Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

OpenBSD Foundation Announced

Posted by samzenpus on Thu Jul 26, 2007 03:07 AM
from the check-it-out dept.
OpenBDSfan writes "KernelTrap is reporting on the creation of the OpenBSD Foundation, a Canadian not-for-profit corporation intended to support OpenBSD and related projects, including OpenSSH, OpenBGPD, OpenNTPD, and OpenCVS. The announcement explains, "the OpenBSD Foundation will initially concentrate on facilitating larger donations of equipment, funds, documentation and resources. Small scale donations should continue to be submitted through the existing mechanisms.""
+ -
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This discussion has been archived.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.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Accounced? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Shambhu (198415) on Thursday July 26 2007, @03:11AM (#19993755)
    s/check-it-out dept./spell-check-it dept./
    • s/check-it-out dept./spell-check-it dept./

      Heh... actually, the spell-check-it dept. accounced they are absconscding, it seems they have abandondoned /. after spelling nazis attack them everyday!
    • 'Accounced' is an openBSD style announcement - one that can be held accountable
      • 'Accounced' is an openBSD style announcement - one that can be held accountable


        Yes, that's great. But... does it actually have drivers for modern hardware? ;)
        • OpenBSD hardware support is generally very good, with one exception; 3D graphics. There is no DRI port to OpenBSD yet, and it's not a priority for any of the developers. Everything else works pretty well. If you've got a modern PowerPC Mac, for example, you're likely to find it better supported with OpenBSD than any other operating system short of OS X.
          • If you've got a modern PowerPC Mac, for example, you're likely to find it better supported with OpenBSD than any other operating system short of OS X.
            This has certainly been my experience. There are a few issues I had in Linux that I never got around to trying on OpenBSD, but I can definitely say the only OS that supports more of my hardware than OpenBSD is OS X. Actually, at the time I installed, I chose OpenBSD because it was the only BSD with support for USB 2.0.
        • well hmmm.. like.. "Yay we're almost #1 in google rankings for accounced!" and given the reputation of the site, the word and definition would be retrieved from the internet by alien lifeforms thus coming to earth saying, "Accouncing Peace to all Toons..."
    • I'm sure there are enough OpenBSD stories to open an OpenBSD section with the respective OpenBSD logo Puffy instead of FreeBSD's Beastie
      • not-for-profit was being used long before the US invaded Iraq the first time. Each State in the USA and each Country has it's own laws and names for non-profits. Some even have both not-for-profits and non-profits and there is a slight difference between the two. "non-profit" is a good generic term, but if you are going by what is actually filed, it may be one or the other.
  • OpenCVS? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by QuantumG (50515) <qg@biodome.org> on Thursday July 26 2007, @03:16AM (#19993765) Homepage Journal
    Yep, cause this license [tigris.org] ain't free enough and, besides, we don't want anything that is better than CVS.

    You're a codin' machine Theo, but I wish you could learn to play well with others.

    • Re:OpenCVS? (Score:5, Informative)

      by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Thursday July 26 2007, @03:56AM (#19993955) Homepage Journal
      Actually, I believe there was a good reason to create OpenCVS. Lots of sites still use CVS, but development GNU CVS is a mess and has become effectively unmaintained (leaving several vulnerabilities open). OpenCVS is intended for those sites who, for whatever reason, wish to continue using CVS, but also want some degree of security.
    • Re:OpenCVS? (Score:5, Informative)

      by zyche (784345) on Thursday July 26 2007, @05:14AM (#19994311)

      What people seems to forget is that even if CVS usage is replaced with something else (like for example SVN) it doesn't make all the old CVS repositories go away. So, 20 years into the future (when we have flying cars which runs on water) you sit there (on your levitating chair) and wants to extract some files from an old CVS repo you found in the company's archive. No problem, except that GNU CVS isn't available on SuperDuper Windows Extra Deluxe 2027, due to the fact that code base and build system is such a mess that no one manages to make packages for Cygwin anymore (that and the fact that Microsoft (Operating Systems Division) does not any longer permit that GPLed software is used on its products.

      Ok, I'm exaggerating, but the point is that there is no fault in having a clean and maintainable code base for the future - even if it's only used for handling legacy projects.

      Besides, who are we to tell these people how to use their spare time? If anyone want to re-implement Unix in Brainf*ck, then let them.

      • Then you use the CVS-to-SVN migration tool.

