OpenBSD 5.5 Released 128
ConstantineM (965345) writes "Just as per the schedule, OpenBSD 5.5 was released today, May 1, 2014. The theme of the 5.5 release is Wrap in Time, which represents a significant achievement of changing time_t to int64_t on all platforms, as well as ensuring that all of the 8k+ OpenBSD ports still continue to build and work properly, thus doing all the heavy lifting and paving the way for all other operating systems to make the transition to 64-bit time an easier task down the line. Signed releases and packages and the new signify utility are another big selling point of 5.5, as well as OpenSSH 6.6, which includes lots of DJB crypto like chacha20-poly1305, plus lots of other goodies."
YAY for BSD (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
OMG. Lesbians are recommending the use of OpenBSD. I have just got to install it, just to be like lesbians.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fire up a VM and try it out, OpenBSD is a really nice OS to work with IMO.
Re: (Score:3)
it is a joke, you're funny
you could have made a backup copy of fstab before dicking with it. or followed the excellent OpenBSD documentation and made backup root partition.
Re: (Score:2)
Some reason you can't just manually run "mount" from the command-line to mount the /usr partition, and get vi and man pages back?
And is there some reason you couldn't just visit the website to access the man pages?
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin... [openbsd.org]
Re: (Score:2)
No, the manual is on the file system, and they're far better than the crap documentation you get from Linux or other Unixes. It just also happens to be available, in a convenient location on the web.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, that's pretty much what 99.7% of people can contribute to this discussion(maybe 95% of slashdotters specifically, but still).
You can kinda go "Yay open source operating system that creates a bit of systemic competitive pressure to keep updating other open source operating systems through some really bizarre application of economics towards a system built around entirely free exchange"
It gets real abstract.
Re: YAY for BSD (Score:3)
If not for the lack of ZFS, I would use OpenBSD. Instead my fileserver is running FreeBSD 10.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
openbsd has the Unix FFS (up to about 1TB volume size) and FFS2 (up to 8 zettabytes volume size)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
FFS2 is basically the original Berkeley FFS (also known as UFS, but there are at least half a dozen incompatible filesystems called UFS, so that just gets confusing) with some extensions. It basically just increases the size of various fields in the inode data structure so that various limits are much larger. I'm not familiar with the OpenBSD implementation, but on FreeBSD it also supports soft updates (where metadata and data writes are sequenced so that the filesystem is aways consistent, although fsck
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't relate to any of the (layering) changes you listed. That's a simple byproduct of ZFS being a copy-on-write (CoW) file system, unlike most other popular file systems. But there are other CoW file systems out there, which similarly have O(1) snapshots.
Re: (Score:2)
OpenBSD does have soft updates which are optionally enabled at mount time. It also has software RAID 0 or 1, and 1 allows more than two volumes to be mirrored, kind of like a hot spare that doesn't need rebuild time.
So it's not as full featured as ZFS, though compared to most linux filesystems the FFS and FFS2 are extremely robust at surviving unexpected power failure.
Re:YAY for BSD (Score:5, Funny)
It gets real abstract.
Well, which is it?
Re: (Score:3)
The former latter.
Re:YAY for BSD (Score:5, Insightful)
And there you go with the problem with it. OpenBSD has no holes in the install...
Regardless of how you use an operating system, if the OS foundation is not secure, then anything you put on top of it cannot be secure.
At least OpenBSD provides the secure foundation upon which you can build what you'd like. The security of what you build on top of OpenBSD is your responsibility.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, no. Heartbleed showed how meaningless theire claims of a secure default install are in this day and age.
It used to mean something against Windows Servers and Linux Distros that had everything enabled by default, but not so much these days.
All these years, and they hadn't even audited openssl, a key core component of the default install.
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression that OpenBSD did not enable heartbeats by default and, as such, was not vulnerable to Heartbleed by default.
Am I wrong?
Re: (Score:1)
OpenBSD have software in place that wouldn't allow the Heartbleed bug to work in the first place. As soon as a Heartbleed event occurred, the OpenSSL software would immediately terminate in OpenBSD.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly I'm not sure. If heartbleeds are not enabled that's great.
It still lessons their claim since they missed a vulnerability from 2011 in the base install. No doubt there are others.
Re: YAY for BSD (Score:3, Informative)
How to update Open BSD: insert CD, boot CD, select update. Wait a few minutes. Upgrade ports. Wait a few minutes. You are done.
