL and Glide going so you can play Q2 & Q3. Not sure about UT.

      You can deffinitely get Nescape going. It's actually very easy. If you go to Netscape's ftp site, download the BSDi version. The easiest way to get with 128bit encryption is through the OpenBSD ports collection. Download ports.tar.gz from ftp.openbsd.org and untar/zip it in your /usr directory. Go into the /usr/ports/www/netscape (something like that) and type "make" then "make install". It will automatically ftp, install it and apply the 128bit SSL patch. Very cool. Check out all of the other things in the ports collection too.

      Hope this helps.

      Dave M

      --
      Be smart and work to create. Don't ride on the backs of others.
    3. Re:Here's my questions by Poodle+Fang · · Score: 1

      OpenBSD's Linux emulation works great. I am posting this with the Linux version of Netscape 4.7 running on a prerelease snapshot of OpenBSD 2.6. I just downloaded the communicator tar.gz from netscape's ftp site and ran their install script.

      But first you have to install the linux_lib port. I also had to snag a copy of libstdc++.so.2.8 off of a Linux box and put it in /emul/linux/usr/lib/, since Netscape relies on it.

      I think the Linux emulation should run most apps (unless they require kernel modules, like VMWare).

    4. Re:Here's my questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use OpenBSD. Let me tell you there are hardly any worthwhile newsgroups for helping with OpenBSD, unless you have some incredibly archane problem that specifically interests the other few groupies hanging around that you want solved in a few weeks.
      There are plenty of good FAQs tho.

    5. Re:Here's my questions by BJH · · Score: 1


      Use the OpenBSD mailing lists, rather than newsgroups. You'll usually get a response (if, sometimes, not exactly the kind of response you were hoping for) within a couple of hours.



    6. Re:Here's my questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a good idea. Thanks.

    7. Re:Here's my questions by Type-R · · Score: 3

      BLEH. It's much easier to just type:

      pkg_add -v ftp://sunsite.ualberta.ca/pub/OpenBSD/packages/i38 6/navigator-4.61.tgz

      Packages are your friend (right next to the ports being your friend ;)

    8. Re:Here's my questions by tacho · · Score: 1

      yes the linux emulation is very good.
      install /usr/ports/emulators/linux_lib
      also grab a libstdc++.so.2.8.0 from a linux box
      with this setup i am happily running netscape 4.7
      with the flash plugin under my OpenBSD.
      it is a great OS. i found that whenever i program
      in C, if the program compiles and runs on OpenBSD,
      the chance of it compiling and running on any other real OS (read: Un*x, Linux, etc...) are 99%

      -tacho

      --
      -tacho
  9. ISO Image? by mhm23x3 · · Score: 1

    Is there an iso CD-ROM image available for download? I haven't given *BSD a whirl in a while.

    --

    No sig.

    1. Re:ISO Image? by cymen · · Score: 1

      OpenBSD appears to be supported by donations and, drum roll, buying their CD-ROM. Because this is a very real form of support the OpenBSD team does not release an ISO image. The FAQ at openbsd.org has more details. I just installed v2.5 and have to say the sleekness of the complete install is very satisfying. It is running on an old 486 with a 314mb disk which is acting as a firewall and providing ip NAT to my LAN. Sweet! Now on to v2.6 in due time...

    2. Re:ISO Image? by Ptahian · · Score: 1

      And they should be supported in whatever way is reasonable for every individual.
      Here's an attempt to cut-n-paste from the aformentioned FAQ.
      ---
      3.1.2 - Does OpenBSD provide an ISO image available for download?

      You can't. The official OpenBSD CD-ROM layout is copyright Theo de Raadt, as an incentive for people to buy the CD set. Note that only the layout is copyrighted, OpenBSD itself is free. Nothing precludes someone else to just grab OpenBSD and make their own CD.

  10. New graphic for 2.6 by Duke+of+URL · · Score: 1

    I like the graphic style for OpenBSD 2.5 much better than the one used for 2.6 (or the other cartoon ones from the past.)
    The cartoon look seems to lower its credibility with PHBs and other people you have to deal with.
    I want to promote OpenBSD as much a possible, as a 'professionl-like' in quality to new users to BSD or open source software in general.
    Just my personal preference. I'm sure a million of you disagree with me (and will violoently tell me), but does anyone out there agree with me?

    1. Re:New graphic for 2.6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you. While the techs know better - the suits don't. We need to convince the suits

    2. Re:New graphic for 2.6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who got through elementary school knows not to ever judge a book by a cover. I think most suits have to go past elementary school (not sure about highschool though :).

  11. Artwork doesn't fit by Demian · · Score: 2

    Um... maybe it's just me, but the image of a cat rampantly having it's way with the fish in the bowl doesn't convey the notion of "security" very well IMHO. Admittedly, the picture is quite cool, but just incongruent with the rest of the cover :)

    1. Re:Artwork doesn't fit by norton_I · · Score: 2

      OpenBSD's mascot is the blowfish. If you are unlucky enough to be in the fishbowl, do you want to be the blowfish, or one of the spinless but colorful, and soon to be eaten fish?

    2. Re:Artwork doesn't fit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mascot? I know Blowfish algo. is important, but this is news to me.

    3. Re:Artwork doesn't fit by dourk · · Score: 1

      is it just me, or do the scales on that yellow fish appear very similar to a certain flag...

      --
      Wake up.
    4. Re:Artwork doesn't fit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh. I just saw their new title graphics on OpenBSD.

      Now we have a little war-monger blowfish. wee.

    5. Re:Artwork doesn't fit by Mark+Pitman · · Score: 1

      Now is the little devil guy the mascot for FreeBSD specifically, or for all BSDs in general? I notice a slight "devil theme" throughout all the BSDs, including BSD/OS from BSDi. Would it be inappropriate to put one of those little devil stickers on an OpenBSD box?!?!?

    6. Re:Artwork doesn't fit by demon · · Score: 1

      I hadn't noticed till you mentioned it... but now that I look at it again, you're right. It certainly does look that way. An intentional jab? :)

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
    7. Re:Artwork doesn't fit by Pope+Slackman · · Score: 1

      Nope, not inappropriate at all. :)

      The Daemon (he's not a devil) is the mascot of all the BSDs...
      Marshall Kirk McKusick (the guy that holds the copyright on the daemon artwork)
      has a page devoted to the little Beastie and his history.

      --Kevin

      =-=-=-=-=-=
      "I think the P-Funk Mothership just landed in my back yard!"

    8. Re:Artwork doesn't fit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      I think you are correct in your assessment of the yellow fish having the windows logo. The fish is quite bloated :). The stripes on the zebra fish are made up of Sun logos. And there is a penguin skeleton scattered amongst the remains. I assume the cat represents a cracker, considering that he has prison stripes. Who does the sucker fish, and that other tiny fish represent?

    9. Re:Artwork doesn't fit by j+a+w+a+d · · Score: 1

      it's just you, until you explain which flag? hehe. I see a flag, I don't recognize it.


      i dont display scores, and my threshhold is -1. post accordingly.

      --
      i dont display scores, and my threshhold is -1. post accordingly.
      Discuss /. policies
    10. Re:Artwork doesn't fit by Mark+Pitman · · Score: 1
      The Daemon (he's not a devil)

      I knew that, damn, why didn't I type it!

    11. Re:Artwork doesn't fit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The specific rendering of beastie used on the /. pages is FreeBSD's. OpenBSD advocates have been asking /. for ages to get a more suitable icon for OpenBSD. We've had the angelic daemon basically forever, and now that we have the ramblo, maybe it'll get easier. Just shows you how much linux-oriented /. is... One distinct icon for every bazillion linux distribution under the sun, and they can't bother to distinguish between the three BSDs. Shessh !!!!!

    12. Re:Artwork doesn't fit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's actually a "script kitty" attacking the bowl. Notice how the blowfish is one of the remaining fish...

    13. Re:Artwork doesn't fit by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      Btw, anyone who cares you can find a picture of the cover at: http://www.OpenBSD.org/images/openbsd26_cover.gif

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
  12. alright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    now where's my order form? A great Canadian product!

  13. Which To Use by nuintari · · Score: 2

    This is only vaguely on topic...

    I've been using Linux for a while now, but I know very little about *BSD. But I am becoming very intersted in getting into it as well. What would be the ideal BSD for me to start with? I have no real security needs, nor do I need to run on anything but x86 hardware. So, should I just go with FreeBSD then? Or would Open or Net be the ideal choice for a beginer?

    --

    --Nuintari

    slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.

    1. Re:Which To Use by pyg · · Score: 1

      Do them all!

      And don't just stop with *BSD, try out a couple of *real* Unix products. The results will suprise and educate you.

    2. Re:Which To Use by pb · · Score: 1

      FreeBSD would be the choice for x86-only, no heavy security, getting started.

      Or at least, that's what they tell me. I'd have to free up some space on my 8GB of Linux and stuff to check it out... Maybe when I get my next computer. :)
      ---
      pb Reply or e-mail rather than vaguely moderate.