        I tell ya one thing though.. all those pig-headed people who are reluctant to upgrade their CVS servers already are even less likely to do it if OpenCVS is a success.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          The reason OpenBSD didn't do this is that the CVS-to-SVN migration tool does (did?) not properly migrate all of the history information. I suspect this is a very hard problem, given the semantic differences between CVS and SVN. If it's solved, then there becomes much less of a need for OpenCVS, but until then some people would rather use a maintained and audited version of CVS than an unmaintained insecure one.
      • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

        Yep, I agree. It seems that the OpenBSD folks (not just Theo) think that SVN is too complicated to be secure. They want to stick with the "proven" CVS protocols and RCS file formats. And yeah, they always start from scratch because they've gotta make it BSD licensed.. and besides, it gives them a feeling of ownership.

        This is a pretty common pattern. Complex == insecure to them. Which, to me, implies that secure == poverty. I like security as much as the next guy, but living in poverty because you're p
        • Re:OpenCVS? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Corporate Troll (537873) on Thursday July 26 2007, @03:51AM (#19993919) Homepage Journal

          Complex == insecure to them. Which, to me, implies that secure == poverty.

          No, you have your negation wrong.... If Complex == Insecure then !Complex = !Insecure, and thus Simple = Secure. The funny thing is: you cannot argue with that: simple is easier to audit and thus easier to audit. It really is that simple (Dah-dum!). Simple doesn't equate poverty, or a Lotus Elise is a poor-mans-car. (Having no radio, AC, etc...) Sorry for the "bad car analogy"(tm).

          You also forget the target demographic for OpenBSD: this is not for your Desktop, nor even for your high-load server. You can use it for that, but the niche in which it lives is firewall, NAT, transparent bridging. Places where security matters more than anything else. Sure, a bit more complex to set up, you need to work more, but this is not your moms OS.

          • simple is easier to audit and thus easier to audit.

            Should be: simple is easier to audit and thus easier to secure.

          • the niche in which it lives is firewall, NAT, transparent bridging
            So not a revision control server which sits behind a firewall and therefore doesn't need to be as secure?

            Yeah, figured.

          • Re:OpenCVS? (Score:5, Informative)

            by nacturation (646836) <nacturation AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday July 26 2007, @04:56AM (#19994235) Journal

            No, you have your negation wrong.... If Complex == Insecure then !Complex = !Insecure, and thus Simple = Secure.
            Technically you should say the following, where "->" is the symbol for "implies":

            If Complex -> Insecure, then:
            !Insecure -> !Complex; and
            Secure -> Simple

            Otherwise your method of reasoning would go like this:

            Square = Four-sided-figure
            !Square = !Four-sided-figure

            . . . which doesn't make sense because then you could say "and thus, a non-square rectangle isn't a four-sided figure".

            Good old Wikipedia has the details [wikipedia.org].
             
          • Ok, maybe OpenBSD isn't aimed at the desktop, but apparently PC-BSD [pcbsd.org] is.
            • Yes? Which is based on FreeBSD and not OpenBSD. FreeBSD which is also used by many people on the desktop (I did a while ago, but that laptop died, unrelated to FreeBSD of course ;-) ). They are really only related by their name and their license. OpenBSD is a fork of NetBSD, which came from 386BSD which also forked into FreeBSD. [wikimedia.org] Let's say OpenBSD and PC-BSD are something like cousins.

              • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

                Given that OpenBSD is a fork of a fork of the parent of FreeBSD, it's more like OpenBSD is FreeBSD's nit picking, purist pain in the ass nephew while FreeBSD is the sagely, less idealistic uncle. I guess that makes NetBSD is the slut Aunty for running on everyone's hardware.
        • Re:OpenCVS? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Noryungi (70322) on Thursday July 26 2007, @03:58AM (#19993975) Homepage Journal
          Just read up a little bit about OpenBSD, and you'll notice they are not afraid of complexity. Examples that come to mind are pf, OpenBGPD [openbgpd.org], W^X, etc.

          Besides, choosing a stable and secure algorithm is not a bad idea. See this post for a valid example [undeadly.org].

          Finally, I can't help but notice that Subversion is available as an OpenBSD package [openbsd.org], so quit your yakking already.

          Sheesh, anti-OpenBSD trolls these days.
          • Dude, we're just saying for them to not re-invent CVS. There's better systems available. Move on. All the time they spend rewriting CVS to be secure they could spend auditing SVN and help more users than just themselves.

            All we're saying is that we should work together instead of fragmenting all the time.

            Why is that a troll?

