OpenBSD 2.9 Released 110
Well, the mirrors have had overnight to update, so I suppose we can announce that OpenBSD 2.9 is available. The release notes and changelog contain details of what has changed and improved. For our newer readers, OpenBSD is a BSD flavor that concentrates on security - they aim to be the most secure server operating system.
Re:So does this contain IPF or not? (Score:1)
I see they fixed lots of security issues... (Score:1)
Again, it's good to see someone paying so much attention to security in their OS.
Re:"Open" should include "accessible" (Score:1)
You're a leech, as are 99.99999999% of all free software users.
Re:You know what this means.... (Score:1)
Re:*bsd performance ? (Score:4)
OpenBSD is all about being done corectly, and from that, comes it's security. SMP is extremely hard to do completely corectly, they have only so much man power, so they haven't bothered.
Re:Linux to BSD: Warnings (Score:2)
I find this hard to blieve, given the charismatic leader of the project . . .
hawk
Re:Linux to BSD: Warnings (Score:2)
Are you suggesting that Theo *is* charismatic? I thought it was pretty clear that I wasn't referring to specifics, but the notion that he and anyone might not get along . . .
hawk
Re:UNIX Vs. UNIX: (Score:3)
>os's from. we had to toggle the instructions in >by hand on the front of the system t give the >thing enough smarts to talk to the paper tape >drive which
for crying out loud, if you're going to try to make these kind of comments, at the very least don't use those moronic microsoft characters . . .
besides, you're still claiming to be a newbie. Toggle switches indeed. And *paper* punched tape? An unreliable replacement for stone tablets.
hawk
Re:UNIX Vs. UNIX: (Score:2)
Now I know you're only 13, but man are you naive. Most trivial programs will compile without too many problems, and some non-trivial programs as well. However, unless they're written with portability in mind (and the vast majority of programs aren't), porting can involve a considerable amount of work. Many of the problems come from non-POSIX/SUS interfaces that have the same name, but different arguments (or worse, the same arguments but different semantics) between OSes. getmntent() is a good example. Other problems come from the use of system specific interfaces, such as doors on Solaris.
Re:Is an ISO available? (Score:1)
Re:Anything to look-out for? (Score:2)
Sorry, forgot it is less then a year old. Try the 1999 paper Soft Updates: A Technique for Eliminating Most Synchronous Writes in the Fast Filesystem [usenix.org], I think you can get that one.
I don't really think the Usenix membership is worth $50/year to get the lame newsletter, access to the proceedings is pretty valuable, and their conferences are quite good. In addition to learning about soft updates the 1999 conference taught me a lot about how select sucks, how to make it suck less, and that not all of CA is a warm paradise.
Re:Anything to look-out for? (Score:3)
Sure they did. They write-back cached data writes to disk. They write-through cached metadata disk writes (and blocked other writes until metadata writes completed). That would leave your filesystem in a mostly consistent state, and not suck too hard in the event of a power failure. The other choices are ignore the possibility of filesystem damage from power failures (or panics), I think Linux's EXT2 did that, or maybe just did it by default, or to log metadata changes (XFS does that, and I heard EXT3 does too, but I'm not sure).
Softupdates carefully orders disk writes, and can if needed reconstruct the proper intermediate state for a metadata block. It has the performance of a totally async filesystem (i.e. somewhat higher then a logging system), but the stability of a logging system (i.e. better then the previous sync filesystem). It is also the major foundation for filesystem checkpoints and in-the-background fscks (possibly coming in FreeBSD 5.0).
The other change they made (dirperf) had to do with directory block placement, I think the old algo attempted to put them close to the datafiles, and with larger caches this is no longer a win, and has become a loss. I haven't read any papers on it or anything, so I don't know a whole lot about it.
OpenBSD is secure in part because they are conservative in adopting new features. Two years ago softupdates was pretty new, and leaving it out let FreeBSD, BSD/OS, Solaris, and NetBSD experience the teething pain (as a BSD/OS beta user at the time softupdates was rolled in, I felt some of the pain, but it wasn't too bad, never had any data loss from it, unlike soft-read-only which I think was killed).