      --
      pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
    3. Re:Which To Use by Mark+Pitman · · Score: 2

      I would say FreeBSD is best for a beginner. The install process is VERY much easier than OpenBSD. It took me a few times to get through the OpenBSD partitioning software. Not very intuitive at all, but once you get used to it, its not too bad. Beyond that, the OS itself is not much different to use than FreeBSD (or even Linux or another Unix really). I have been running OpenBSD on x86 and Sparc for about a month now and am really enjoying it. I plan on setting up a firewall for a business with OpenBSD in the next few weeks. I like the fact that the default install doesn't install so much crap, like certain Linux distros. I really wish someone would create a Linux distro that had similar functionality of OpenBSD. Is there one?

    4. Re:Which To Use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people will say open, just do to popularity on x86. I've never run Open or Net BSD, but I hear they make good systems on x86 too. I've heard OpenBSD can be tough or easy, depending on the background, on the person, and that so many people don't understand slices (or maye just hate OpenBSD's fdisk). For me, I like FreeBSD's installer a lot more than any Linux distributions, because there are the options you need and want, not crud and no restrictions (i.e., your not forced into minimum, standard, full).

      I'd say go to IRC and ask how Net/Open are. NetBSD really doesn't get the publicity it deserves. BTW, on NetBSD hardware support, it was the first UNIX to support USB, which was ported to the other BSDs, and likely to Linux too. So hardware support may not be to horrible, either.

      But don't listen to me or any other slashdot poster, go see what guys on IRC say, since they'll likely give reasons past the popularity contest.

    5. Re:Which To Use by Martin+Foster · · Score: 1

      As with most question, it all depends on what you wish to accomplish. I personally prefer OpenBSD because it is fairly secured by default. It is my favorite choice for anything server related... There are or were issues with UNIX socket connections with MySQL.

      FreeBSD is most probably your preferred choice if you plan to use the system with your desktop. I had attempted at one point or the other use OpenBSD as my desktop, but had very little luck moving GNOME or KDE over to that platform and not have problems.

      Since friends has a larger user base, the ports section (a nice feature of the BSD's) should make life easier to get a good desktop going. It also has more support for games et cetera.

      NetBSD, I have yet to try... But can be very useful if you want to consolidate multiple vendor hardware onto the same software. Of course, trying all of is probably the best way to determine your preference. My C0.02$

    6. Re:Which To Use by BJH · · Score: 1


      Take a look at Slackware. I've used the standard installer to install a very basic setup on a 48MB flash card.

    7. Re:Which To Use by technos · · Score: 1

      SuSe can also do minimalist installs easily. I've done installs (including X and basic X apps) in under 90 Mb. I've also done one totally stripped SuSe install in 51 Mb. (If I didn't use it EVERY log in, or it wasn't req'd for mpg123/cdparanoia, it wasn't installed).

      RedHat is much trickier than it used to be on installs of the small variety.

      However, I beleive Debian fits the criteria best.
      Offtopic: Can you still use the old

      --
      .sig: Now legally binding!
    8. Re:Which To Use by technos · · Score: 1

      /. clipped the comment for some strange reason. The last line should have read:

      Can you still use the old Slackware 97 type installer? Has it even changed? I loved that thing!

      --
      .sig: Now legally binding!
    9. Re:Which To Use by BJH · · Score: 1

      I have only vague memories of the Slackware97 installer, but the current one is, I believe, very similar (I know for certain that it hasn't changed significantly in 3.5, 3.6, 4.0 or 7.0), and I find it very easy to use.

      It's also very flexible; I installed 3.6 and then 4.0 on a IBM PC110 (486SX, 8MB RAM, 20MB flash for /, 260MB PCMCIA type III hard disk for swap, /tmp, /var, /home and /usr) that required all sorts of acrobatics (e.g. special disk geometry and ext2fs block size on the flash, special disk geometry for the HD, swap as a file rather than a partition, main install via NFS over a PCMCIA NIC), and it went in just fine. Try doing that with RH ;)

    10. Re:Which To Use by technos · · Score: 1

      No thank you! I'm not into that sado-masochistic 'Let Bob Young spank the HD with packages' thing..

      --
      .sig: Now legally binding!
    11. Re:Which To Use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definitely try FreeBSD first. OpenBSD and NetBSD will give you a worse impression, if you are not used to them (i.e. installation is more Real-men like, interactive response times are not so good).

    12. Re:Which To Use by mamato · · Score: 1

      actually, last year i tried the installation of all 3 *BSD's as well as a couple linux distros and OpenBSD was, IMHO, by far the "best" installation process!

      in most installations now-a-days (eg RH, windoze...), you put the CD in, reboot, click OK at a couple questions, let it do the work and hopefully after a bit of waiting, everything (OS, X, packages...) is installed.

      the main problem with this is that if something goes wrong (eg. you have a weird monitor and need to tweak things around before you find the right setting), you're most of the time screwed! you don't really know what went wrong, you often can't even go back and try a different setting.

      the nice thing about OpenBSD is that it's simple: in order to install it, well you first need to install the kernel and a few other required things (very minimal). and that's it, you're now done with the "installation" process.

      it's true that it's more involved than the click-and-pray method where everything is done for you (or hidden from you depending on how you look at it) by the script but on the other hand, you know exactly what's going on, you have total control, if you want it different, you can do so; if something goes wrong, you have a much better idea of where the problem is and fixing it will be a lot easier.
      since you know what happened during the install, you're also much better off to administer your new machine. with RH, after the install, you're as clueless about linux as you where before.

      once this very basic install is done (couple minutes) you can reboot and you have a functional machine. it runs great! you have no X, no apps but you can actually use it for a lot of things... maybe not play quake but figuring out what your install problem is, reading documentation are things that are _extremely_ useful to be able to do as you're installing...
      you can then start attempting to install X if you wish and since your machine is already up and running, you can actually look up READMEs on how to get stupid XF86 to work on your weird setup without having to go back and forth with your roommate's computer. you can try different setups without having to restart the whole install because your graphics card messed up the cheesy RH install script.

      if you want to install packages, you can do so anytime using the ports system (which rocks! and should be used for linux distros too!) just as you would install any package from then on. installing your first packages should in no way be different than adding extra packages afterwards, it just makes things more confusing for the novice user to have all these different ways to do the same thing at different times...

      the click-and-hope scripts a la RH are great if all you want is a linux machine which you're just going to use to surf the web (in a similar way that windows is kinda-great if all you want to do is use a word processor :) ).

      if you're a novice user and you actually want is learn more about how your computer works, how to administer it and how to fit it to your needs, the OpenBSD install is the best i've seen! it's simple and clear. it's true that it's lower level than others but you know what's going on and you learn tons from it.

      it doesn't start with the assumption that the user is too dumb to understand what's going on so it should do all it can to hide the details from you (as does MS and many linux distros more and more), instead it tries to make it as simple as possible so that you can actually understand the details (since you have to go through them yourself).

      i ran OpenBSD for quite some time and i didn't care a bit about all the security aspects. the only reason i chose OpenBSD over the other BSD's and linux is because of the elegance of how it dealt with things such as install and ports.

      linux distros could learn a _lot_ from it!

  14. Help urgently needed! by wsb · · Score: 2

    I been wanting to check out this BSD for sometime. But I'm curious as to what games are available for the console? Someone told me that I can't use the regular games, such as Pokemon, from my N-64. Can this be true? Why would Nintendo create a game console that is incompatible with earlier systems?

    By the way: I've been coding lisp for about twenty years and I've just switched to Python. For some reason I'm not more productive. I've been thinking about buying a new mouse with one of those twirly gadgets in between mouse buttons. Would this speed up my Python coding? I sure hope there aren't any compatibilty problems with the N-64 and the new mouse!

    Will the twirly gadget work with BSD?

    W S B
    --
    WSB
    1. Re:Help urgently needed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If nobody else belives you ... I do.. that was funny man :)

    2. Re:Help urgently needed! by Siridar · · Score: 0

      You truly are a gimboid. :)

  15. RTFM! by I+Hate+Myself · · Score: 0

    WHY DONT YOU JUST RTFM!?!??! FIRST POST FUCKER

  16. Has anyone made 2.5 Install? by belswick · · Score: 1
    We just gave up on installing OpenBSD 2.5 on an older PC that we wanted to make into a firewall router. We never got past the first boot from the hard disk, it fails on the first line displayed (Reading from device xxx).

    If anyone can provide a pointer to installation support for OpenBSD, we would certainly appreciate the help. The online instructions and readmes are no help at all. I would love to support the project by sending more money for the new version, but there's no point if you can't get to first base....

    1. Re:Has anyone made 2.5 Install? by Alejo · · Score: 1

      please post to misc@openbsd.org: 1) exact description of the hardware of the machine (cpu, mem, brand, HD, etc) 2) HOW u did the install (CD, ftp, etc) I'm pretty sure they'll help you. Alejo

  17. ANTI-LINUX PRO-BSD VIRTUAL POSTCARDS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  18. Cool, I got it before it went to the main page. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will be posted in about 30 minutes I think.
    They should make a regular section for "FUTURE STORIES" or something.

