Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
BSD Operating Systems IT

OpenBSD Foundation Announced 151

Posted by samzenpus
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.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OpenBSD Foundation Announced

Comments Filter:
  • 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.

  • 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:Interesting (Score:2, Insightful)

    by NicM (188290) on Thursday July 26, 2007 @03:46AM (#19993899)
    > 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: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.

  • 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.
  • Re:OpenCVS? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26, 2007 @04:18AM (#19994065)
    CVS has the advantage that it is a fairly simple system compared to for example subversion, and it has also been stable for a long time. This means that it is much easier to audit and secure the code, compared to more complex tools. I have yet to see anyone claim the subversion is inherently more secure than CVS, or the securing subversion is somehow easier than securing CVS.
  • 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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26, 2007 @07:00AM (#19994761)
    There are no bad guys, and there is no contest to be won or lost. Why do so many slashtards try to push their irrational FUD on to open source projects? If you want to win something then go compete at something. The OpenBSD team is just making an OS they like because they like it. There's no way to lose at that.
  • OpenBSD Logo (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Santana (103744) on Thursday July 26, 2007 @09:44AM (#19996531) Homepage
    I'm sure there are enough OpenBSD stories to open an OpenBSD section with the respective OpenBSD logo Puffy instead of FreeBSD's Beastie
  • by Azuma Hazuki (955769) on Thursday July 26, 2007 @03:03PM (#20001595)
    I don't use OpenBSD at home (as mentioned, its niche is in firewalls and routers), but I think it's one of the most underrated and well-designed OSes in the history of modern computing. Theo de Raadt, abrasive as he is, is something like a thinner, paranoid RMS who showers once in a while, and I say that with only the best intentions. Like RMS, he may be hard to get along with, but he's nearly always right. Theo, if you're reading this, good luck!

A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention, with the possible exceptions of handguns and Tequilla. -- Mitch Ratcliffe

Working...