OpenBSD 3.7 Reviewed 197
busfahrer writes "Jem Matzan has written a review of OpenBSD 3.7 for Newsforge. He talks about their licensing issues, network features, upgrading packages and the new supported architectures."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
OpenBSD 3.7 Reviewed
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson
Meh (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:BSD, the history (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Declare your bias, why don't you? (Score:5, Insightful)
You have issues with BSD licensing? How much freeer do you want it?
Actual information (Score:5, Insightful)
Outside of these things, the only pieces of information I could find boiled down to "there's two new ports", "it still doesn't include Apache 2.x", and "you get daily (in)security reports mailed to you". If it wasn't for the irrelevant fluff mentioned above, I'd assume the author of this article hasn't even installed OpenBSD and instead just looked through the website and maybe Google'd for some extra information.
I really hope the author didn't get payed too much for this, because no matter how much he got, the article wasn't worth it.
I expected more, but of course... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would have appreciated the article more if it were a lot more in-depth, but perhaps that would've ward off others. I would like to see him not just talk about the install process (initially), but also how easy it was to install applications (and not just "I had to type too much"), configure them (interface-configuration, or purely text-editing), and finally - how well they all interacted. Now, I know that sounds more like an analysis of the individual applications rather than the operating system, but what is an operating system if not a platform that you use to interact with applications?
We also hear about the "new wireless" stuff... where was that? Test with multiple cards? USB-Wireless perhaps? PCMCIA Wireless? To tout such things (even in the review) and then not do anything with them is rather disappointing.
Re:Declare your bias, why don't you? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Declare your bias, why don't you? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is less reason to review OpenBSD. (Score:4, Insightful)
When I ran RedHat, there were some pretty annoying things that got changed from release to release (inetd disappears, two different C compiler installs because of kernel problems, etc.).
This kind of stuff doesn't happen in OpenBSD. From an administration perspective, my first 3.2 install is very similar to the 3.5 that I run now, which itself is similar to 3.7. There are no large architecture changes (perhaps because things are well-thought-out from the start).
Because of this, you pretty much know what you're getting when a new OpenBSD release comes out. The installer is practically identical, and the running system yeilds few surprises. There will always be new features, but there won't be lots of things to unlearn.
So no, I don't really pay much attention to the reviews. The list of new features on the OpenBSD web page pretty much tells me all that I need to know.
Re:Actual information (Score:4, Insightful)
Later he wrote an article on newsforge about "Being Free is Hard to Do" on free software, than he submitted this article to slashdot under his nick (ValourX), describing it in the following terms:
What shameless self promotion! It is a pity, for once this guy wrote excellent reviews and articles, but what he does lately is prostitution, not journalism.No troll, I'm dead serious and love OpenBSD (Score:1, Insightful)
OpenBSD is not open to the typical install process, ie 10Gig of Windows then no possible booting for OpenBSD.
Do we have to wait for version 5.0 before Theo "gets it?"
Apache2 (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The shot at RMS for the day (Score:3, Insightful)
The simple fact of open source isn't what gets built, it's the spirit behind it - a spirit that exists without some fat bearded douche bag writing PART of a compiler (which isn't JUST WRITTEN BY RMS, IT'S WRITTEN BY MANY MANY OTHER PEOPLE [gnu.org] TO REACH IT'S CURRENT, USEFUL FORM!!! Jeebus people). That spirit would move other people to develop their own compiler, much like the anti-GPL spirit in the BSD community has fostered increasing support for TenDRA [tendra.org]. So, to answer your question, what is the greatest contribution to open source? Motivation to write open source software. If GCC didn't exist, that motivation would push coders to develop a different free compiler. To say otherwise is to speak with dogmatic blinders.
It's not as though RMS is the only one who can start a compiler and get it to attain self-sustaining momentum. Any good college CS program involves a class in compilers. A compiler is not some great mystery of comptuers, it just takes a lot of work to get one that works well enough for production use. Once TenDRA becomes stable and feature-rich enough to be used in production, BSD wills switch over to it in droves.
Re:Declare your bias, why don't you? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you talking about the so called "freedom" that code has under the GPL that "keeps" it open? That's not really freedom as it comes at a cost, a large cost, the authors "give up" their "rights" is the cost. Now they might want to do that and pay that price (which is perfectly fine if they choose to do so), but afterwards they are no longer free to do what they want with the code, and neither are users who might choose to use the code as the "many rules" of the GPL will keep you in line with the "commune of the GPL".
Freedom isn't the right word for the GPL'd code. It's too bad that Richard Stallman usurped that word. Yes, you get some freedom but it's more like a restricted freedom only if you obey the party line.
The BSD license with its minimal terms gives authors and users maximal choices including the freedom to modify the code and not release it and sell such modifications! That's simply not an option if you want to stay within the terms of the agreement with the GPL! So the GPL isn't "free" in a way that the BSD is free.
These two licences aim at different audiences and use different methods (minimal v.s. wordy) to achive their goals.
The BSD is about "freedom of choice" of BOTH authors and users.
The GPL doesn't care about users or authors. It simply cares about the code and will impose whatever restrictions by having users and authors surrender their natural and legal rights to the commune of the GPL.
Which do you want? The freedom of choice or the rules of the GPL commune you wish to live under! It's your own personal choice until you commit your code to one of them (or another licence scheme of your choice). Choose wisely and after consideration is my best advise. Be free, stay free.
Re:Declare your bias, why don't you? (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom isn't the right word for the GPL'd code. It's too bad that Richard Stallman usurped that word. Yes, you get some freedom but it's more like a restricted freedom only if you obey the party line, and that's not true freedom at all since your freedom is restricted. Restricted-freedom-at-a-high-cost is more like it... or Freedom-with-legirons.
The BSD license with its minimal terms gives authors and users maximal choices including the freedom to modify the code and not release it and sell such modifications! That's true freedom of choice for authors and users! That's simply not an option if you want to stay within the terms of the agreement with the GPL! So the GPL isn't "free" in a way that the BSD is free.
Re:Declare your bias, why don't you? (Score:3, Insightful)
So I highly doubt a BSD would care if, say, Windows inherited its own OpenSSH-based SSH daemon (though it might need a different SSL library). I quote from Theo, "Their security is our security", and if Windows machines are given boosts to security capabilities, the whole world benefits. There's no point in starving other projects of good code: in fact, the open source spirit is about reducing redundancy where possible! And despite occasional technical inadequacies, the BSDs are much closer to this spirit than GNU/Linux (which has much less code sharing, and a license that makes it difficult to import its code).
But I'm expecting a lot of 'omgtrol!1!!' in response to this.
Re:The shot at RMS for the day (Score:3, Insightful)
More to the point, do you seriously think that if your scenario played out the BSD folks could not port their compiler to the new CPU as easily as the GCC folks port thiers today?
Re:Declare your bias, why don't you? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sort of like mixing champagne and sewage. The result is always sewage.