  19. The significance of this... by Matt+Bridges · · Score: 5

    As OpenBSD has been a lesser-known OS for a while, I am writing this post to tell any newcomers what it is all about. While to many this may seem like just another software release, anyone who has watched cryptography and security in general and OpenBSD in particular knows that this will have major significance throughout the industry. It may not be immediately apparant, or even obvious, but it will be important for the follwing reasons: 1. With the recent anti-cryptography crackdowns by the US government (see the article below this one on the investigation of William Simpson), having a complete system of VERY strong cryptography coming from outside our national borders, such as OpenBSD, will significantly weaken our government's efforts to stop cryptography. 2. OpenBSD is apparantly the only major OS that truly follows the saying, "Security is a process, not a product." Personally (and I know there will be much debate on this, possibly even flames), I believe that everyone from the Linux contributors to Sun (makers of Solaris) to, of course, Microsoft, could learn from the example of the OpenBSD team. For those of you unfamiliar with OpenBSD, here are a few examples of how the emphasis in this OS is almost entirely on security: A. Line-by-line security audit of *everything* that goes on the CD. B. Strong cryptography is built in on the most basic system level. C. All aspects of the default setup have undergone rigorous security testing. OpenBSD is, to the best of my knowledge, the only OS that can legitimately claim to be secure right out of the box. All of these factors combined have set a standard that the rest of the industry has yet to meet. Eventually, security will be seen as something not to be expected, but demanded in a product, and the OpenBSD philosophy will serve as a model for this shift. 3. Because many security flaws (such as potential buffer overflows) can cause security-unrelated crashes, the line-by-line audit also resulted in remarkable stability beyond just the security. I think we can all think of a certain software company that could learn from this example. 4. The overall view of the OpenBSD team that security as not just something that happens over time and numerous patches, but rather something to get right the first time, must be adopted by the rest of the industry as soon as possible. Anything less will hold back the advance of the Internet unacceptably. I hope that this has helped some newcomers to the OpenBSD world understand the underlying philosophy of this wonderful OS.

  20. Re:pro-bsd & anti-linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That made my shitty day very happy! Thank you!

  21. OpenBSD sold at local bookstores? by tgw · · Score: 1


    Does anybody know if the OpenBSD folks plan to have their product boxed up and sold off the shelf in local bookstores, like RedHat, Caldera, and many of the other Linux/BSD distributors are doing?

    I'd be interested in knowing if that is being considered. And, if so, what the timeframe on it is.

    1. Re:OpenBSD sold at local bookstores? by Harbinger · · Score: 1

      You can try to get the bookstore to order it. Just give them the ISBN number. I just did a quick scan of the OpenBSD web site and couldn't find it. They used have it posted for previous versions. Maybe mail Theo (mailto:deraadt@openbsd.org) to get it.

      Just an idea. Best of luck.

      --
      Be smart and work to create. Don't ride on the backs of others.
    2. Re:OpenBSD sold at local bookstores? by Mephistopholies · · Score: 1

      ISBN Number is..
      ISBN 0-9683637-4-1
      which is on the 2.6 Webpage

      --
      "We must not, my friend, be the bubbles of our own liberal sentiments"
      --John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson
    3. Re:OpenBSD sold at local bookstores? by The_Messenger · · Score: 1
      As it says on the OpenBSD page, you can give your local bookseller the supplied ISBN number and request that they stock it.

      Larger chains, such as Borders and Barnes&Noble, may special-order it for you, but I'm pretty sure that it won't be a "normally" stocked item unless corporate decides that it will be.

      You might have better luck with a university bookstore.

      I know that some of us have very good reasons for not mail-ordering, but look at the page; they offer a few options. It's direct, fast, and is probably to best way to make sure the team is getting the money they deserve.

      You mention it being sold as a "boxed product". Red Hat, et al, sell their products boxed because of the inclusion of detailed manuals aimed at "beginners". Red Hat 6.0 came with a 410-page installation guide, with descriptions of every RPM included. It also came with a 288-page "Getting Starting Guide", showing beginners the basics of GNOME and Linuxconf.

      OpenBSD is saving you a lot of money by opting out of the fancy packaging. You can probably find all the documentation you need on the web and the appropriate newsies. Or pick up a few O'Reilly UNIX books if you have the cash.

      Hope this helped. If any OpenBSD people are reading this, please correct me if you are planning on selling a "boxed" version.

      --

      --
      I like to watch.

  22. "BSD vs LINUX" - PLEASE, SOMEONE WRITE A FAQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So all of these incessant nagging questions can be referred.

  23. Warnings about OpenSSH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AFAIK, it doesn't support TIS, and other SSH goodies.

    1. Re:Warnings about OpenSSH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OpenSSH-current supports skey/TIS on the client side and skey on the server side. Could you be more specific on the 'other goodies'?

  24. What do you want? A rainbow-colored window? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If anyone fails to grasp the usefulness of openBSD because of the CD cover art, they'e a lost cause.

    1. Re:What do you want? A rainbow-colored window? by Duke+of+URL · · Score: 1

      as mentioned in the subject title..
      What do you want? A rainbow-colored window?

      Heck no! Just seeing that little window picture-thing gives me intestinal cramps.

  25. Re:penguin skull? by NickGully · · Score: 1

    Note the penguin-looking skull over the www
    Hey guys, can't we all just get along? ;)

    -Nick "Who told you I'm paranoid!!!" Gully

    --
    Have GNU . . . Will Travel
  26. Re:Hi people. by Duke+of+URL · · Score: 1

    Did you RTFM grit-pouring-person? It may truly get even better if you follow the details specifically laid out in the FM (the manual).

    Thank you for your question. Please drive up to the next window.

    ...By the way this is supposed to be a stab at humor. Oh and by the way grit-person, have you ever thought about getting counseling?

  27. Will it work on my laptop (with PCMCIA) ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    I would like to try OpenBSD on my laptop, but I need to be able to use my netcard, modem and scsi controller which are all pcmcia cards.
    Will they work with OpenBSD ?

    1. Re:Will it work on my laptop (with PCMCIA) ? by Mephistopholies · · Score: 1

      Yes , PCMCIA cards will work I use 2.6 on my Thinkpad 755CE currently. Make sure and check the README.i386 (assuming you have an i386 of course) for suported NICs and SCSI controllers.

      --
      "We must not, my friend, be the bubbles of our own liberal sentiments"
      --John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson
    2. Re:Will it work on my laptop (with PCMCIA) ? by ninjaz · · Score: 2

      It's impossible to say since you haven't specified which models they are. There are devices in each of the categories you metioned listed in the release notes for the i386 port, though, at http://www.openbsd.org/i386.html

  28. Business people are not babbling morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one with a high school education is going to shy away from a product because of the cover art. This entire argument is ridiculous.

    1. Re:Business people are not babbling morons by Foogle · · Score: 2
      You may think this is stupid, but 1) I have a high-school education and 2) I would consider the cover-art of a commercial product before buying it. Certainly it would not be a primary factor in my decision-making, but it does play a role.

      My reasoning? The quality of design in packaging conveys to me the amount of effort that was put into the whole of the product. Not just the coding, but other things like support, interface design, etc... It's possible that this might cause me to misjudge a product. Oh well, their loss. Most of the stuff I use is Open Source anyway, and in those cases there usually isn't any cover-art to speak of.

      -----------

      "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

    2. Re:Business people are not babbling morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I would consider the cover-art of a commercial product before buying it

      Then don't buy OpenBSD. Secure your network with a more serious looking CD.

    3. Re:Business people are not babbling morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Come back and argue that when you've finished your high school education.

      And "business people are not babbling morons?" They aren't people to begin with.

    4. Re:Business people are not babbling morons by Foogle · · Score: 2
      What did I say about Open Source? Well, it's too late anyway. I've already installed OpenBSD 2.5 as a firewall/NAT in my office. It's working quite nicely too.

      -----------

      "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  29. hmm by SRT · · Score: 1

    I can not think of anything of value to say except OpenBSD rules. It has never let me down. Give it a try!

    Thanks to all those that worked hard to make it what it is. I have no idea what I'd have done without it.

    Everyone that does use it like me should buy some t-shirts to help support the project :)

  30. Anyone know where I can get an ISO image? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone know of any ftp sites carrying an ISO Image of 2.6 yet?

  31. Where to get ISO images? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where can you get an .ISO of this?

    1. Re:Where to get ISO images? by guacamole · · Score: 1

      The whole distribution is on ftp.
      If you have the bandwidth and a cd burner, nothing stops you from making your own bootable .ISO image.

  32. Re:Slashdotters always find something to bitch abo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're only human Spock. General appearances do play a role, no matter how suttle. Its why some people shower and comb their hair.

  33. Still worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as long as it fails to support SMP on IA/32.

    C'mon, OpenBSD, it's not like SMP boxes are actually uncommon these days....

