OpenBSD 3.9 Released 130
An anonymous reader writes "OpenBSD 3.9 was released this morning and is now available for download from the OpenBSD mirror sites. Among the new features is integrated framework for monitoring hardware sensors, a BSD licensed driver for nvidia nforce ethernet, and loads of new drivers and bug fixes. Of course you can still purchase the CD-ROM set which includes support for five platforms: i386, amd64, macppc, sparc, sparc64, and also includes the complete blob free source tree and prebuilt packages for many architectures. As always your contributions help to continue the devlopment of this great opeating system."
A new twist on the old Soviet Russia joke (Score:3, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A new twist on the old Soviet Russia joke (Score:1, Interesting)
Theo's idolizing of Wowbagger may have held it back a bit, but you ca
Re:A new twist on the old Soviet Russia joke (Score:1)
Contributions will help all opeating systems. (Score:5, Insightful)
That sentence about should read:
As always your contributions [openbsd.org] help to continue the devlopment of all opeating systems.
Apple's security relies on openSSH, Microsoft service's for Unix are openBSD tools, there's traces of it all over linux. In short openBSD has made everyone's lives better - you should contribute to openBSD if you're a computer user of any sort!
Thanks Theo - for releasing your work under a BSD license, you've allowed us all to benefit from it.
Re:Contributions will help all opeating systems. (Score:2)
OpenBSD and OpenOffice... (Score:1)
I think you have to run Ooo in Linux emulation mode (add kern.emul.linux=1 to /etc/sysctl.conf and pkg_add relevant packages (see OpenBSD FAQ)). This is absolutely the best (and only) way to run Ooo in OBSD for now...
One problem is that Ooo contains lots of bugs, especially those related to memory handling. These bugs cause problems with e.g. OpenBSD's new malloc(3) call. Some porting and bugfixing work has actually been done by some OpenBSD developers but as far as I know that particular port is nowher
Re:Contributions will help all opeating systems. (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Not to disagree with you... (Score:5, Informative)
Go to the Ubuntu packages pages & search for openbsd [ubuntu.com] Two pages of results! And that's barely scrathing the surface.
Furthermore, as someone else in this thread mentions, openBSD audits their code more thoroughly prior to inclusion in their system. Many packages used in Ubuntu (apache, x.org, etc etc etc) have bug fixes contributed back from the openBSD port.
You're thinking I'm saying that openBSD can do something linux can't - I'm not really, its more like openBSD is the cranky old uncle of the free-unix family, telling all the youngsters to lock their doors & not walk around at night
Re:Not to disagree with you... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not to disagree with you... (Score:1)
Re:Not to disagree with you... (Score:1, Informative)
Of course, 4.4BSD descended from earlier BSDs, which predate Linux. But 4.4 certainly was not "way before Linux."
Re:Not to disagree with you... (Score:2, Insightful)
LOL! This statement is just sooo linux. So you use Ubuntu, like the hordes who jumped on Gentoo when it was cool (and on Red Hat and Mandrake long before that.) The overwhelming majority of users who yell 'Linux!' at everybody are switching distros everytime a new one comes out. That's why so much effort goes in to semi-locking-in users by the package management system, a la YAST2. Keep your Ubuntu CD for another year AC, I'll bet even money you have a different distro on your m
Linux compiler? (Score:2)
How is 'since Jan 2005' a long time :) This must be a joke, but just in case...
There's no such thing as 'the Linux compiler' (hint: GCC is a GNU tool, Linux is a kernel and NOT a GNU project). Neither GNOME nor the X Window System are 'Linux contributions'. GNOME is a GNU project born for giving an alternative to KDE (because Qt was not free at the time) and XFree86 predates Linux.
Dodos rejoice (Score:4, Interesting)
at least you'll be able to do something with your old mac when Apple is done switching and pulls the plug on ppc support for good...
Re:Dodos rejoice (Score:2)
So, is this going to make OpenBSD a new target for viruses? Someone better tell Theo!
Re:Dodos rejoice (Score:2)
Re:Dodos rejoice (Score:1)
Why would your computer just stop working once it is no longer supported?