Re:Anything to look-out for? (Score:3)
I doubt that number was. For some real benchmarks you can look at Journaling Versus Soft Updates: Asynchronous Meta-data Protection in File Systems [usenix.org] from the 2000 Usenix Procedings [usenix.org]. In addition to having useful info in and of itself it has references to other information. You can also try McKusic's home pages [mckusick.com] he may have newer info that, and does have some info about the experimental checkpointing.
I don't know about dirperf though. Never seen a paper on it.
Re:NT to OpenBSD (Score:1)
Re:*bsd performance ? (Score:1)
Could you explain this? How can using multiple processors create security risks, if it's done correctly? The only answer that I can think of is race conditions, but I don't see that being a problem if the SMP support is carefully programmed. This statement especially seems like a troll when the page you link to says that the OpenBSD project is implementing SMP....
Am I missing something? (Score:3)
I though Theo dumped ipf [slashdot.org], but from the release notes:
So, is all forgiven, or what?
Re:NT to OpenBSD (Score:1)
Re:*bsd performance ? (Score:1)
Here are some server tests from a Byte article:
There are several articles on Byte.com
http://www.eoenabled.com/byte-itdev/default.asp?i
look for the one entitled: Byte > Column > Linux 2.4 vs FreeBSD 4.1.1 > For Servers: Linux 2.4 vs. FreeBSD 4.1.1 > January 30, 2001
Its results may surprise little daemons and penguins alike.
Re:I see they fixed lots of security issues... (Score:1)
It's not in the vocabulary of 99% of OS developers , and is what makes OpenBSD superior.
Re:IPF and OpenBSD 2.9 (Score:2)
ENOSENSEOFHUMOUR (Score:2)
Re:Linux to BSD: Warnings (Score:1)
Im a linux guy myself, with solaris admin experience as well.. I agree with everything you say, but I take exception to that paragraph.
The goal for real world server is uptime, reliability, and configurability. And those all mean useing standards. Even if you could tweek a bit of performance out of a box, your probabaly better off leaving it alone.
Thats not to say that recompiling a kernel isnt necessary. And there are a lot of options (in the linux kernel at least). But if your sugesting that you should go into the source for tweeks, then your just opening yourself up for problems.
Re:Is an ISO available? (Score:2)
It's already being done. Does OpenBSD feel undermined?
In any event, Linux manages to thrive despite it. RedHat manages to make money despite it. Perhaps it's time for Theo to quit saying "it would kill the project" in light of the body of evidence that it'd do the exact opposite.
ftp://ftp.zedz.net/pub/varia/OpenBSD.iso/
-
Re:Linux to BSD: Warnings (Score:2)
"OpenBSD is great for a firewall/Nat machine, or high security nfs/web/mail server, but it ain't no workstation for the rest of us."
I've been using OpenBSD on my desktop exclusively since the mid-2.7 cycle after having it on other machines since 2.3.
It's secure, robust, and stable. My 104 day uptime on my main machine with ~25 users capable of using X and VNC through an SSH tunnel will be gone today for the 2.9 update. Quite stable indeed.
It's Linux compatibility works very well, it's ports collection is growing fast (if a port doesn't exist yet, try a freebsd port, it will likely work)
I sleep very well knowing that if I missed something, Theo and the boys have very likely covered my backside.
grubRe:Linux to BSD: Warnings (Score:2)
I find this hard to blieve, given the charismatic leader of the project . . .
Character assassination is silly. Just because someone tells you to RTFM when you ask "why does backspace print ^H?" doesn't make it any less friendly. Conversly, it helps you become less dependent on others and helps keep the lists S/N ratio quite managable.
grub
Re:Linux to BSD: Warnings (Score:2)
I find this hard to blieve, given the charismatic leader of the project . . .
Character assassination is silly. Just because someone tells you to RTFM when you ask "why does backspace print ^H?" doesn't make it any less friendly. Conversly, it helps you become less dependent on others and helps keep the lists S/N ratio quite managable.
grub
Re:Linux to BSD: Warnings (Score:2)
"obviously you haven't read much of Theo's postings..."
Yes I have, but I can be as big an asshole and think it's great that he calls a spade a spade.
grub
Anything to look-out for? (Score:2)
Re:NT to OpenBSD (Score:1)
The other *BSDs do it that way, Solaris does it, I think IRIX does it, AIX doesn't though (but then again, AIX uses it's fancy volume manager by default).