    1. Re:Still worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      `Volunteers', is that a word you know. Get me an SMP killer-box, and I'll do my best to get OpenBSD SMP. Unfortunately
      • SMP is hard to do.
      • SMP changes are pervasive, throughout the whole kernel.
      • SMP means quite some debugging to do.
      The OpenBSD team is rather small, we're all very busy with lots of things, and nobody took a real try at tackling SMP yet...
    2. Re:Still worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SMP is hard. FreeBSD has simple SMP working now (little to no threading in the kernel, though). Give it a year or two and it will cross-pollinate to NetBSD and OpenBSD.

    3. Re:Still worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please! We are so fast we don't need more than one CPU!

  34. OpenBSD and Linux - compare? by soulhuntre · · Score: 3

    We are a small Internet development shop, running a few servers and a mixed bag of development stations. Currently, there are three Linux boxen on our network, running the latest RedHat releases. We are looking to put in three more systems, for a total of 5 running some Linux/UNIX like OS.

    When we perform this upgrade, we are willing to change operating systems if there is a demonstrable benefit. Due to recent slashdot postings we have started looking at OpenBSD as our server OS. Now, we do understand that RedHat is not the only Linux distribution available, but we don't really want to get into a Linux/Linux war here. We don;t mind changing if we should for technical reasons - but the Linux world seems more hip and vibrant, and we really like the penguin T-shirts we have... so if we can stay on Linux then we want to.

    So far, we like what we hear about OpenBSD - but we don't know if the things we like are inherent in the relative designs of OpenBSD or if they are results of policy choices by the OpenBSD team. If they are the results of policy decisions, then with any luck a Linux distribution could be found that exhibited the same characteristics?

    Features we like about OpenBSD:

    • It seems like the release/testing cycle is extremely carefully controlled. While a freewheeling machine with lots of OpenSource code on the desktop is a good thing, for a server it seems that a smaller group exercising testing/release control is a more controlled system.
    • The integrated crypto looks great, the one time use passwords look like a big winner here.
    • There are a lot of references to OpenBSD's security and stability - but none with any specific examples or technical backing.
    • The file layout on OpenBSD seems like a winner, it looks like things live in a well thought out and logical set up - not in a mishmash like RedHat.

    Assumptions:

    These systems will be running the server software they need, and X11 + (Gnome||KDE) for administration and so on. They will not be running the latest stuff from Linuxberg or a bunch of things that would be on a desktop OS. So we are going to try very hard not to introduce any instabilities. We aren't going to be compiling running games, sound drivers and the like that integrate directly into the kernel.

    The questions are:

    1. Is OpenBSD more secure in some fundamental way that a well maintained Linux distribution?
    2. Is OpenBSD more stable than a well maintained Linux distribution?
    3. Will the OpenSource software we normally need (firewall, Apache, PHP4, Perl, Python) and so on probably compile on OpenBSD?
    4. Does OpenBSD have something like clustering support (Beowulf) and failover?
    5. Is the performance of a well maintained OpenBSD system better than a well maintained Linux distribution?
    6. Does Linux have anything like the one time use password system?
    7. Does OpenBSD support multiple CPU's better then Linux?

    Thanks for taking the time, and hopefully we can keep the flames down to nothing and talk about technical issues this time.

    --
    --> Fight tyranny and repression.... read /. at -1!
    1. Re:OpenBSD and Linux - compare? by ninjaz · · Score: 5
      These systems will be running the server software they need, and X11 + (Gnome||KDE) for administration and so on.
      I think X/(Gnome|KDE) a bad idea on a network server regardless of the operating system. My reasons for thinking it's a bad idea are:
      • video hardware (& its drivers) tends to be one of the touchiest areas of a system, best avoided if you're not using it as a workstation,
      • You're wasting resources that could be used for serving on your X environment (especially with some of those new-fangled screensavers ;)
      • It's better to understand configuring the system the *right* way - via the command-line tools and configuration files. That way, you can keep multiple versions in case something goes wrong and you need to back out a change.
      Now, with that out of the way..
      Is OpenBSD more secure in some fundamental way that a well maintained Linux distribution?
      The audits of source code would seem to imply that. If you'd like some data on the subject, visit the vulnerabilities section of http://www.securityfocus.com/ Have it show you the vulnerabilities of OpenBSD and of a few Linux distros so you can compare. Of course, unless you're allowing shell accounts, the external (network) security of either mostly depends on what daemons you're running and how they're configured.
      Is OpenBSD more stable than a well maintained Linux distribution?
      Both a well-maintained Linux server and a well-maintained OpenBSD server should be stable. There may be less scheduled downtime with OpenBSD if there's a kernel-related security issue in Linux, but in my experience with OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD, Linux and Solaris, all of them have been stable (current standard uptimes here around 6 months).
      Will the OpenSource software we normally need (firewall, Apache, PHP4, Perl, Python) and so on probably compile on OpenBSD?
      Yes, and /usr/ports/ is there in case a change does need to be made to something for it to compile (i.e., the patches are automatically applied when you type make
      Does OpenBSD support multiple CPU's better then Linux?
      No, it doesn't support them at all. If you want multi-cpu support with a *BSD, try FreeBSD.

      One thing that BSD is currently very helpful with on the x86 architecture is large file support. The Linux limit is 2gb, so your MySQL databases are limited to that size.

    2. Re:OpenBSD and Linux - compare? by dadams · · Score: 3

      1.Is OpenBSD more secure in some fundamental way that a well maintained Linux distribution?
      One of the OpenBSD project's principals is proactive security. They go through all the code for core part of the OS, including the kernel, and look for things that might cause problems.
      2.Is OpenBSD more stable than a well maintained Linux distribution?
      Probably not. The BSD model of releases is most like Debians, where everything's frozen and all bugs are chased out and then there's a release. BSD installs (at least Net and Open) tend to be fairly minimal, but additonal software is easy to add.
      3.Will the OpenSource software we normally need (firewall, Apache, PHP4, Perl, Python) and so on probably compile on OpenBSD?
      Yes. The ports tree is a wonderful thing. Firewalls are done a little differently then under linux, but it's mostly just subtle things.
      5.Is the performance of a well maintained OpenBSD system better than a well maintained Linux distribution?
      Probably not. BSD uses a different scheduling model than Linux, so there's bound to be some difference, but it's not much.
      6.Does Linux have anything like the one time use password system?
      Yes. There's something called OPIE telnet.
      7.Does OpenBSD support multiple CPU's better then Linux?
      OpenBSD doesn't support SMP. FreeBSD does, but it's not as "secure"

      --
      --"In dreams begin responsibilities" - Delmore Schwartz
    3. Re:OpenBSD and Linux - compare? by kijiki · · Score: 1

      FreeBSD's SMP support is roughly similar to Linux 2.0.x's. Not too good unless you have two compute bound tasks. Once you start hitting the kernel, the BIG_ASS_LOCK is grabbed, and everything serializes.

    4. Re:OpenBSD and Linux - compare? by soulhuntre · · Score: 2

      First off, I want to thank everyone who has taken the time to respond so far. Just when I was despairing of /. as a useful information medium a great set of responses comes along.

      So a lot of looking into it and I have definately decided to go with an *BSD for our servers. With the 2.6 OpenBSD release this looks like a good time to plan our move.

      Then another issue hit me in private mail from a /. reader....

      OpenBSD or FreeBSD ?

      This is a question we have been asking ourselves as well.

      OpenBSD advantages

      • Most strenuous proactive code review
      • Integrated cryptography
      • Canadian legal advantages

      FreeBSD advantages

      • Greater ports library
      • More populare support for hardware
      • More common support options
      • The FreeBSD team watches OpenBSD carefully, so security is note ver far behind OpenBSD
      • More "linux like" installation software

      Anything missing?

      --
      --> Fight tyranny and repression.... read /. at -1!
    5. Re:OpenBSD and Linux - compare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      1.Is OpenBSD more secure in some fundamental way that a well maintained Linux distribution?


      No. The fundamental reason OpenBSD claims security is that it continuously conducts proactive line-by-line audits of code. Some Linux distributors (RH, for one) have been doing the same thing, so there's no fundamental difference between the two....

      OpenBSD does have one advantage, in that it's not based in the USA, so is free to include crypto in the base OS. However, it's just as easy to install Linux + ssh + mod_ssl + ... as it is to install OpenBSD, so this is mostly a moot point ;-)


      2.Is OpenBSD more stable than a well maintained Linux distribution?


      No. And, in my experience, OpenBSD is less stable than FreeBSD or Linux on Intel, and much slower to respond to bug reports (if they respond at all). That's to be expected--it's a much smaller operation, so not as many eyeballs to make bugs shallow....

      3.Will the OpenSource software we normally need (firewall, Apache, PHP4, Perl, Python) and so on
      probably compile on OpenBSD?


      Yes. The firewall code is different from what Linux uses, but similar in functionality. One area where *BSD is far behind Linux, though, is in QoS stuff. If you're using that under Linux, you might as well forget right now about migrating.

      4.Does OpenBSD have something like clustering support (Beowulf) and failover?

      Not out-of-the-box. Failover you should be able to hack w/o too much work. Beowulf-type stuff would get you fame and fortune. ;-)

      5.Is the performance of a well maintained OpenBSD system better than a well maintained Linux
      distribution?