Re:Dodos rejoice (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Dodos rejoice (Score:2)
That is hardly going to happen any time soon. There is really no reason for them to stop supporting PPC, as there will be many PPC users still after 5 years. That being said, there will be a time when your PPC won't run the newest OS X anymore. Still, I am sure that the most recent version available will still be ahead of OpenBSD, when it comes to desktop use. If you are talking about servers, then you might have a point...
Rock Solid Already (Score:5, Informative)
I also made my first donation to OpenBSD for a long time, to keep it going, since I use OpenSSH every day, infact my job depends on it.
Re:Rock Solid Already (Score:1)
Re:Rock Solid Already (Score:4, Interesting)
So to me, OpenBSD is just a Good Thing (R) from a practical point of view. I don't bother to have the latest version of everything, but I'm happy when things "just work" ;) and you can trust that they are solid and safe.
Have my CDs already (Score:4, Insightful)
Installed on an AMD64X2-3800. zoom Had to compile -current for something but I'm in the minority.
Order the CDs and make a donation today, you cheap bastards!
It's number one on our underfunded TO DO list... (Score:3, Funny)
1. Spel checkr.
2. Full LRF support.
3. There is no third thing.
4. Universal Binary.
Bout' Time! (Score:1)
Re:Bout' Time! (Score:1)
Torrents! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Torrents! (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, I am not a user of *BSD, although I do appreciate their goals. I am a Debian [debian.org] user and have been one for quite some time now.
One fact to appreciate about Debian is that it is loosing its ties to the Linux kernel [kernel.org] and becoming more and more general, now including even BSD efforts (like the kfreebsd5 [debian.org] port).
So, even though I am a Debian user, I have this secret appreciation for all the work that the BSD people have done and continue to do and I am downloading the OpenBSD release from the torren
architectures? (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:architectures? (Score:4, Interesting)
Joke or otherwise, Sparcs are awesome machines (for some roles), and OpenBSD is an awesome system.
Re:architectures? (Score:2, Insightful)
With sparc64 you can use the sparc quirks and also the security mechanisms intentionally built into the sparc64's, which the sparc's lack.
sparc64 seems to be the best platform of all to employ the highest security with OpenBSD.
What a shame Sun are such a bunch of a-holes with their pseudo "open source friendly" stance. They open up the specs and design to their
Re:architectures? (Score:1)
Keeping loads of various architectures 'live' helps the developers spot odd bugs in the common that may compile Just Fine on x86 but cause glitches on esoteric platforms. Thus weird bugs get cleaned up.
Re:architectures? (Score:1)
s/common/common code/g
Re:architectures? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:architectures? (Score:2)
Re:architectures? (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, last I heard, Sun was being their usual selves and hiding key architectural details (e.g., chipset stuff) that are holding up the porting effort.
That was about a month or so ago -- hopefully Sun have decided to open up by now
Re:architectures? (Score:2, Informative)
Unofficial install ISO-s (Score:1)
"Some unofficial (and of course unsupported by OpenBSD team) install ISOs:
http://hup.hu/node/24625 [hup.hu]"
Re:Unofficial install ISO-s (Score:1, Interesting)
I have always been totally perplexed by people who download and use OpenBSD ISO's (besides the official OpenBSD installer-only ISO's). It completely goes against what OpenBSD is about and defeats the whole reason for using OpenBSD.
You use OpenBSD because you are concerned about security and then go and run some random binary provided by some random people on the net who you know little about? People who don't have the long-term reputa
Multilib/multiarch development on OpenBSD (Score:1)
Re:Multilib/multiarch development on OpenBSD (Score:2)
on the other hand, the lack of support for 32-bit binaries on the amd64, is intentional. it ain't gonna happen. it requires a massive amount of technical work, for a tiny benefit. if you can call running binary-only blob a benefit (hint: its not).
Re:Multilib/multiarch development on OpenBSD (Score:1)
Re:Multilib/multiarch development on OpenBSD (Score:2)
Re:Multilib/multiarch development on OpenBSD (Score:1)
Re:Multilib/multiarch development on OpenBSD (Score:2)
Re:Multilib/multiarch development on OpenBSD (Score:1)
Only OpenBSD supported my wireless card (Score:5, Interesting)
Installing was also easy. If you have a little patience and are not afraid of a text-only install, starting OpenBSD was very easy.
I like this operating system. The man files are comprehensive and well written, and even a person with limited technical experience (me) was able to get everything working fairly quickly.