            • Dude, we're just saying for them to not re-invent CVS. There's better systems available. Move on. All the time they spend rewriting CVS to be secure they could spend auditing SVN and help more users than just themselves.
              Or you could stop telling people what they should or shouldn't do in their spare time. If someone has a passion for writing really great CVS software, what's it to you?
               
              • We aren't "telling" them what to do, we are pointing out the blindingly obvious fact that a better CVS already exists.

                hell it might save them wasting their spare time, get the point?

            • Re:OpenCVS? (Score:5, Informative)

              by TheRaven64 (641858) on Thursday July 26 2007, @06:40AM (#19994649) Homepage Journal

              OpenBSD has a long history with CVS. It was the first open source project to run a public CVS server; previously all open source projects had run a private CVS server that only a few people could access, and published snapshots as tarballs.

              They have a lot of revision history in their CVS repository, and feel it's important to maintain this due to the way in which their auditing process works. They might switch to something else at some point, but for now CVS is the best way they have of ensuring compatibility with CVS.

              Currently, they use GNU CVS, but there have been a number of security problems with it in the recent past. Part of this comes from the fact that, when it was written, GNU projects used the private-CVS-public-snapshots development model, so only trusted people got access to the CVS server anyway. After fixing a few security holes in GNU CVS, the team decided that the code was in such a state that doing a full audit and getting it up to the standard required by OpenBSD would be more effort than writing a replacement, so they decided to replace it instead. So far, they have OpenRCS, which is a drop-in replacement for GNU RCS (on which CVS is built). Now they are working on the CVS component, and seem to be making good progress.

              It's really not hard to understand. Considering the code quality of the rest of OpenBSD, I'd be more inclined to use their version than the GNU one if I needed CVS. Take a look at the recent BIND vulnerability that affected every platform except OpenBSD for an example.

              • And you forget the most important reason for them to write OpenCVS. Each developer works on whatever project or program that he or she wants to. Theo and others might encourage others onto certain projects but he does not dictate programmer XYZ needs to work on program ABC. They do what interests them and what is useful for them. Now, if it happens that your needs/desires matches up with 1 or more programmers' desires then you are in luck and likely good things will happen on what it is you're interested in
                • I've worked with CVS. It's limitations are why OpenBSD exists: Theo de Raadt was kicked off of the CVS commit list for NetBSD, with excellent cause, andn this left him unable to gracefully publish his own fork for others to review or integrate.

                  Almost every other major source control system would have allowed him to maintain his own fork and publish it, keeping his software synced with or development integrated with the main source tree: Bitkeeper, git, Subversion, Perforce, etc. CVS fails this task pretty s
            • To be fair openssl and openssh are far more widely used than CVS. Also although in my opinion it's a waste of effort to rewrite GPL software under the BSD license that's the developer's choice, they can develop whatever they want. If they dislike the GPL code or the GPL license enough to want to rewrite it that's their business.
            • Re:OpenCVS? (Score:4, Insightful)

              by QuietLagoon (813062) on Thursday July 26 2007, @06:36AM (#19994625)
              the license for CVS is perfectly fine

              Perhaps for your purposes. However, the CVS license it not consistent with the goals and philosophies of OpenBSD. So they created OpenCVS with a license that is appropriate.

              the main source of theo thinking SVN isn't secure, is because that control freak didn't write it himself.

              Do you have a link pointing to his quote on that?

              openssl and openssh are 2 packages responsible for huge security holes over the years, both of which are his babies.

              OpenSSL [openssl.org] is not Theo's "baby".

              OpenSSH's security, while not perfect, has been excellent. Your unsubstantiated attribution of "huge security holes" to it seems to be intended as little more than a troll, since you did not provide any citations.

            • Re:OpenCVS? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Noryungi (70322) on Thursday July 26 2007, @06:45AM (#19994683) Homepage Journal

              the main source of theo thinking SVN isn't secure, is because that control freak didn't write it himself. which is ironic because openssl and openssh are 2 packages responsible for huge security holes over the years, both of which are his babies.

              Except, of course, you have no fscking idea what you are talking about, since OpenSSL is not developed, or related to, OpenBSD and Theo de Raadt in any way [openssl.org].

              As far as OpenSSH security holes [secunia.com] are concerned, please excuse me while I laugh. Most of these vulnerabilities are either denial of service, or someone who messed up with their OpenSSH implementation. A lot of people think they can improve on a perfectly good product by adding security holes in it.