      No. In fact, it's likely to be worse (again, because of the smaller development pool). For example, IDE under OpenBSD 2.5 still doesn't use DMA. That particular issue shouldn't affect you, as you shouldn't be using IDE for servers, but it's an example of a larger issue to keep in mind.

      6.Does Linux have anything like the one time use password system?

      Yes, though no distribution includes them out-of-the-box.

      7.Does OpenBSD support multiple CPU's better then Linux?

      It doesn't support them at all (at least on Intel). If you need SMP, you'll need FreeBSD, but its SMP support is much worse than Linux SMP.

    6. Re:OpenBSD and Linux - compare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, if OpenBSD's focus is security, FreeBSD's focus is stability. Of course all these are relative words, but FreeBSD is seen to handle high loads better than anything on the Open Source market(Walnut Creek,...).

      FreeBSD's linux emulation is also probably further along than that of OpenBSD.(even VMWare runs in FreeBSD now).

      FreeBSD has reasonably good Java support(1.1.8 JDK with 1.2 around the corner).

      Finally, the SMP and threading situation is about to take a leap forward with the release of 4.0, the creation of a kernel threading system(probably for 4.1), and reduction of the big kernel lock.

      A code auditing project has also begun for FreeBSD to make it more "secure."

      Plus, FreeBSD's mascot has stayed closer to the original BSD daemon which is cooler than an oversized spikey fish(although spikey fish are pretty neat...). :).

    7. Re:OpenBSD and Linux - compare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The file limit was removed in 2.2 I believe, or perhaps 2.3. I recall reading somewhere you can get around the file limit.

    8. Re:OpenBSD and Linux - compare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your answers seem uninformed, and rather more like an application of beliefs than real experience. Saying performance is "likely to be worse" is letting your dogma speak. If you have little or no experience with OpenBSD, which seems to be the case, why not let someone else answer questions you're not qualified to answer?

      I mean, come on.

    9. Re:OpenBSD and Linux - compare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your answers seem uninformed, and rather more like an application of beliefs than real experience.
      Saying performance is "likely to be worse" is letting your dogma speak. If you have little or no
      experience with OpenBSD, which seems to be the case, why not let someone else answer questions
      you're not qualified to answer?

      Um, you presumptuious fuck, I do happen to have lots of OpenBSD experience.

      And the simple reality is that it's a much smaller project than Linux or FreeBSD, and tends to be far behind them in terms of features, some of which impact performance (eg, the DMA for IDE drives that I mentioned. You know, that's an actual fact, unlike anything in your post. But why let facts get in the way of your determination to see all the world as bigoted?).

  35. Re:Ship, Calgary and OpenBSD by Flynn · · Score: 1

    Harbinger... good sir... long time no chat... The CD's look great and so do the T-Shirts... finally a wardrobe change.... :) Cheers...

  36. Quick answers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5
    1.Is OpenBSD more secure in some fundamental way that a well maintained Linux distribution?

    Without a doubt. Use RedHat as an example - out of the box, it is shamefully exposed.

    It is perfectly reasonable to assume that a linux distribution could be made as secure as OpenBSD, if the effort was made

    2.Is OpenBSD more stable than a well maintained Linux distribution?

    Generally speaking, both are considered stable enough to not make it a significant issue, although the increased competition in the linux distro market will force more frequent releases and less testing. Look at the flack Debian is catching for their slower release schedule.

    3.Will the OpenSource software we normally need (firewall, Apache, PHP4, Perl, Python) and so on probably compile on OpenBSD?

    Of course. There is no question that the packages you mention will work well on OpenBSD. Some of the packages you mention are developed on a BSD variant.

    4.Does OpenBSD have something like clustering support (Beowulf) and failover?

    No.

    5.Is the performance of a well maintained OpenBSD system better than a well maintained Linux distribution?

    This really depends on what you are doing. For network performance, I put my chips on BSD. For other system functionality (disk throughput, etc.), linux may be better. It really depends on the type of application.

    6.Does Linux have anything like the one time use password system?

    No.

    7.Does OpenBSD support multiple CPU's

    The BSD's are making some inroads with SMP, but linux is out ahead.

    1. Re:Quick answers by pyg · · Score: 1

      This comment should be moderated up... This AC answers a number of good questions acurately.

    2. Re:Quick answers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1.) I definetely agree OpenBSD is more secure than RH out of box, however, in this person's particualr case, he doesn't seem to be looking for a shell box. If these boxes are not oging to be open to untrusted users, I would say that their is no difference in security since from that point on security is soley based on security of the daemons being run. Your response to #6, is incorrect. It can be done, just not setup by default. (see PAM).

    3. Re:Quick answers by Roundeye · · Score: 2
      6.Does Linux have anything like the one time use password system?

      No.

      Actually, you're wrong. Check out OPIE

      --
      "Cause there's 40 different shades of black, so many fortresses and ways to attack, so why you complainin'?"
  37. Please Moderate this one up..(wasRe:Quick answers) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    could someone please moderate this up it is seemingly well thought out unbiased opinion.

  38. I may be cheap, but... by tpck · · Score: 1

    I would love to try OpenBSD, but I can't afford the $30 they want for the CD.

    I understand they need all the money they can get, but $30 (USD!) seems excessive. Factor in shipping, and the exchange rate, it thats like $50 CAD. It would be nice if they had a lower student rate or something, so all of us starving student types could get a shiny new CD and support the cause. Ah well.

    I might buy a t-shirt though. Only $16 USD. :)

    1. Re:I may be cheap, but... by Pope+Slackman · · Score: 1

      Eh, the $30 seems to be more of a donation...
      Anyways, I'd rather give my cash to a nonprofit organization
      than a for-profit business any day.
      (Especially an organization with such a great product!)

      Not to mention, you can download the whole thing
      for absolutely nothing. I think it even does FTP
      installs... (At least with the sparc version, but I
      don't see any reason i386 would be different.)

      --Kevin
      (Happy OpenBSD/Slackware/IRIX/FreeBSD user...It's ALL good! :)

      =-=-=-=-=-=
      "I think the P-Funk Mothership just landed in my back yard!"

    2. Re:I may be cheap, but... by Mephistopholies · · Score: 1

      It is FREE... So you CAN use it.It is nice if you can support the cause via monetary means; but if you can not I am sure they appreciate your code and your thanks...

      --
      "We must not, my friend, be the bubbles of our own liberal sentiments"
      --John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson
    3. Re:I may be cheap, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick answer - Cheapbytes.

    4. Re:I may be cheap, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Cheapbytes CDs are not the same as the ones released by Theo.

    5. Re:I may be cheap, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are BSD versions available on CheapBytes for a lot less. There isn't a 2.6 release yet, but I suspect there will be soon.

      But the base distribution is far smaller than for most Linuxes. Just download the binary packages over a few evenings. That's how I first started using NetBSD.

    6. Re:I may be cheap, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my personal experience, I would have to agree here. I've actually installed the earlier version of OpenBSD (2.3 I believe) onto a machine. I still am having trouble installing the 2.5 CD I bought direct from the OpenBSD site a month ago.

      I'm running OpenBSD on one x86 box, FreeBSD on another, and NetBSD on two x86 boxes. Slackware still gets a box too, but not indefinitely.

    7. Re:I may be cheap, but... by rageout · · Score: 1

      Cheap bytes doesnt ship US versions. None of the good cypto will come w/ it

  39. I hate to bitch but... by pyg · · Score: 2

    WTF: the artwork is the #2 issue about OpenBSD? How the fuck did this get to where it is? Come on people, this is an OPERATING SYSTEM, not an advanced form of cosmetology (sp?). Besides, I think the cat/fishbowl thing rocks regardless.

  40. Make your own. by guacamole · · Score: 1

    Full OpenBSD distribution is available on FTP, if you have tools, NOTHING stops you from making your own _bootable_ OpenBSD ISO image, I have done that, it took 5 minutes to figure out how.

    1. Re:Make your own. by Shanep · · Score: 1

      So can you enlighten those that are less gifted in the required knowledge or point them to a howto, etc?

      I don't need it as I support them with CDROM and T-Shirt purchases. But the knowledge would be nice regardless of the usage.

      Thanks.

      --
      War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
  41. you can download it for free from ftp.openbsd.org by xinos · · Score: 1

    or many of the mirror locations.

  42. The Cat by Pope+Slackman · · Score: 2

    Hehehe...The cat is a 'Script Kitty'! :D
    (Really. It mentions it in the T-Shirt section...)

    --Kevin

    =-=-=-=-=-=
    "I think the P-Funk Mothership just landed in my back yard!"

  43. Code review not a cure-all by borkbork · · Score: 1

    A line by line code review is great, and I would agree that OpenBSD is the most secure OS you can get your hands on, but it cannot prevent all possible exploits

    If you think you can just install OpenBSD and not have to know a thing about security, you need to get you head checked.

    --
    ---- There is a fine line between sayings that make sense.
  44. Love the T-Shirts! by xinos · · Score: 1

    Now I know what I am asking Santa for Christmas!

  45. Common problem (Re:Has anyone made 2.5 Install?) by yabHuj · · Score: 1

    If the older PC (like mine) has installed an Adaptec 1542 and a Soundcard (SB compat.) then the system will hang during probing as IO address 300 is default for both cards.