Re:Only OpenBSD supported my wireless card (Score:2)
I've had numerous similar experiences with it over the years, and its elegant simplicity is always what wins me over in the end. Linux casts a wide net, and tries to be all things to all people, with the consequence that with things like driver support, it so frequently ends up being an ugly hack. Whereas with OpenBSD, if the hardware is supported, it works beautifully - wireless is a particularly good example of this.
I know that elsewhere on these pages I have likened OpenBSD (as a UNIX) to M
Re:Only OpenBSD supported my wireless card (Score:1)
I guess we are reading different manual files. I do have trouble understanding
'man 3 setlocale' and info about blowfish crypt format. Blowfish crypt differs
and setlocale does not work as documented.
Re:Only OpenBSD supported my wireless card (Score:2)
So if something in the base install does not work as documented, report it. Bug reporting instructions are here. [openbsd.org]
Re:Only OpenBSD supported my wireless card (Score:2)
The exceptions being X11 (if you're using it), and your IP addresses (if you aren't using DHCP, PPP, PPPoE, etc).
Swap soundcard
Re:Only OpenBSD supported my wireless card (Score:1)
Oh man, that's awesome! I've always wanted an OS that loaded drivers for every single peripheral ever made just in case I ever plugged one of them in.
It must be great for security as well - imagine if someone found a really nasty security hole in an obscure and seldom used driver. On Linux that wouldn't get fixed because nobody would have it loaded a
Re:Only OpenBSD supported my wireless card (Score:2)
Although they are part of the kernel, they really aren't loaded, in the Linux sense of the term.
That's one of the main reasons why compiling your own kernel in Linux is a day-to-day thing, while it's almost never done in the BSD world, despite it being quicker, simpler, etc.
No, that's
Re:Only OpenBSD supported my wireless card (Score:2)
Very cool feature (new) (Score:2, Informative)
info: http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=zrc&
OpenBSD (Score:1)
and Bind 9.3.1 (+ patches) for qmail and djbdns
-Dee
Re:OpenBSD (Score:1)
And then you might see what you want.
Or, even better, ask DJB why he doesn't put his code to Free && Open.
Re:OpenBSD (Score:2)
2) the license rants are not free for openbsd to use
3) there is nothing wrong with sendmail and bind
4) nothing prevents you from downloading and installing qmail and djbdns
Rackmount firewall hardware recommendations? (Score:2)
I'm having a hard time with this. This
Re:Rackmount firewall hardware recommendations? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Rackmount firewall hardware recommendations? (Score:1)
Re:Rackmount firewall hardware recommendations? (Score:2, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:BSD licensed nve driver? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:BSD licensed nve driver? (Score:2)
There's a proper (binary blobless) driver for FreeBSD as well as the wrapper, but it isn't as capable or reliable as the OpenBSD one.
Question for the OpenBSD gurus: (Score:2)
The carp man page says something about not needing an IP anymore if you specify carpdev, but I haven't found any relevant examples. I'm in the middle of setting up two 3.9 boxes to try making it work.
Re:Question for the OpenBSD gurus: (Score:1)
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2006/04/27/openbs
hooray for OpenBSD (Score:1)
Re:nvidia nforce ethernet (Score:5, Funny)
THEOlogical debates. in an open bsd story. hahahahaha. geddit?
oh ok. sorry.
Re:nvidia nforce ethernet (Score:2)
Re:nvidia nforce ethernet (Score:1)
http://www.theos.com/ [theos.com]
Was supposedly contrived from "Theo's dot com", but I'm sure he realized that "Theos" is greek for "God."
or as: (Score:2)
Re:Opiating system (Score:2)
I suggest a decent command of English. "It bears worth repeating." What is that?
iqu
Re:Opiating system (Score:1)
Re:Binary Updates Yet? (Score:2)
I don't see Theo and all supporting binary updates. And this, I think, because of the security goal. But I may be wrong. For instance, remember when Debian's servers were cracked (about 1 1/2 year ago, AFAIK)? What if you installed a binary with malicious code?
But in fact, why don't they officially support binary updates? What's the "official" answer on this issue?
At least, that seems like a reasonable motivation. OTOH, system administra
Re:Binary Updates Yet? (Score:2)
Re:Binary Updates Yet? (Score:2)
Given that none of the install packages on the main or mirror sites are signed, there's no more exposure from downloading a (possibly hacked) binary patch than from downloading a (possible hacked) installer. And if they adopted the practice of signing the installer, then they could also sign the patches.
