Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

OpenBSD 4.0 Pre-orders are Available

Posted by samzenpus on Wed Sep 20, 2006 10:04 PM
from the come-and-get-it dept.
Operating Systems Software BSD
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."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

OpenBSD 4.0 Pre-orders are Available 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Better RAID support than Linux? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Craig Davison (37723) on Wednesday September 20 2006, @10:30PM (#16151341)
    One thing that bothers me about hardware RAID support in linux is the lack of a single set of management/monitoring tools that will work with every driver. With OpenBSD 4 you can just use sensord.
    OpenBSD doesn't have quite the hardware coverage Linux does in this area, but who wants to use stuff like aacraid anyway when you have to troll the net for closed-source Dell tools to check your array status?
    Anyway, thanks again, OpenBSD team. Good work.

  • Preorders (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2006, @10:35PM (#16151353)
    They like to get a bunch of preorders so the guy burning the DVD's knows whether to go buy a 50 DVD spindle or a 100 DVD spindle.

  • OpenRCS (Score:3, Informative)

    by larry bagina (561269) on Wednesday September 20 2006, @10:37PM (#16151359) Journal

    GNU RCS has been replaced with OpenRCS. [opencvs.org]

    Interesting. the GNU RCS code is kind of an ugly mess (one reason it's stagnated, one reason it's had so many vulnerabilities). For local stuff, RCS is nice and simple, but I don't know why anyone would use CVS when much better alternatives now exist.

    • I wasn't aware anyone used RCS. Personally I'd rather use bzr or svn, even for local only use.

      Ya know what would absolutely rock? OpenMTA. I recently did a survey [blogspot.com] and there's nothing good with an open license, unless you like Java.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Ed Avis (5917)
        RCS can be quite handy to use for configuration files, so you can have /etc/fstab and /etc/fstab,v. It's also used as a backend for other programs, like CVS (in the early days - CVS still uses RCS format files in its repository but has its own code to handle them) or to provide version history in TWiki.

  • BSD Section (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dokebi (624663) on Wednesday September 20 2006, @10:44PM (#16151382)
    Why isn't the BSD section no longer listed on the left hand Sections menu? The Slashdot bias against BSD has gone on far too long. Editors, bring back the BSD section!

  • International Orders (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nighty5 (615965) on Thursday September 21 2006, @12:45AM (#16151722)
    Anyone outside the US / Canana know how much to send the CDs? The website doesn't say - and this is even right up to supplying your CC information.....

    I would prefer to know.. even a rough guide how much.... because I've seen cases (on other sites) were the shipping costs outweighs the cost of the product!

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by raffe (28595) *
      It wasnt very expensive to send it to europe. They send it from belgium to sweden for a few euros. At least this was the case for 3.2...:-D

  • OpenSSH (Score:2, Redundant)

    by hey (83763)
    The OpenSSH improvments should help us all...

    # OpenSSH 4.4:

    * Conditional configuration in sshd_config(5) using the Match directive. This allows some configuration options to be selectively overridden if specific criteria (based on user, group, hostname and/or address) are met.
    * Add support for Diffie-Hellman group exchange key agreement with a final hash of SHA256.
    * Added a ForceCommand directive to sshd_config(5), simila

  • I hope they took permission... (Score:3, Informative)

    by rsidd (6328) on Thursday September 21 2006, @04:12AM (#16152120)
    ...before using Asterix imagery: those people are pretty litigious [tuxmobil.org].
    • This question already arrised on the misc@ mailing list. Theo's answere, quoted below, sounds quite reasonable to me:
      "Our releases are thematic parodies, specifically permitted by law."
  • Good to see OpenBSD keeping its finger on the pulse with Apache 1.3.29 as part of the package. As I recall this isn't even an up-to-date 1.3.x

    • Re:Netcraft has confirmed it... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ntgs (1004196) on Wednesday September 20 2006, @10:22PM (#16151300)
      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.
      • I love it, I use it whenever I can and whenever it makes sense.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by yo_tuco (795102)
        "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'

      • Long story short: tried it, was easier than I expected, went back to Debian. With my brief experience I cant fault anyone for sticking with it.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by dumeinst (664891)
          I don't know what version you were trying to install but every openbsd install starting with 3.5 has been nothing but simplicity in itself to go through. I've never had a single instance of network cards not being recognized and all my hardware is right there when you start up. Of course - there really isn't a gui installer so if you're not comfortable at the cl you might be a little disconcerted

    • Re:VAX (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LurkerXXX (667952) on Wednesday September 20 2006, @10:46PM (#16151387)
      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:VAX (Score:5, Informative)

      by urlgrey (798089) * on Wednesday September 20 2006, @11:57PM (#16151596) Homepage
      Aside from the joy of it for those that are so inclined, the main reason for working on other architectures is because it often brings to light subtle errors in code--particularly in the compiler--because of the differences in the hardware's instructions and such.

      In the case of the VAX and Alphas, both out-dated platforms to many people, they've both been quite good at making coding errors surface, so they're very useful for that if nothing else.

      If memory serves in fact, one of the OpenBSD devs, Miod, fixed such an error in the compiler that was picked up because the VAX puked in building X on the same compiler instructions that other platforms were perfectly willing to tolerate.