    It might be a good idea to start with a completely "stripped" PC - only with video card and HD controller.

  46. looks like a pretty old exploit to me ... by xinos · · Score: 1

    followed the link to find:
    "Vulnerable Systems: OpenBSD 2.2 and earlier"
    If you are running software that old ... well, nuff said.

    I agree that you can't prevent all possible exploits. However ...
    installing the latest version of OpenBSD and applying all the posted security patches is going to make your system pretty darn secure.
    (even if you don't know much about security)

    now if you go and start changing the default install without security knowledge you are asking for trouble.

  47. I guess that means... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    only idiots use RedHat ;)

  48. Natedawg's OpenBSD 2.6 installation report by NatePuri · · Score: 4

    Well, I just finished installing OpenBSD 2.6 Nov. 30 snapshot (which would probably be pretty damn close to the release if not identical. OBSD developers can chime in if I'm wrong.

    Here's what I have.

    1. Dell Inspiron 3000 notebook PC
    2. ~144 MEG RAM
    3. 200 Mhz Pentium (i586)
    4. Neomagic Magicgraph 128
    5. Linksys 10/100 PCMCIA NIC
    6. Megahertz cellular modem
    7. 13' 800x600 display capable of 24bpp


    With a few minor adjustments to BIOS (i.e., changing from the settings I had with Linux and FreeBSD on the same machine to switch IRQs for my serial devices, PCMCIA was supported by the default install floppy.)
    I had installed OpenBSD 2.5 and gave up on it, because I needed a working system in short order and did not have time for the learning curve, so I was used to the partioning scheme.

    Here's my secret recipe for OpenBSD's partioning scheme: Go download kern.flp and mfsroot.flp from FreeBSD's site and boot those. Pick the 'Novice' install, which will then lead you to FreeBSD's partitioning which is automatic. Then after FreeBSD is done doing the newffs on your HD, pop out the floppy, pop in the OpenBSD install floppy and reboot.

    Then when OpenBSD asks you for partioning, it's already done, and you can just change the labels and mount points with 'p' to see your partitions and 'n' to rename them.

    boom bam bing... *woop* there it is. Reboot.

    X11R6 was easily configured now that Neomagic is well supported in 3.3.5. APM is well supported in both BSDs.

    Brief performance review.

    In a nutshell, OpenBSD is slightly slower than FreeBSD on the same hardware, which was slightly slower (but not much) than Debian GNU/Linux on the same hardware. Here are the applications I run always. I'm a law student, so my main needs are text editing, archiving and searching.
    1. Bash 2.03
    2. WindowMaker 0.61.1
    3. Wterm xxxx
    4. Midnight Commander
    5. Nedit
    6. Mutt
    7. GnuPG 1.0/PGP 2.6.3
    8. OpenSSH (now running on FreeBSD and Debian)
    9. WordPerfect (w/ linux_lib) (runs flawlessly on all OS's).
    10. glimpse
    11. Navigator 4.61
    12. Lynx-SSL
    13. MagicPoint (presentations)
    14. xlockmore (stop staring over my shoulder! I know my desktop looks better than yours, go away)


    Whenever I test a system, I always use my laptop b/c it's what I like to use most, and my goals are to have X, pcmcia, and apm running flawlessly.

    In Debian, X and pcmcia worked great, but when I would suspend my box I would have problems with pcmcia modules and would have to insmod them or rmmod them and re-insmod them. This was an annoyance. I eventually got a hold of a script that allowed me to disable pcmcia before suspending. I would then have to run the script again to reinitialize pcmcia; I quickly grew tired of this.

    Enter FreeBSd 3.3. Went and bought it, and downloaded the PAO install floppies and the PAOBIN pcmcia drivers. This was very nice and great, I loved everything about FreeBSD except for one thing, the pcmcia drivers seemed to treat my pccard as a 10baseT rather than 100. That kind of sucked. I knew eventually my legal work would require an IPSec network so I moved on (I highly recommend FreeBSD). It suspended and resumed like a breeze, the clock had not lag upon resume, and the pcmcia daemon reinitialized all pccards excellently. Very Nice. And FreeBSD has the best collection of applications for GNUstep of any Unix I've seen (much better than the Linuxes I've used).

    Enter OpenBSD 2.6.

    Yesterday I downloaded and installed OpenBSD. Everything that applies to FreeBSD applies to OpenBSD except in OpenBSD my pcmcia card is supported better (I have full bandwidth on my LAN). APM, etc are excellent.

    Drawbacks. I miss my FreeBSD WMaker desktop! But I think the FreeBSD ports I want will work on OBSD so that I can have the best of both worlds.

    OBSD's ports collection is not as vast as FreeBSD's, and it's package collection is no where near that of a Debian or Red Hat. But that is for a reason. What you get is secure, and they have everything you *really* need. All the applications I mentioned above that I use on a daily basis are all in OBSD with the exception of Midnight Commander, which I will try to make use of FreeBSD's port. I will also try to make wmapm, wmnet, and wmmon from FreeBSD work in OpenBSD, then I will be quite satisfied.

    Speed. There is a noticable speed reduction with OpenBSD. It is not as optimized for my hardware as FreeBSD was. But my hardware is not all that spectacular anyway so it was never all that fast to begin with. Compile times are roughly the same. However, for some reason X has never performed better, even with FreeBSD. Opaque moves have no hint of jerkiness

    Bonus. OpenBSD recognized my sound card! This is new. If I can make that work, I'll really be an OpenBSD fanatic. Another added bonus is mount_ext2fs. This allows floppy transfers from Linux to OBSD, something that FreBSD does not have yet.

    In sum, OpenBSD is perfect for a Desktop OS if data security is really really important to you (i.e., if you carry confidential material on your laptop around with you). There's enough applications for document creation that you could need, and with linux_lib all things linux are possible. And binary compat with all other BSD's is there as well. OpenBSD is solid, super secure, and I'm breathing easier now that I know my client materials are under the blowfish ;).

    Later y'all.
    1. Re:Natedawg's OpenBSD 2.6 installation report by Q*bert · · Score: 2
      I'm a law student

      You rule. I wish all lawyers were as technically adept as you. I hope you can find a way to use your skills in the defense of on-line freedoms and cryptography, and against wiretapping.

      Best of luck, and thanks for the informative report!

      PS: How does anyone find time for all that hacking during law school? ;)

      Vovida, OS VoIP
      Beer recipe: free! #Source
      Cold pints: $2 #Product

  49. Time to put open bsd on my masq box by ghazban · · Score: 1

    Ok, now that there is a new release, I won't have any qualms putting open bsd on my 486 for NAT. I like the idea of an ultra secure firewall for everday browsing ;-).

  50. init by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been using OpenBSD on a couple boxes for a while now. I love the stability and security of it. And the BSD ports system has a lot going for it. One thing I really hate about it is the init system, though. SysV init is so massively better. Anyone know a good replace the init on a BSD box? ;)

  51. IT'S A TRAP!! by The_Messenger · · Score: 1
    Don't you see? It's just Evil Genius Bill Gates again, trying to start a flame war on Slashdot!

    In the immortal words of Cartman's Sensei,

    "RESIST THE ASS!"

    --

    --
    I like to watch.

  52. PCMCIA and suspend by BJH · · Score: 2

    My Toshiba notebook loses its sound interrupt after suspending, but it's not too hard to set up apmd to rmmod stuff that doesn't handle suspend well, and then modprobe for it when you come back from suspend. Give it a try - worked fine for me.



    1. Re:PCMCIA and suspend by CyberELF · · Score: 1

      I think it's more a hardware/BIOS problem than a problem with OpenBSD, as even under windoze 95 the same problem happens.

    2. Re:PCMCIA and suspend by Roundeye · · Score: 2
      I have seen the same thing under RH5.2,RH6.0,RH6.1, Mdk6.0, Mdk6.1, and heard it reported under Debian, TurboLinux, and SuSE.

      Other than sound, PCMCIA networking is often reported to suffer on sleep/resume.

      --
      "Cause there's 40 different shades of black, so many fortresses and ways to attack, so why you complainin'?"
  53. Re:Hi people. by seaportcasino · · Score: 1

    Why is that the the BSD and Linux people can never get along? It seems like it is all the same cause to me!

  54. Now I'm mad... by moonboy · · Score: 2

    I ordered OpenBSD at the beginning of October (then at version 2.5) and it still hasn't arrived. When I sent an email to see what the problem was, I was sent a reply stating they were have "production problems" and that they were 2 weeks behind schedule. I sent that email at least 2 weeks ago and still no software. This is somewhat understandable, but now they have released v. 2.6. This makes me more than a little angry considering that 2.6 seems to be a considerably better product. Yeah, I know that this release would still be out even if I had my 2.5 release right now, but it just adds to the adjitation a little. Oh well.