Oops! (Score:2)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:*bsd performance ? (Score:3)
I think that fully utilizing multi-processing might, indeed, pose debugging problems that haven't been addressed sufficiently for the OS kernel to use them. There are, however, alternatives.
E.g.: Run the OS on one CPU, and have it task user (non-superuser) jobs to whatever processor is less busy. Keep all jobs decending from one particular process on the same CPU (e.g., forking would not be allowed to spill-over from one CPU to the next). A few similar restrictions.
Now it is true that this would prevent the full capabilities of a multi-CPU processor from being used (on any one login stream). On the other hand, it would drastically simplify analysis. Most of the problems have already been thoroughly addressed. Etc. (If I said any more, I'd start showing how thoroughly ignorant I am, buy my guess is that the real reason for missing multi-pu support is that fixing the multi-processor issues requires a lot more time and effort than is available.)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:Linux to BSD: Warnings (Score:1)
I use OpenBSD as firewall on one PC and as desktop on another since 1 year and like it! Already the man pages alone make it worth. Here's a screenshot from my wide-screen 21" Sony FW900 [t-online.de]
Re:*bsd performance ? (Score:1)
how many high-traffic web servers run OpenBSD? How do they overcome the lack of SMTP botteneck? Or do the majority of high-traffic web sites use an SMTP-capable version of BSD?
SMTP = Simple Mail Transport/Transfer Protocol. SMP = Symmetric Multi-Processor. And a " lack of STMP [sic] bottleneck" would be a good thing! No need to overcome it..
Re:You know what this means.... (Score:2)
I don't like Microsoft. I don't like Windows. But if OpenBSD being under the BSD license keeps some Windows users from being cracked, then that alone is worth all of the FUD and SHIT from the "freedom==restriction" GNUzis.
Re:You know what this means.... (Score:2)
Absolutely wonderful! That's the whole beauty of unrestricted licenses like the BSD and MIT.
You see, information has a special nature. It wants to be free. It can be infinitely copied. It costs nothing to reproduce. IT CANNOT BE STOLEN!
Let the companies take the source! Nothing they can do it can possibly harm it. Fold, spindle, mutilate and relicense your copy. Let them charge $1200 a copy, and have 20 page EULAs. My copy is right here! Unchanged! Still Free! Ha ha!
Re:Is an ISO available? (Score:1)
Just download and burn the relevant bits, i.e. the install CD comes with SPARC binaries and a boatload of precompiled packages that you won't need.
Or just download the boot floppies and do an FTP install.
Take a look at INSTALL.i386 for detailed install instructions.
If that's too much bother then you might want to reconsider installing OpenBSD at all... It's not newbie friendly, the developers have other priorities.
Re:Linux to BSD: Warnings (Score:3)
>help, not much. Even USENET isn't THAT helpful.
>You need need to get used to reading man pages...
>a LOT.
That's intentional. The idea is that all OpenBSD documentation should be available from the man pages instead of scattered over man pages, info pages, FAQs, and HOWTOs.
Opinions vary, to me that's a "feature", but I freely concede that some consider it a "bug".
Re:Linux to BSD: Warnings (Score:2)
Re:*Open*BSD? (Score:1)
Re:So does this contain IPF or not? (Score:1)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:5)
a few weeks ago. The CD burning factory needs more
than a couple of seconds to burn all those CDs.
At that time, the ipf thing hadn't started.
The release is the same as the CD contents.
Therefore, 2.9 has ipf.
Re:Anything to look-out for? (Score:3)
http://www.openbsd.org/29.html
...and also http://www.openbsd.org/
2.9 incorporates filesystem improvements that net a 60x performance increase.
Additionally, the new version of ipf that it contains fixes serious security holes with fragmented packets.
HTH.
Re:You know what this means.... (Score:2)
Firstly, you really think that BSD source could just be dropped into Windows with its totally different internal architecture?
Secondly, free coding for Microsoft implies that you wouldn't be getting anything more than satisfaction out of it. Even if somone does use your source, though, the community still has it! A major argument against limiting software distribution seems to be that it's creating artificial scarcity - well, you'd only lose that code if there was real scarcity. There isn't.
Thirdly, I don't care. If I help a fellow programmer then I'm pleased. Heck, I spent _ages_ trawling code archives earlier today to find some odd function and it's the same principle here. I want to help others... If I help improve the experience of normal users through my code, same again.