              As far as OpenCVS is concerned, they explain their rationale quite clearly:

              The OpenCVS project was started after discussions regarding the latest GNU CVS vulnerabilities that came out. Although CVS is widely used, its development has been mostly stagnant in the last years and many security issues have popped up, both in the implementation and in the mechanisms.

              Now, let me ask you: what part of "development has been mostly stagnant in the last years and many security issues have popped up" don't you understand?

              Allow me to finish by adding this: read up a little bit before you start trolling. But that would be a waste of a perfectly good troll, right? Sheesh. Go back under your bridge, little troll.
        • I feel the OpenBSD guys are right. In general, a simpler system is less likely to have bugs (and hence security holes) than a more complex one. Indeed the first rule of programming is 'keep it simple'. CVS is an old program, having started life as a collection of shell scripts around RCS and then been gradually borged into a C program. CVS development hasn't exactly been rapid in the past few years and it is barely being maintained (look at the CVS site on Savannah).

          CVS has had plenty of security holes
      • APR is a fairly complicated project, but a lot of that comes from the 'portable' part. It would probably be relatively simple to write a non-portable version for OpenBSD. This would allow SVN to be used on OpenBSD without the dependency on Apache 2.0 code.
      • Dude, RMS made a whole movement of zealots and encouraged the creation of billions of lines of code.. doesn't change the fact that he's a smelly hippie.

        You seem to think that me saying Theo doesn't get along with others is somehow belittling his work.. it isn't.

        It's belittling his ability to get along with others.

  • Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ilovegeorgebush (923173) on Thursday July 26 2007, @03:29AM (#19993819) Homepage
    I wonder what Theo will say about all this? 9 times out of 10 he tends to scorn things, so I wonder if he'll embrace this with open arms, or just shun it [forbes.com] like he does most things.

    Either way i'm happy. At least there's even more support for open source software and anything non-windows related.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      > I wonder what Theo will say about all this? 9 times out of 10 he tends to scorn things,
      > so I wonder if he'll embrace this with open arms, or just shun it like he does most things.

      This is an official OpenBSD effort, all of the directors are OpenBSD developers. I'm sure
      Theo was pretty central to setting it up, he is unlikely to shun it.
    • Re:Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Noryungi (70322) on Thursday July 26 2007, @03:52AM (#19993929) Homepage Journal
      Given the fact that it was stated by Bob Beck, a member of the OpenBSD programming teams, I think he will be OK with it.

      Besides, the OpenBSD Foundation stated very clearly [openbsdfoundation.org] that it will focus on large donations (of funds, hardware, etc) and that small donations should be sent directly to OpenBSD through the usual channels. RTFA and all that.

      I do think Theo will be A-OK with that.
  • OpenNTPD
    I'm pretty sure they meant "OpecCTPD".
  • Accounced (Score:4, Funny)

    by LittleImp (1020687) on Thursday July 26 2007, @04:09AM (#19994031)
    Slashdot is according to Google already the Nr. 2 Source for accouncing!
  • From their Donations page:

    We are not a registered charity, in the sense that we do not issue tax deductible receipts. The reporting overhead (accounting and legal costs) to operate a registered charity in Canada is prohibitive without a sizable revenue stream. Currently, this would divert a great deal of resources that could be better utilized in helping build good free software. We do issue receipts (not tax deductable) for all donations.

    If it's so stinking hard to do in Canada, maybe they should have

    • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

      Thankfully, nautral lagnuage has evolved enough redudnancy to provide for fairly reliable error corectiuon.
      • The brain has some kick-ass error correction built-in. That's why your statement can stay readable when condensed to this:

        Thkfly, ntrl lngag hs evlvd engh rdndncy to prvd fr frly rlibl err crrctn.

        Even better, it's compressed, and can be decompressed by using the error correction already present and running. Score!
      • OK, which joker modded me "Redundant"?
    • Re:WTF (Score:4, Funny)

      by Antarius (542615) on Thursday July 26 2007, @04:06AM (#19994011)
      I was accounced once. It's on my permanent record.

      Another time I accounced my neighbours dog for barking while I was trying to sleep. I used a teaspoon. It was fun.
    • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

      my country used to be in its shadow and now it is ruined.

      I very much doubt that. I suspect that what your country was in the shadow of was Stalinism. Just because the nice American man said you were living under communism doesn't mean anything as Americans generally can not tell the difference between Communism, Stalinism, and Socialism (and assume they're all Stalinism).

      Communism, like capitalism, is based on a model of the world which only works if everyone acts in exactly the way the inventor of the mo