    Anyone know where I can get an .ISO?? I tried to find one of 2.5, but it was virtually impossible. I know about helping to support the developers by purchasing. No problem with that. They have my $45 and change (I also bought one of their cool shirts) but, I still have no software. Wo is me :-(

    ----------------

    "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein

    --

    Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
    1. Re:Now I'm mad... by AgentX · · Score: 1

      You can get a i386 or sparc or alpha .iso of 2.5 at: ftp://ftp.nuri.net/pub/FreeISO/openbsd/

    2. Re:Now I'm mad... by daniel-san · · Score: 1

      Have you tried CheapBytes? I'm not sure they have the *exact* image, but I was going to buy 2.5 from them.. for under $5 (plus shipping and handling).
      I know there are 2 actual CD's from OpenBSD's shipment, but with Cheapbytes, you get one... I don't know what they're cutting out - but if you want it cheap, they're the way to go. BTW: I've bought RH 5.2 from them before, and it's great.
      Now I'm waiting for the 2.6 CD's to show up...

    3. Re:Now I'm mad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey - give them a break - sh*t happens. A bad batch of CD sets (the 2nd disk was just a dupe of the first) was accidently shipped in September. It took a while to burn new ones and catch up with the backlog of orders. The fixed set shipped last week, but only to fill backorders as 2.6 is out now. If you're in a hurry you can order a 2.5 set from fatbrain.com and they will send it overnight :-)

  55. Something's fucked up... by Mawbid · · Score: 1

    ...when a someone who would take that into effect when selecting an OS for an important server has any part in selecting an OS for an important server.
    --

    --
    Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
    1. Re:Something's fucked up... by NickHolland · · Score: 1

      Plenty of precident for this. Think of an server OS which has been selected for many uses for no (apparent) reason other than "Oh, the GUI is cool" or "Play solitair on the server!", and is now used on mission critical apps including stranding battleships at sea.

      This seems to have decayed into a non-positive posting. Sorry.

      Nick.

  56. USB is here and working by ^BR · · Score: 2

    The only quirk is that Xfree86 support for USB mices has been added after the 2.6 freeze, so you'll have to CVS upgrade and recompile your xserver to use those funky M$ ballless mices...

    1. Re:USB is here and working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..though there might be quirks around. Last I talked to fgsch, there didn't seem to be USB joystick support around. Oh well, I shouldn't whine. It's just a case of buying the joystick and leeching the needed code off NetBSD or FreeBSD. The basic infrastructure is there, just means adding support for one specific peripheral suddenly becomes damn easy. Just a question to wait until somebody debugs it :) And, apparently, USB mice work right now. I haven't bought one yet, but I'll be able to check that rather soon (that's a boon for laptop owners)

  57. Review by cmc · · Score: 2

    We don't have to waste -core's time with having them review each and every update to the kernel sources (though there are obvious cases). Basically we have to use our own judgement. If it's something simple, like ripping out unused declarations or whatever, it doesn't need -core review.

    You probably either misunderstood the way review works with FreeBSD, or who -core is.

    In any case, hopefully this clears it up.

  58. Re:Hi people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats just plain funny!

  59. Re: Mailing lists by Cato · · Score: 1

    You can read or search the OpenBSD mailing lists via deja.com - see
    http://www.deja.com/query_profile.xp?QRY=openbsd &ST=IF&DBS=2

    for a list of OpenBSD-related mailing lists that have been gatewayed into news. I'd guess the gatewaying is 2-way so you should be able to post to these newsgroups and have it pop up on the mailing lists.

    If you're actively using OpenBSD you probably want to be on the mailing lists directly, details at http://www.openbsd.org

  60. and that would be " S U B T L E " by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the little things that make a difference.

  61. 2.5 graphic == homoerotic art by mister_jpeg · · Score: 1
    Did anyone besides me think that the cop theme was a little creepy?

    Big rounded nightstick.... those weird contour lines around the crotch... that smirk that reminds you of the Village People singer.... u-u-u-uh-h-h-h-!

    I'm just glad that's gone.

    --
    -jpeg
  62. Multia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before i spend my money, does it support the graphic console (i.e. keyboard) of the multia?

    Their "Free" cousin sure doesn't.

    I don't figure I will call them today. Does anyone out there know?

  63. Re: Line-by-line security audit by Fabian+Kroenner · · Score: 2
    A. Line-by-line security audit of *everything* that goes on the CD.

    Not completely true!

    Only the OpenBSD OS and a portion of the Ports & Packages that are on the CD are audited. The majority of the Ports are just that: working Ports of the respective Software. Just want to make sure that people (new to OpenBSD) installing third party software (like Ports) are not left alone with a false believe of security. :)
    However, running insecure software on a secure OS could potentionally reduce the effect, but it remains dangerous, nevertheless.

    Major Kudos to the OpenBSD team - a job very well done!

  64. Let's see more OpenBSD stuff by daniel-san · · Score: 1
    This is very cool. I'm glad to see more posts and info about OpenBSD. I've actually started using OpenBSD less than a month ago. I run a server (currently on RH 5.2 with patches roughly to 6.0) and I wanted to incorporate security. I've patched up my RH box as best as I could then, but I noticed that out of the box, RH Linux is quite insecure. (Of course simply installing OpenBSD won't make your system secure - you've gotta know what you're doing and continue to update your system as exploits are found.)
    Anyhow, I did an FTP install of OpenBSD 2.5 on an internal "testbox" and I was impressed. I had first read the "review" at Linux.com, and was intrigued yet "concerned" about the unfriendly partitioning program (I just didn't have the time at that time. Yeah, so I wanted a PartitionMagic type of thing... so sue me.)

    However, I got my brother (high school, and *not* a Unix guru) to install it... heh heh. He got it up in one night (although messed up the swap partition setup).
    I'm running it on a P100 with a 1.7 GB drive (anyone want to donate old Pentium, Pentium Pro hardware??) on a 100TX internal network.

    After I reinstalled it, I started looking at the ports, and installing other programs. I am very impressed! I thought I'd miss the RPM way of installing - but the "make" function automatically updates or gets the latest version -now that rocks.

    The docs, man pages are Excellent! They've really paid attention to what's going on. The install and the post-install process is very tightly integrated - check the afterboot man page, for example. I like the layout of the files - it's not a big "mess" like in RH where you go, "What the heck is this for, and this, and this..."

    But seriously, I'd like to see more info about OpenBSD!! When I checked for OpenBSD here on /. about a week ago, there were only some 3 posts about it. I'd like to know what other servers out there are running on OpenBSD - I'm really interested in which e-commerce sites run it.

    I'm still going to run RH behind my firewall, but OpenBSD has garnered my respect... So cheers Theo and gang!

  65. Make your own? by NickHolland · · Score: 1

    I managed to "make my own" on my Windows-based CD-ROM burner (I haven't transitioned it to a real OS yet). I downloaded the appropriate files from the site, and after a serious "Doh!" momement, remembered that .tar.gz is "equivelent" to .tgz (if you download them in Windows, don't forget that you have to end up with ISO9660 file names!), put them all in a directory called:

    \2.5\I386

    and it worked great. (My burner machine/software wouldn't make a bootable CDR off the OpenBSD boot disk. I used the floppy boot disk)

    Cost me a couple blanks to get it right, but it worked. 8-)

    I'd guess they probably held up your 2.5 order to send you the new 2.6 version (this is JUST a guess). I put my 2.6 order in a week or so ago. We'll see how long it take. I'm not too worried, myself. I found the FTP install worked great through my Cable Internet Access, I was just sending them money because I think it was worth supporting some people who have put some serious work into a very good project.

    Nick.

  66. Real Unix by NickHolland · · Score: 1

    Out of curiosity (NOT flame!), what is your definition of *real* Unix?

    A friend of mine contents that AT&T is the "One True Unix". I've seen people argue that *BSD could, due to the development history, be "A True Unix (but you could get sued if you say so)". SCO, as owners of Unix Systems Labs could probably claim to be Real Unix. Anyone I'm forgetting?

    It sounds like you have something in mind, just curious what? Esp. curious if it is something other than the ones I have mentioned! You refer to "a couple", I'm guessing you aren't one of the "One True Unix" people. 8-)

    Diversity is good.
    Nick.

  67. Modern C++ and OpenBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    One important point that somehow didn't make the announcement is (drumrolls) gcc 2.95.1 which was the most current stable distribution of gcc available at the time. There have been quite a few problems with the linker/assembler debunked in the process of upgrading. This does mean a huge improvement in C++ support. Lots of things that were hard to compile suddenly work. Also, the current state of the compiler is much closer to the official Cygnus/FSF gcc release. Yes, most changes have been folded back, and the remaining changes are either policy disagreement with the FSF, or bug-fixes that weren't yet in gcc 2.95.1.

  68. "holding back at Theo's request"? by gbroiles · · Score: 1

    That sounds like the sort of BS I expect from traditional media, and it's exactly the sort of thing Slashdot is ordinarily good for - working around journalists who spin and release stories to suit the needs of businesses instead of their readers, or because they want to emphasize the special access they've got with publishers that ordinary people don't have. Can you imagine holding back on a story because Microsoft PR or AOL PR people suggested it would be better for them if you just sat on it for a few hours or a few days or a few weeks?

