OpenBSD 3.7 Reviewed

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."

Declare your bias, why don't you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Opening line:

The operating system world has been blessed by another regular release of OpenBSD.

And, no, it doesn't get any more objective further down. Nor does he talk about the licensing issues or new architectures in any detail at all - less detail, in fact, than he talks about the theme tune.

Re:Actual information

[LWATCDR]

I have to admit I am disappointed. No benchmarks. No list of new features, No detail on setting up a server running it.
Heck it was more of a bad press release than a review.

We use it to power some very large databases

[Anonymous Coward]

Even though OpenBSD isn't great for performance in most cases, we've used it in our consulting business to power some of the customer / billing / receivable databases for some very large LA bars, restaurants, and clubs.

--

Restaurants, bars, and clubs in Los Angeles [nightspots.la]

Re:Declare your bias, why don't you?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we need to stop referring to bsds as free.

it's the wrong word.

and wrong paradigm.

BSD license is like being in a war, and discovering that your supplier is supplying munitions to the other side.

Then your supplier tries to placate you: "There's no war. What war? There is no war. Your freedom is not under attack. You are imagining it all!"

Re:BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, from an admins point of view, the BSDs are easier to learn than any linux distribution. That is not to say they are easier to use, but they are simpler when it comes to managing the system:

Less complicated init;
MUCH better documentation;
Less painful filesystem management (though LVM2 is really nice);

The downsides are significant however:

Bad support for esoteric hardware;
Less vendor support;
Fewer eyes looking over the code (though, to be fair, there is MUCH less code for them to look over)

Re:Mandatory Access Controls?

[tim_mcc]

the default install is essentially useless, as there have been holes in the services that most people would want to enable...

Well, this depends really on what you think *most* people want. The system contains a number of tools from the default install, including:

ntpd
pf
bgpd
isakmpd
spamd
OpenSSH
X.Org
Gcc
Perl
Apache
OpenSSL
Groff
Sendmail
Bind
Lynx
Sudo
Ncurses
Heimdal
Arla
Binutils
Gdb


Although I may have missed few...

As you can see from the apps mentioned, there are a number ways you could put a default install box to use. Basic web server, firewall, mailhost..?

I switched from Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Last night I switched from Debian unstable to OpenBSD 3.7, on account of the better wireless support.

So far it's been a good deal. I copied my $HOME from Debian, installed a bunch of stuff from the ports tree, and I can hardly tell the difference now, other than better wireless support, and probably a cleaner userland.

OpenBSD's base system is great, and though the ports tree is nowhere near as massive as Debian, it still contains nearly 100% of the relevant tools that I use every day, packaged in a very clean manner. I'm satisfied!

Re:BSD

[PapaZit]

Fewer eyes looking over the code

I don't know if this is really true. There are three major BSD "distributions" with subtle differences. Fans of each routinely look over the code for the others looking for good, "stealable" code. Not only does that mean that people are looking at the code, but informed "outsider" coders are looking at it with a critical eye. So, even if the code is reviewed by fewer people, it's reviewed by people who are more likely to notice, report, and fix bugs.

Another review of OpenBSD

[Anonymous Coward]

there's a review that looks at openbsd from the perspective of its ancestor, netbsd:

http://www.feyrer.de/NetBSD/openbsd-comparison.htm l [feyrer.de]

looking at openbsd commit logs, the apm issue was solved shortly after that review came out, but without mentioning the review.

Re: That's it

[ulib]

FreeBSD because of the number of ports, i386 optimization, availability of features that one day could turn out handy (like jails).
There are also other reasons related to the goals of the projects - I like FreeBSD for emphasizing the "tool" aspect of software, keeping policies/politics completely out of the door. But it's not that I don't respect OpenBSD activism, as a matter of fact I do, they have a point (and by pressing hardware vendors they've already got amazing results). It's just that the FreeBSD point of view happens to be closer to mine. (Btw this last issue influences which one I like better, not which one I use, since IMHO this is not a reason to use one over the other.)
Anyway, I think that what the *BSD projects have in common is far more important - that is, the academical spirit of the BSD license.
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.

Server OS

[eraser.cpp]

OpenBSD is really more of a server OS. Sure you /can/ use it as a desktop, but there are better alternatives. I think its strongest point is how in /etc/rc.conf one can simply change say named_flags=N to named_flags="" (command arguments could go inside the quotes) and bam! BIND is up and running. Many of these services are available in /etc/rc.conf from the default install. Thus with OpenBSD it is possible to bring up a reliable and secure server fairly quickly.