      In the end it produces a better product for all of us since it can often help developers find and fix bugs--especially the hard-to-find and hard-to-duplicate varities. That's pretty cool.

    • The people who are writing for the VAX platform are probably doing it because that's what they enjoy. It's not like there is a tradeoff - they are working on VAX and so not, say, working on feature du jour on i386 - because they have no interest on i386 (or other platforms) they wouldn't be working on it anyway.

      The VAX is a well built older machine which was absolutely awesome in its day, and it's good to see that people still interested in the VAX are keeping at least one new operating system running on th

    • Re:DVD distributions. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by darkjedi521 (744526) on Wednesday September 20 2006, @10:57PM (#16151412)
      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.
      • Well, PCs support it. That a pretty significant market.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by kv9 (697238)

          Well, PCs support it. That a pretty significant market.

          if you look at OpenBSD's mission statement you'll see that their goal is to build a free secure stable operating system -- and not cater to the needs of whiny people that sound like broken records. you honestly think that OBSD/i386 users will feel left out because their toy didn't come on a DVD and flee to some sort of Fedora/Ubuntu point-click-drool affair? dollars to donuts, they gonna do a netinstall like any normal person while waiting for the CDs

    • Re:OpenBSD is NOT open source software (Score:5, Informative)

      by MrNaz (730548) on Wednesday September 20 2006, @11:23PM (#16151480) Homepage
      Wow. Seriously, wow. That MUST be deliberately misleading.

      The BSD licence means that the authors can't, even if they wanted to, withhold security patches from you and nobody else. You can just get the patch from someone else who has it.

      Furthermore, OpenBSD asking for donations is no difference from Mozilla getting donation, OpenOffice getting corporate support or MySQL having a corporate company employing its development team. In fact OpenBSD's model is probably less influenced by profit agenda than all of the abovementioned projects.

      What's more, they manage to keep up with OpenBSD's reputation of begin perhaps the most secure operating system available to consumers, bar none. And all this in their spare time, putting up with FUD like what you've just spouted, and not getting half the recognition they deserve. If you ask me, they are the knights of the open source world. Or something.

      • Re:OpenBSD is NOT open source software (Score:4, Insightful)

        by cerelib (903469) on Thursday September 21 2006, @12:10AM (#16151635)
        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by rthille (8526)
          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.

    • Re:Relevance? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by keithmo (453716) on Thursday September 21 2006, @12:05AM (#16151624)
      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.
      • No, OpenSSL is developed by the OpenSSL project, what you are doing is a common misconception, it is covered in the Wikipedia articles of both OpenSSL and OpenSSH. OpenSSH uses OpenSSL for the encryption, but does not do the development of it, just like Open BIOS or OpenBSM, it's not under the wing of OpenBSD, it just has Open-* in the front of it's name.
        • So how do you remotely access your new installations? Via telnet?

            • RealVNC Remote Authentication Bypass Vulnerability [securityfocus.com]

              RealVNC is susceptible to an authentication-bypass vulnerability. This issue is due to a flaw in the authentication process of the affected package.

              Exploiting this issue allows attackers to gain unauthenticated, remote access to the VNC servers.

              Not to mention by default VNC is unencrypted... unless you tunnel it - and how might one tunnel it? Hmmmm...

    • The free shell folks at sdf.LoneStar.org once had somebody
      break through their Linux security (years ago already), so
      they went to NetBSD, I think (from memory).

      They might have something to say about Linux -vs- [Net]BSD
      • Your history of SDF is correct, but this particular case does not prove that Linux is less secure than BSD. Depending on how you configure your system, either OS can be rock solid impenetrable, or more exploitable than an unpatched Windows98 box. Very few successful break ins are due to kernel flaws; usually the problem is an application bug, bad configuration, or incorrect policy. I also run a public shell service [no-ip.org], and it too often comes under attempted exploit and DoS attacks. I've successfully manage

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by tek.net-ium (841449)
      Linux binary support under OpenBSD is surprisingly good; you might give that a whirl. Just install the port emulators/redhat, execute 'sysctl kern.emul.linux=1', and change /etc/sysctl.conf. Then use a Linux JRE.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ifrag (984323)

        Linux binary support under OpenBSD is surprisingly good; you might give that a whirl. Just install the port emulators/redhat, execute 'sysctl kern.emul.linux=1', and change /etc/sysctl.conf. Then use a Linux JRE.

        The Linux support is actually so good that I got a dedicated Quake 3 linux server binary running on my OBSD box :)

    • Re:Java, coming soon? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Geekboy(Wizard) (87906) <spambox@NOsPam.theapt.org> on Thursday September 21 2006, @02:29AM (#16151903) Homepage Journal
      java 1.5 is native on openbsd/i386. it works as fine as you can expect java to run.

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by Nimrangul (599578)
      If you'd be bothered to read some day, you'd know that the 2.9.5.3 gcc version is for hardware that is not supported by the more recent versions of gcc. The developers of gcc do not support as many platforms as OpenBSD does and thus the OpenBSD developers must either port the gcc to their platforms or use the older gcc version that still supported those hardware versions. OpenBSD uses 3.3.5 of the gcc for most platforms because it's not as dog-fuck slow as gcc 4.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.