BSD code is good.
security? right. (Score:1)
The OpenBSD project has brought a number of useful things into the world, though. Even Red Hat uses OpenSSH now, and if you don't use OpenBSD anywhere, you probably are using code they've audited or written. Thanks guys!
Re:Linux to BSD: Warnings (Score:1)
It's one thing to make it clear to someone that they are wasting your time and should do their own research. It's another thing to insult them in the process.
Re:"Open" should include "accessible" (Score:2)
Is this a joke?!? (Score:1)
---
Re:Linux to BSD: Warnings (Score:1)
There is a general aura of pissiness from the community. You're expected to thoroughly research every problem before asking for their help. Like I said, the documentation is your best friend, not fellow OpenBSDers. This certainly encouraged me to be very self-sufficient, but I spent many an hour scouring documentation looking for help with undocumented problems.
You don't want to be asking AOL questions on the tech mailing list, thats for sure. On the other hand, if you can hire an OpenBSD contributor for a little consulting to help you get oriented, you'll do well. More useful advice for companies than home users, I guess.
Re:UNIX Vs. UNIX: (Score:2)
I had to walk uphill, both ways, in waist deep snow.
NT to OpenBSD (Score:1)
I moved from NT to OpenBSD about a year and a half back. (Kind of a radical switch, eh?
Cheers,
Mat.
*Open*BSD? (Score:2)
SCNR
IPF and OpenBSD 2.9 (Score:5)
IPF was removed from 2.9-CURRENT. This DOES NOT effect 2.9-RELEASE, from which CDs were mastered a month ago.
Re:*bsd performance ? (Score:1)
Re:Linux to BSD: Warnings (Score:1)
Re:I see they fixed lots of security issues... (Score:1)
OpenBSD installs with a minimum of services running, syslog, sendmail running only to listen locally and send remotely, and a couple of other services required for running (init, etc). Even a full install of the entire system including xwindows, the same limited number of services start.
Compare this with a few other vendors, full install leaves your system running with apache, fully functional sendmail listening everywhere, ftpd, nntpd, xfs, xdm, etc.
Most likely, the fixed buffer overflows are in programs that are not running after a default install. They make no guarantees about what happens once the user gets in and starts mucking around with stuff.
Re:Has anyone looked at the errata page? (Score:1)
Re:Anything to look-out for? (Score:2)
Re:Is an ISO available? (Score:1)
try FreeBSD (Score:1)
Re:*bsd performance ? (Score:1)
The core team also doesn't have many SMP machines to do the testing on. But there are some people who are working on it. I don't have a link, but I remember Theo, or one of the core members, mentioning several things that would have to be done to enable SMP properly. I am not a programmer, so I don't have all of the details, but you could contact the SMP team, and inquire them for status, and for any assistance you can offer.
No, I meant recompiling your kernel (Score:2)
Compiling an OpenBSD kernel isn't fun, but is necessary. For example, OpenBSD only uses 5% of memory for cacheing the drive. Now if you have obscene amounts of RAM, this is adequate. If you have little RAM, this is important so you have memory for your applications.
IF you have a moderate amount, say 256MB or 512MB, you probably want to have more space for disk caching, so you need to recompile your kernel.
More specific issues requrie more tuning.
Alex
You're right, I mispoke (Score:2)
However, don't be an asshole.
I didn't mean what it sounded like.
The buffer cache is set too low. I realize that the page cache grows, but the buffer cache at a higher level does a tremendous affect on performance. I don't know why exactly, but I know that each server has a sweetspot, and you want to get a decent chunk of your RAM reserved for this process.
The default is too low for a machine with moderate memory amounts. The O'Reilly book covered this.
Personal attacks whenever you catch someone in a brain fart isn't really polite, is it?
Alex
Linux to BSD: Warnings (Score:5)
There are no binary patches. If there is a security whole, you can patch the source tree and rebuild. Alternatively you can shut down the services. There are patches to OpenBSD, and applying them requires more knowledge.
Web support sucks. The FAQ, etc. provides some help, not much. Even USENET isn't THAT helpful. You need need to get used to reading man pages... a LOT.
Init: rc style. I think that that the rc system is infinitely more manageable and sane in a BSD environment than a SysV environment, but YMMV.