I don't buy the idea that it's harder to securely distribute patches than it is the base system. Furthermore, I don't recall ever hearing any of the O
binpatch (Score:2)
If you can afford another OpenBSD box for building patches you can use binpatch [sourceforge.net].
off topic (Score:2)
Most of my OpenBSD boxes are IP-less firewalls, so usually I don't really worry about patching them until the next release comes out.
Source updates on a minimal system? (Score:5, Interesting)
I could maintain a lot of stuff in 10GB, but given the sensitive nature of most OpenBSD installations (such as firewalls, etc.), GCC is not among the things I want to have around.
According to the FAQ [openbsd.org], three file sets are required for installation:
Although that gets you a complete running system, it doesn't leave you with one that can self-host source updates. Given that I run exactly one OpenBSD machine at the office, I don't want to have a separate build server sitting around just to keep it updated. So, even though I have the hardware to support the process, and the technical skills to do so, it's still a major pain in the neck.
Oh, and to those saying I should just install snapshots, the FAQ says: [openbsd.org]
Elsewhere on the site are other discouraging words [openbsd.org]:For our major architectures, we tend to build mini releases of unknown stability and quality about every month or so. This is where we place those test releases.
Ain't no way I'm going to tell my boss that my security update process involves "mini releases of unknown stability and quality". That is why I'd like to see "baseXX-r1.tgz" at ftp.openbsd.bsd (and it's mirrors) that holds nothing but the 3 or 4 binaries I'd need to upgrade on a stock system to bring it up to date. I'm not stupid or broke - just very time-challenged. I'd be happy to pay for a subscription to such a service were one available.
Re:Source updates on a minimal system? (Score:2)
There is binpatch out there but it requires you to have a build machine and roll the patches yourself. I'm not aware of anyone one rolling updates and making them available publicly. Be a nice contribution for someone with a little time to do it.
Re:Source updates on a minimal system? (Score:1)
Ive got a number of systems with just 6gb or less of hdd space, and I have plenty of room to build the tree. You only need around 1500Mb spare on
And even if you use some sort of ancient hardware with really minimal hdd space, you can still build patches on another machine and install them. Perhaps have a look at http://openbsdbinpatch.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
Re:Source updates on a minimal system? (Score:2)
So you missed the entire point of my post, that I don't want GCC on my firewall, and that I don't want to maintain a build machine for the sole purpose of keeping that firewall server up to date? Re-read what I said.
Re:Source updates on a minimal system? (Score:1)
Re:Source updates on a minimal system? (Score:1)
Re:Source updates on a minimal system? (Score:1)
Re:Source updates on a minimal system? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Source updates on a minimal system? (Score:1)
If a box is compromised, then its comprimsed. That a compiler is not installed on the system is not going to help that, is it?
Re:Source updates on a minimal system? (Score:2)
Re:Source updates on a minimal system? (Score:1)
The original statement doesn't make sense. Removing a compiler from a firewall offers no protection. A compiler in itself cannot be used to escape privilege, and while it can be used to build a tool which can, it's not the only way to upload a program to a to-be-further-compromis
Re:Source updates on a minimal system? (Score:2)
I don't see why this is causing you such anguish and pain. What I install or don't install on my system is none of your business.
Re:Source updates on a minimal system? (Score:3, Insightful)
Kill this goddammed myth already...
Removing programs from your hard drive can't POSSIBLY make your machine any more secure. Taking the SUID/SGID bit off can, but that's a bit different, and programs like GCC aren't SUID, anyhow.
It's absolutely ridiculous to assume an intruder NEEDS you to install GCC for him. He can quite easily
Re:Source updates on a minimal system? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm first going on the assumption that the attacker only has regular user access. If he has root, then all is lost (well, not completely [openbsd.org], but still...). Regular users, though, might find it a bit annoying to not have any includes
Re:Source updates on a minimal system? (Score:2)
If you're talking about some script kiddie, that's exploiting a large number of machines, they've already compiled all the code they need, and just transfer the binaries to the individual machines.
If you're talking about a one-off attack by someone determined to get root on your box, as you said, you're equally sc