OpenBSD 4.0 Pre-orders are Available

fuzzyping1 writes "Pre-orders for OpenBSD 4.0 are now available in the online store. Five architectures on three CDs in a soft-shell DVD case. Check out the highlights of OpenBSD 4.0. This new release includes support for many new wireless chipsets, the UltraSPARC III platform, a new load-balancing feature for network trunks, and much, much more."

Re:Netcraft has confirmed it...

[ntgs]

OpenBSD is actually turning into a very usable OS. I find it funny when I hear criticism of OBSD, it usually comes from people that have never tried using it. If you have never tried OpenBSD I suggest you start here: http://www.openbsd101.com/ [openbsd101.com] Then make your judgements.

Re:VAX

[LurkerXXX]

My guess? The people who actually have VAX machines and care about them, made the changes. Not some guy who has one or two alphas.

Lots of other folks wrote new bits that work fine on x86, etc. It's not like the VAX updates were the only ones made. Why complain about people writing additional features for machines they use just because you don't use them?

Re:DVD distributions.

[darkjedi521]

Not every architecture they support can take a DVD drive. Also, can you imagine trying to get a single DVD that is bootable on PPC, i386/amd64, and sparc/sparc64? A lot of us run OBSD on Sun gear.

Re:Relevance?

[keithmo]

FWIW (not much) I usually buy one copy of OpenBSD whenever a new version is released, if for no other reason than to support OpenSSL development. You may not be an OpenBSD fan, but if you're running Linux, you're probably also running OpenBSD-derived software.

Re:OpenBSD is NOT open source software

[cerelib]

Actually, if the developers write a bug fix, they can withhold security patches from you. The BSD license gives them the power to distribute patched software in any way they please. This means they could fix a bug and decide to relicense the fixed release in whatever way they see fit, even as closed source proprietary binary blob. In general the BSD license lets people do with the software whatever they please. In the case of GNU/Linux, if any group distributed a patch to any of the GPL software included then they would be forced to release their code under the GPL(because it would be considered a derivative work) and therefore have no real control over distribution. I am not familiar with what the OpenBSD people do, although it seems they have a firm commitment to open source software, but I did want to point out what the BSD license actually gives you the right to do. Some people see BSD style licenses as more open source than the GPL because it allows more freedom, but, because it allows almost complete freedom, many people don't like it because that means nobody is obligated to give anything back.

Re:Does it still drag ass in performance?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given OpenBSD's track record of performing 'audits' instead of adding features or optimising algorhythms, the sad truth is that in the main it's doubtful that 4.0 is signifigantly any different or more apt to perform any better than 3.4

replacing a traditional system call here with one you wrote yourself there does not innovation make, neither does re-inventing the wheel (especially when you reinvent it poorly!)

Re:Netcraft has confirmed it...

[yo_tuco]

"it usually comes from people that have never tried using it... Then make your judgements."

I suspect that won't do any good. The ones yelling the loudest most likely only see computers/operating systems as a comsumer desktops. Though OBSD can be used as a desktop, I don't think they would find it meets their expectations. And if any Window's user did, they'd experience culture shock. Thus, all the bad-mouthing.

However, there are other uses for an operating system and in this area OBSD has value. But I don't think many of these critics will be building routers, bridges, wireless AP's and writing filtering rules enough to make a judgment tempered with experience. But to each his own. OBSD continues to improve and that is a plus.

Re:VAX

[kv9]

OpenBSD is the new NetBSD?

perhaps you meant the old NetBSD? with 17 supported platforms [openbsd.org] (as opposed to 60 [netbsd.org]) it aint king of portability.

Re:OpenBSD is NOT open source software

[rthille]

I can write a security patch for GPL'd software and release it under any license I like. I can make it as restrictive or permissive as I like, as I control it via copyright law. Since it's GPL software I couldn't distribute the patched result, but the patch itself is mine to control.

So, your point about BSD is true, but no more true than GPL code, and once the BSD developers release the resulting, patched code as BSD licensed code, anyone can redistribute it.