Community support. The mailling lists are key, but they are much less friendly. Advocacy isn't a priority. If there is a question answered somewhere in the documentation, you'll get told RTFM. If the docs aren't what you are looking for and need a different level of help (more/less tech than the man pages) you may or may not get it.
Apache and mod_ssl are built in. The ports collection is solid. It may not be huge, but I've found just about everything I want there. Keeping ports up with the snapshots is a nice way to get up to date userland code.
Kernel compilaton IS necessary for a server. If you put real iron on the box, or little iron, you'll need a custom kernel. The settings for OpenBSD are reasonable and will run all but the weakest machine. However, getting it to take advantage of more memory, etc., may require some tweaks.
I love OpenBSD, but it is NOT Linux. There is no community bent on global domination. Lots of "Open Source" projects are Linux specific... fortunately its just the crappy ones. However, you'll find annoying issues like cronolog not compiling, no PHP Cache, etc. There is no commercial support.
Unlike a Redhat, OpenBSD is not corporate, it's Theo's toy. As a result, they do what they want, not an attempt to appease customers. With a Redhat box, while some of your code is "scratching an itch," corporate coders can code what is needed.
Realize that the Linux comforts will be lacking.
If you are a sysadmin, check out OpenBSD. If you have a Linux box at home for playing with and think that you are l33t, stay away from OpenBSD with a 10' pole.
Alex
Re:Is an ISO available? (Score:2)
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
obsd violating copyright? (Score:1)
look at the top bar! (Score:1)
Re:I see they fixed lots of security issues... (Score:1)
These Buffer Overflows were local holes (i.e. you had to have to have a foothold on the box to take advantage of it).
For the past four years, OpenBSD has had no remote holes in the default install.
Re:*Open*BSD? (Score:1)
Re:Linux to BSD: Warnings (Score:5)
What Alex says is right on the nose (i.e. mod that comment up!). I too switched from Linux to OpenBSD at home almost 3 years ago, and have been using it for various projects at work for the past 2 years. This is what I've discovered:
In conclusion, I'd say trying OpenBSD is something every geek should do. But, admittedly, my loyalty to the OS (Theo) is waning, and I'm beginning to think FreeBSD might be a better choice.
Whatever the case, I'm sure Theo doesn't give a good god-damn...
Happy hacking,
The 'roid
Re:Anything to look-out for? (Score:1)
Could they be a little more specific ? How was it analyized ?
Re:*bsd performance ? (Score:1)
Re:NVidia drivers!!! (Score:1)
Of course, if you _are_ using x86 Linux, the drivers rock. It's disappointing that they're closed source, but _for_now_, nVidia is doing a very good job keeping them up to date (they used to be terrible at this, and could conceivably become terribly about it in the future, which is why I hope ATI or Matrox does something worthy).
Sotto la panca, la capra crepa
Re:Linux to BSD: Warnings (Score:1)
Sounds like an advantage to me if all the information is in the right place on the system rather than scattered all over the world. probably means it's up to date too.
_O_
Re:Linux to BSD: Warnings (Score:2)
I think it makes a dam good workstation... personally.
Just dig around in the ports (and packages) and slap things like enlightenment and eterm on there and it makes a dam sexy workstation and just flies with that time of setup... (or window maker or kde... what ever tickles your boat)
For desktop though it may be kinda of lacking, you can get Netscape and some other Linux binaries working... but you won't be playing things like Diablo 2, IE or consumer level win32 or mac binaries... (probably your best bet there is either a win32 or mac machine and run native)..
That is J(ust)MHO though.
yeah! (Score:1)
http://www.lemure.net. Of course its probably going to be down after i get back from work... mmm softupdates.
Re:Anything to look-out for? (Score:1)
Lots more hardware support.
Tighter code from bug fixes of previous releases(as always)
Look out for:
There is a sendmail bug that is in -RELEASE. its a theoretical hole, and for all the Linux trolls out there, its not enabled when you first install (v. intelligent). But, if your serious, its a good idea to patch it immediately like a good OpenBSD user
Re:Has anyone looked at the errata page? (Score:1)
Want them, make them. Hell, you could sell them. This is BSD land, things are a little tuffer, but no one ever said they were going to hold your hand.