    OpenBSD is a wonderful thing, but I'd hate to see Slashdot endorse a double standard for treating some software vendors with kid gloves and others with skepticism. If you keep that sort of thing up, we'll just end up with a new version of slashdot, and you guys can just do some sort of cross-license with the other lapdog media. ZD-dot, anyone?

  69. Devil-free! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a relief to see OpenBSD coming to its senses. Don't you just hate those daemonic-looking things? Nobody likes them, and finally OpenBSD has gotten the sense not to follow the BSD crowd and do something different. I'm sure this will boost their product support!

    1. Re:Devil-free! by NightParrot · · Score: 1

      Look a little closer at the fishbowl itself.

  70. Re:Hi people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shutup you fucking Linux lamer

  71. OpenBSD software raid (ccd) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    One problem with BSD that I have noticed is that its a largely undocumented entity, and making anything useful happen on it is short of a magic.

    In particular, trying software raid with some old software. I am not sure which language that ccd man page is written in, but the whole mess is short of impossible to do. Maybe one day FreeBSD will have a large "howto" tree like Linux does.

    1. Re:OpenBSD software raid (ccd) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm, no. FreeBSD is amazingly easy to learn, you just need to leave the GUI world for a few days.

    2. Re:OpenBSD software raid (ccd) by mr_null · · Score: 1

      undocumented? how's that? ever used a man page? I only have OpenBSD so I can't speak for the others, but if you want to do it, there is probably a man page on it. like man skey, or man ipsec, or man md5, man ccd (which looks to me like it's written in plain english)

  72. sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I ordered my cd last night, along with the oh-so-geeky-cool tshirt with the cop on it =) After spending 12 hours last night playing with my 486 router/firewall (OBSD 2.5), I cannot say enough good things about OpenBSD. If youve been curious about it, try it out and slap it on a unused box. With my rather humble experience (the uptime is 12 days now) with OpenBSD, I can say:
    1. It seems a tad slower than Linux or FreeBSD, but this is on a 486. Plus its my gateway, so speed isnt an issue.
    2. I got ipnat and ipfilter up and running much faster than I got ipmasq running.
    3. OpenBSD supported my 2 NICS, which Slackware couldnt detect properly. =(
    4. Out of box security rocks!
    5. I will be using OpenBSD for my servers next time, and stick with Linux on my workstations.
    Dont flame, these are just the ramblings of a man with no sleep whos been programming for too long =)
  73. OpenBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have any of you experienced OpenBSD freezing during the boot process? This happends when I try to install it. Starts loading and locks up. My other machine it installed fine. This is Ver 2.5.

  74. XFree86 is falling behind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is too bad that XFree86 4.0 STILL is not out. I thought it was going to be released this fall? I'm surprised that they even bothered to put the XFree86 3.3 in bold on the CD cover. Personally, I think it is embarressing that there still isn't a multi-headed support standard in any of the open source operating systems. It almost seems like the XFree86 group is competting with the Yggdrasil "Ground Zero" project for stagnation award of the year.

  75. [not very] sad, but true by The_Messenger · · Score: 1
    As someone who has had to deal with more Pointy-Haired Bosses(tm) that is fair at my tender age, I will tell you that many of them would let unprofessional cover art count against a software product. All of mine would, at least.

    This being said, I fully support the catoony, "fun" look that OpenBSD uses. (Linux too.) I think that "Script Kittie" is hilarious! LOL every time I read that. :-D The product speaks for itself. A fun mascot gives the product personality. And makes marketing easy. Every time I see a penguin now, anywhere, I think of Linux.

    But...

    Major corporations and the executives that run them are very conscious of appearing professional. Ever wonder why many of them expect employees to wear ties to work?

    So unfortunately, even though a BSD or even a Linux distro might be more appropriate for a company's specific applications, many will choose a big name, "professional" UN*X like Solaris.

    And I don't have anything against that. I like Solaris. But you have to admit that when a suit (particularly one who doesn't exactly know what he's talking about) is reviewing Solaris, the name recognition and professionalism help.

    My preference? Screw the execs and keep the fun cover art. Go Kittie go.

    --

    --
    I like to watch.

  76. There are no ISO's! Here's why! by Plankeye · · Score: 1

    From the very beginning, Theo has been very much against releasing ISO's. He says that ISOs hurt the progress of OpenBSD by not encouraging people to purchase the CD.

    A link to a long discussion on this topic is below.

    http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=x37.deja.com,ST_ rn=md]/jump/http://x37.deja.com/=dnc/viewt hread.xp?AN=521151289&search=thread

    Plankeye

    --
    Who the hell told Carrot Top he was funny?
  77. artwork explained (?) by The_Messenger · · Score: 1
    A lot of people don't seem to "get" the artwork. This is my take:

    As we know, the cat is "Script Kittie" (har har). He's looking to get some fish. In the fishbowl, we see Blowfish, the mascot of the OpenBSD crypto. Script Kittie (a security threat) will "choke" on Blowfish (OpenBSD crypto).

    Is it just me, or does the fish bowl look like the GNU gnu? Perhaps they're lambasting Linux's lack of security?

    I think Script Kittie is great. Whoever came up with that, good job! ;-)

    --

    --
    I like to watch.

    1. Re:artwork explained (?) by kjd · · Score: 1

      Haha.. I didn't even catch the Script Kitty the first time around.

      The bowl looks like [Chuck,Beastie,The BSD Daemon]'s head to me. The yellow fish's scales are made of Windows logos (Note the spikey collar. Present but poor security?). The zebra fish's stripes are made of Sun logos. Also note the penguin skeleton in the middle of the fish carcasses.

    2. Re:artwork explained (?) by The_Messenger · · Score: 1
      Exactly! And only Blowfish will cause the Kittie trouble. ;-)

      Very clever. Much better than that cop.

      --

      --
      I like to watch.

  78. artwork explained (i think) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    A lot of people don't seem to "get" the artwork. This is my take:

    As we know, the cat is "Script Kittie" (har har). He's looking to get some fish. In the fishbowl, we see Blowfish, the mascot of the OpenBSD crypto. Script Kittie (a security threat) will "choke" on Blowfish (OpenBSD crypto).

    Is it just me, or does the fish bowl look like the GNU gnu? Perhaps they're lambasting Linux's lack of security?

    I think Script Kittie is great. Whoever came up with that, good job! ;-)

    anyone agree/disagree/want to flame me?

    1. Re:artwork explained (i think) by eightball · · Score: 1

      The fish bowl is definitely the BSD demon mascot.

  79. Don't buy CDS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They rip you off, fags.

    1. Re:Don't buy CDS by wb8wsf · · Score: 1

      It would be nice if you'd back that statement up with some kind of information. However, I suspect your logic is a eloquent as your writing is, which spares us the possibility of enduring a rant from you on this. $30 is *cheap*. Look what Windows costs--three times as much. Look at what Windows NT costs... Please help support the OpenBSD team.

  80. one more thing by The_Messenger · · Score: 1
    Just thought I'd add that yes, I know that Red Hat offered (and still offers) the "hard-core" boxed versions, with just the CDs and no docs. But you usually won't find these versions in computer stores. Your local CompUSA probably stocks the "regular" version, and possibly the "Power Tools" version. No one stocks the hard-core versions because:
    • they'll get less money from the consumer, and
    • most consumers buy the "regular" version, because
    • no one who shops at CompUSA could live without the documentation! ;-)

    Just my two yen.

    --

    --
    I like to watch.

  81. ok, i'll feed the troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    actually, sysv init sucks.

    1. Re:ok, i'll feed the troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why?

  82. Re:pro-bsd & anti-linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    shut the fuck up you emo fag.

  83. Buy the CDS! by AntiBasic · · Score: 1

    Fags? They rip us off? By charging a mere $30 for the CDs? Ergh, I'm mad at myself for even dignifying his childish comment.

  84. Re:Hi people. by seaportcasino · · Score: 1

    My point exactly...

    "Hey, can't we all just get along?"

  85. Open BSD not invulnerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I expect to see a rash of exploits after this.

  86. Re:Quick answers - no actually YOU are wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    REQUIREMENTS:

    * A UNIX-like operating system

    * An ANSI C compiler and run-time library

    * POSIX.1- and X/Open XPG-compliance (including termios)

    * The BSD sockets API

    * Approximately five megabytes of free disk space

    It requires the BSD sockets API

  87. Re:Ship, Calgary and OpenBSD by Harbinger · · Score: 1

    Ay ay Flynn... 'tis been a while. I'm still thinking about comming out to visit you in March. Could I sleep on your cot in the basement (and bask in the warmth of your PCs...)? Cya

    --
    Be smart and work to create. Don't ride on the backs of others.
  88. Re:Mene Mene Tekel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Upharsin

  89. Re:Quick answers - no actually YOU are wrong by fwr · · Score: 1

    Even Windows has "BSD sockets." I don't think this refers to requireing a BSD OS.

  90. Re:FIRST POST!!! by hypatia · · Score: 1

    BTW, anyone know of a good website comparing Linux to the BSDs?

    Here's some Linux v FreeBSD arguments - but it's FreeBSD advocacy - mostly.