Slashdot Log In
OpenBSD 4.1 Released
Posted by
kdawson
on Wed May 02, 2007 02:42 AM
from the hot-bits dept.
from the hot-bits dept.
adstro writes to quote from the BSD mailing list: "We are pleased to announce the official release of OpenBSD 4.1. This is our 21st release on CD-ROM (and 22nd via FTP). We remain proud of OpenBSD's record of ten years with only two remote holes in the default install. As in our previous releases, 4.1 provides significant improvements, including new features, in nearly all areas of the system."
This discussion has been archived.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.

Just curious... (Score:5, Interesting)
For those of you using OpenBSD, how many of you are in a similar situation?
Re:Just curious... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Monday February 12 2007, @04:47PM)
I am quite happy with linux right now. But I know that the day I will run a critical application/server, I will either use openBSD or maybe a stable debian but not a recent linux.
Re:Just curious... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm, sorry, two what ? Two remotely exploitable holes in the default install, or two users running the default install ?
(For those not in the know: the default install has - drums rolling - ssh enabled. And SMTP on 127.0.0.1. That's it. Over. No http, no ftp, no pop, nothing else.)
Don't get me wrong, I'm a great OpenBSD fan and run it on my 3 production machines. Still, personally I consider that statement about the two holes more embarassing than impressive.
Re:Just curious... (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.slack-fr.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday November 07, @08:25AM)
True, but you should also read about PrivSep [umich.edu], W^X, security levels [openbsd.org], systrace [openbsd.org] and other important security mechanisms that mitigates those risks (while not entirely eliminating them). All of these (and more) make a well-configured OpenBSD machine a very tough nut to crack. So to speak.
To me, the best thing about OpenBSD is not that it is perfectly secure (that can't be achieved) but that security is taken seriously and all this mechanisms are activated by default. The excellent documentation, especially manual pages vs the GNU unreadable info pages mess, and reactive developper community are also big pluses in my book.
Yea, but... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Yea, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://theravensnest.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday October 07, @07:05AM)
2 remote holes in default install (Score:2, Funny)
Downloads (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au/~dleigh/)
(Yes, that was annoyed sarcasm). I'd rather donate to the project and download an image than get one shipped, I can't believe OpenBSD is still refusing to provide Official ISOs.
Re:Downloads (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Friday March 26 2004, @04:22PM)
Re:Downloads (Score:5, Informative)
for EVERYTHING? They're not "refusing" anything, the OpenBSD people
provide an easy manner to obtain and install OpenBSD via ftp.
For beginners, and for people who don't understand try looking here:
http://www.openbsd101.com/ [openbsd101.com]
The above site is Linux user friendly.
Re:Downloads (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Monday October 15, @11:53PM)
For the same reason Linux kernels, and any other files aren't directly linked in
Just for you: ftp://ftp5.usa.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/4.1/i386/c
Creating an ISO is positively trivial. The file system layout is exactly the same as the FTP tree. Just be sure to make it bootable with mkisofs -b, or whatever "bootable" check-box your Win32 CD burner program has...
Not to mention that there are dozens of different ways to install, and a bootable CD is rarely the most convenient. FTP install is quite handy.
It's only for non-x86 systems that creating bootable CDs is somewhat difficult. And even there, I'd much rather create my own multiple system CD than download an x86 ISO, an Alpha ISO, a Sparc ISO, and burn each to several different (mostly-empty) CDs.
OpenBSD 4.1 Release Song (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html [openbsd.org]
ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/songs/song41.mp
OpenBSD 4.1 Release Song (Score:1, Redundant)
(http://www.mavetju.org/)
The list is using the same sources as the other *BSDs Multimedia Resources Lists [mavetju.org]
3 Years and Counting (Score:2, Informative)
(http://www.primary0.com/)
Thanks for this. OpenBSD is rock solid!
But... (Score:5, Funny)
No ISO policy (Score:4, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
"The OpenBSD project does not make the ISO images used to master the official CDs available for download. The reason is simply that we would like you to buy the CD sets to help fund ongoing OpenBSD development. The official OpenBSD CD-ROM layout is copyright Theo de Raadt. Theo does not permit people to redistribute images of the official OpenBSD CDs. As an incentive for people to buy the CD set, some extras are included in the package as well (artwork, stickers etc).
Note that only the CD layout is copyrighted, OpenBSD itself is free. Nothing precludes someone else from downloading OpenBSD and making their own CD. If for some reason you want to download a CD image, try searching the mailing list archives for possible sources. Of course, any OpenBSD ISO images available on the Internet either violate Theo de Raadt's copyright or are not official images. The source of an unofficial image may or may not be trustworthy; it is up to you to determine this for yourself."
Now, FTP installs are pretty slick in these days of prevalent high speed; still, it seems a bit silly and arbitrary to intentionally restrict ISO distribution, to try and sell a few discs. The people who are willing to pay, would buy regardless of a free ISO being available (corporations and IT departments like having the official discs, and such).
I guess more than anything, this policy stikes me as a bit of "attitude", which turns me off the distribution, more than the mild inconvenience of not having ISO's readily available.
Re:No ISO policy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No ISO policy (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/~LittleLebowskiUrbanA/journal/ | Last Journal: Thursday March 30 2006, @06:26PM)
This attitude pisses me off. If you were actually using OpenBSD, you'd be willing to fork over a few buck to get the disks. But you're not using it. The amount of time spent to produce such a high quality OS is worth the money in my book.
The other thing that pisses me off is that OpenBSD doesn't have a millionaire patron. But they do have Sun, Cisco, etc shipping their software (OpenSSH) withouth even bothering to contribute to the foundation. Kinda cheap, huh? Maybe that's why they charge for their install disks.
You clearly know nothing about OpenBSD.
quick say something negative about OpenBSD .. (Score:1, Redundant)
OpenBSD wishlist (Score:1)
Elegy for *BSD (Score:1, Funny)
Elegy For *BSD
I am a *BSD user
and I try hard to be brave
That is a tall order
*BSD's foot is in the grave.
I tap at my toy keyboard
and whistle a happy tune
but keeping happy's so hard,
*BSD died so soon.
Each day I wake and softly sob
Nightfall finds me crying
Not only am I a zit faced slob
but *BSD is dying.
Xen? (Score:1)
Re:who cares? (Score:2, Funny)
(http://commandline.org.uk/ | Last Journal: Wednesday May 30, @05:49AM)
No idea, they make a nice SSH program though.
Re:Yea but.... (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Monday October 15, @11:53PM)
Of course it does.
It runs Linux binaries directly, like all the BSDs.
It also has Qemu, Bochs, BasiliskII, GXEmul, etc. in ports, on which Linux will no-doubt run.
Insert "In Soviet Russia" "Beowulf Cluster" "I read that as" "??? Profit" and any other completely mindless
Re:Yea but.... (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Sunday October 05 2003, @10:18PM)
Re:who cares? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Sad, but predictable (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Thursday January 26 2006, @04:44AM)
Re:Sad, but predictable (Score:2)
(http://ettlz.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday February 12 2006, @06:53PM)
Re:So (Score:2)
(http://vimrc-dissection.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday March 24 2007, @07:58AM)
C'mon, we do not want to start the old song again. You know, most first Linux drivers were ported over from BSD.
Development of both BSD & Linux isn't commercialized - so word "lifted" is unfit here. It is more about "exchange of ideas" [canonical.org] ;)