*bsd performance ? (Score:2)
Re:Linux to BSD: Warnings (Score:1)
conclusion, that I was WAY out of my league.
OpenBSD will teach you everything you never
wanted to know about Unix.
OpenBSD is great for a firewall/Nat machine, or
high security nfs/web/mail server, but it ain't
no workstation for the rest of us.
Re:Anything to look-out for? (Score:1)
Re:IPF and OpenBSD 2.9 (Score:1)
"OpenBSD special" patches any longer (except
those committed into ofcourse).
This _might_ even prevent compiling!
--
Re:Is an ISO available? (Score:2)
Theo explicitly forbids distribution of the
_original_
CD-ISO-Images. He may do this because they are
copyrighted (by him).
You also can buy unofficial images for $5 or so
(as e.g. you can with debian, too).
But I decided to spend that money cuz I want to help that project.
--
Re:x. (Score:1)
That X-win system by Tenon is nothing more than xFree with their own imaging system to make it work inside of OS X rather than beside(which of course they think is worth $200), and X-on-X (with a few patches) combined with XFree gives the same effect for less money. So whats the problem you ask? It's not functionaly transparent, just like classic wasn't transparent in the Public Beta (Apple has made a lot of progress with Classic from DP3 to the final version).
What I want is a downloadable package installer that that adds X-win capability to Aqua (well within reasonable limitations, I dont need to export my IE window) that works at least as transparently as Classic does and includes an optional installer package for the X-win headers for compiling packages with Apples port of gcc that comes with OS X.
Or better yet, provide a tool kit that helps covert X-Win GUI calls to Aqua GUI calls and lets us compile them natively.
Re:UNIX Vs. UNIX: (Score:5)
This is just not true and shows how very little you know about Operating Systems strengths and weaknesses. Like Slashdot noted, OpenBSD is designed for security. They actively seek and destroy anything that could be used to compromise the system and the OpenBSD group has been very sucessful with this. That's a strength. Linux runs Q3A and UT, and thousands of scientific applications, those are strengths. IRIX has a superb OpenGL implementation. MacOS X has one of the best GUI's around. FreeBSD is fast.
My point, the differences between Unixes are not in the source, but are much more obvious. Each development team has goals. Each goal shows through in the over all design of the OS and makes it so that each Unix does have a reason for existing in a world of generic Unixes.
Now, on the question of which is better...Well, actually, it depends on your goals.....everyones goals are different. Some people have political agenda's (GPL vs. BSD), some people have specific needs (absolute securty at any price, playing games, or graphics performance), and some people just don't care and get what is easiest for them to use. There is no "best" only what is best for you, cause not a SINGLE unix distrib has an all round strength (though I would argue that if Apple integrated X-Win into Aqua, the combination of default security, Java2, OpenGL, Quicktime, BSD core services, et al would bring it close to being the strongest for all round uses, but hey, thats MY bias)
x. (Score:1)
many good x implementations exist for os x. the fact that they dont come from apple shouldnt be a problem for *nix users with their "roll your own" mentality. aqua is better for the consumer crowd
probably the best benchmarks. (Score:1)
Re:UNIX Vs. UNIX: (Score:3)
when i was a kid, we didn't have cd's to load our os's from. we had to toggle the instructions in by hand on the front of the system t give the thing enough smarts to talk to the paper tape drive which then loaded the code to talk to the tape system.....
we didn't have no fancy gui's. We had punch cards, and we liked it. Back in the good days, you actually had to know what you were doing in order to program the machine. We didn't have no "high level" languages like C. And we liked it that way, it kept the wimps off of our systems.
You should be happy that you only have to drive 2 hours to get to a store. When i was a kid, I had to walk.
kids... you think that you have it soooo hard....
Re:*bsd performance ? (Score:1)
NVidia drivers!!! (Score:1)
Re:*bsd performance ? (Score:3)
The Lottery:
Re:NT to OpenBSD (Score:1)
Yeah, what exactly is up with that crazy way of doing the partitions? I've tried the install a few times now (OBSD 2.8), and can never get past that part successfully. Even when I tell it to use defaults, I can't get past there. I've done plenty with normal partitions, but all the disklabel and strangish partition letters and such bugger me no end. When I've seen OBSD running on other's machines though, it seems quite nice.
Re:NT to OpenBSD (Score:1)
Re:Linux vs. OpenBSD (Score:1)
You sound like a genious.
UNIX Vs. UNIX: (Score:2)
Over in the Linux on PS1 forum I posted [slashdot.org] a responce to a BSD guy saying Linux is pointless then I come and see that there is a BSD story and that a flamewar will probably erupt. This forum is the much more appropriete place for it. I'm going to post my post minus the stuff on the PS1. Of course some idiot moderator will mod me down redundent but...
First of I have nothing against BSD, heck anything I write*, is being released under the BSD licence. The only reason I have RedHat GNU/Linux rather than FreeBSD on my parent's PC is because I live in a small town and the only way to get FreeBSD is to drive two hours away and buy a $110CAN Book and I'm 13 and have no credit card to buy it online.
Now that the disclaimer is out of the way...
Until I got my Macintosh I did all my work in KOffice using XFce as my Window Manager. I found it quite easy to use and powerful for the price of $0. I'm sure I could do just the same on FreeBSD or any UNIX. I really don't see why anyone makes a big deal about which UNIX they run. When someone asks me what I run I Anwser "My Mac for working and gaming and UNIX for Programming."
Arguing over which UNIX is better is pointless because until you get to the source level they look, feel and behave about the same. Most GNU/Linux programs will Compile on BSD/Tru64/AIX/HP-UX/QNX/BeOS or anything that has a POSIX layer, thus making the argument that "My UNIX is better than your UNIX!" worse. I don't see why UNIX people can't get along: vi vs emacs, KDE vs GNOME, GUI vs CLI, BSD vs GNU/Linux...
The funny thing is the only thing UNIX people will agree on is that UNIX is the best.
*All I've got written right now is a dice roller in Perl, I AM only 13...
--Volrath50
Re:UNIX Vs. UNIX: (Score:2)
In short I was generalizing, I guess a little too much for some people...
I do know that all Unices have there strengths and weaknesses, and I know most of them, I just didn't want to spend 10 more minutes I don't have typing out all the strengths. I figured that the average /.er would already know them. My post was more "Would you please stop fighting over which is best! They are all good!"
Someone else pointed out that many GNU/Linux apps won't compile on some POSIX systems. I know that. I said most. I should have said "Most POSIX compliant programs designed for GNU/Linux will compile with little or no modification, others with much more modification." Again, I figured most people would know that not all programs will compile.
Anyways I guess in futre post I'll have to point out every last thing about UNIXs that I know for risk of someone saying that I should have said that. You'd think that people would be able to know that I was just generalizing....
--Volrath50
Is an ISO available? (Score:1)
Re:Linux to BSD: Warnings (Score:2)
Web support sucks. The FAQ, etc. provides some help, not much. Even USENET isn't THAT helpful. You need need to get used to reading man pages... a LOT.
The difference is, BSD man pages tend to be MUCH better written and more useful[1] than GNU man pages,
so a lot of the time you can solve problems without having to resort to searching the web.
Init: rc style. I think that that the rc system is infinitely more manageable and sane in a BSD environment than a SysV environment, but YMMV.
Agreed. BSD init is just a lot more logical.
Community support. The mailling lists are key, but they are much less friendly. Advocacy isn't a priority. If there is a question answered somewhere in the documentation, you'll get told RTFM. If the docs aren't what you are looking for and need a different level of help (more/less tech than the man pages) you may or may not get it.
Going back to my first point, usually the docs WILL help enough, if you use them.
If it's really something difficult, people will usually help.
-d00d
[1] I'm not the only one who's noticed this...
Re:Is an ISO available? (Score:3)
Here's how I believe it works.
The *source* is available for anyone to take, change, and otherwise use with the BSD liscence. You can do whatever the hack you want with it.
The *ISO* layout that is sold by the OpenBSD group is copyright to Theo - that means that you have to get his permission to distribute it. Now, that doesn't mean that you can't make your own ISO and distribute that, but you can't distribute the *official* release. In this case it would be the 2.9 release. I believe this distinction is made so that anyone who wants to get an ISO needs to buy the official one, or make their own.
What are the consiquences?
You know what this means.... (Score:4)
Re:Is an ISO available? (Score:2)
When I did my 2.8 install I did FTP, since the computer didn't have a CDROM, and it was completely free (after you pay the cable bill