No CD? Copy base files to machine through SSH. Install files. Reboot. Upgrade ports. Wait a few minutes. You are done.
Any other questions?
Re: (Score:1)
You got it. I've updated remote (read: "in other countries") OpenBSD machines for over a decade. There is still the anxiety of waiting for the system to boot, but I don't recall ever having it blow up on me.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do we not like scripts? Honest question.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Break easy compared to machine code in some specific way?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is to say: it's software.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Its not one script anymore. Its one script hundreds of lines long that calls other scripts to finally accomplish something you could do with seconds and ifconfig. Don't get me started with the mess systemd is.
Re: (Score:1)
How do you even change the ip address from the command line?
"ip addr add $IP_NUM dev $IP_DEV"
Or, if you like, you can use ifconfig, even though that's obsolete.
They'll collect your nerd card on the way out, troll.
Not quite (Score:2)
Wasn't that easy on my BeagleBone Black board http://derekmolloy.ie/set-ip-a... [derekmolloy.ie]
How anyone is supposed to figure that out is beyond me. Is a script calling ifconfig too good for you people?
Re: (Score:1)
but I guess I just fed a troll, so jokes on me.
Re: (Score:3)
You use the same tools the scripts use. Ifconfig.
Choose a better distro and things wont be so obfuscated.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, doesn't work on Linux. NetworkManager or some other daemon will come along and overwrite your manual ifconfig change in short order.
Re: (Score:2)
/sbin/ifconfig
It's not just for listing!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's the silent protagonist in the technological world - they build and refine the technology that seeps into all other operating systems.
The code is licensed so liberally that Stallman's arguments literally boil down to "everyone can use it so it's not free".
If you dig into the credits portion of almost any software, it's there.
We all use BSD.
Re: (Score:1)
Stallman has never called the BSD license non-free. You're either delusional or a liar.
All free software licenses are wonderful for us users. Copyleft ones are also wonderful for free software as a whole.
Re: (Score:1)
The code is licensed so liberally that Stallman's arguments literally boil down to "everyone can use it so it's not free".
Given that Stallman's main organisation, the Free Software Foundation, almost actively supports [gnu.org] the BSD license, declaring it a Free Software License compatible with the GPL, I wonder what it is that drives you to say such a thing. A feeling that since the truth normally supports Richard, it's worth spreading almost any lie in the hope of discrediting him?
Re: (Score:2)
Stallman has always acknowledged it as Free and continues to do so.
Dont be a troll.
Re: (Score:3)
Referring to this [gnu.org] post in particular.
His stance is a demonization of liberally licensed code, to a very unfortunate degree.
I am absolutely not trolling when I say that man has given up freedom for ideology.
Re: (Score:2)
Referring to this post in particular."
I suggest you re-read his post. If your opinion has not corrected by then, you might need to seek remedial help in Reading or English. "EXACTLY" and "not at all" are not synonyms, and this is actually not at all what he is saying in that post.
Re: (Score:2)
A. Nowhere.
"What is the correct interpretation of his comment that BSD devs basically avoid talking about freedom if it doesn't mean it isn't truly free?"
That despite being Free they do not share the values and goals of copyleft, do not recognise or care about the need for copyleft.
Free Software: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Copyleft: https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/
List of Free Software Licenses: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
you sure? your printer doesn't have have controller running BSD? or network appliance?
*Ahem* (Score:1, Funny)
oblig [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Except we're not on 64-bit.
The full announcement tells you that a load of things had to be converted to unsigned 32-bit because that's all you could do.
And they can conceivably affect things in your children's lifetimes (if not before, with long date calculations like mortgages etc.).
Fact is, however, that system support for 64-bit time only means your taskbar clock will go up that far. It means nothing in terms of your application actually supporting and calculating things correctly once we get anywhere n
Re: (Score:2)
Making time_t an int64_t instead of an int32_t has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether the architecture is 32 or 64 bits. An application that does time manipulations NOT using time_t is a stupid, broken application.
Missing libReSSL, as expected (Score:4, Insightful)
Before anyone asks, no, this new version of OpenBSD (version 5.5) does not include libReSSL yet.
That's not how OpenBSD operates. Neat announcements made even a month before an OpenBSD release do not usually appear in the very next OpenBSD release. There are cutoffs/deadlines, and the OpenBSD group is far more interesting in ensuring reliability than flashy new code that is only partially ready.
If you check the libReSSL.org website, libReSSL is planning to be included in OpenBSD 5.6, which I expect will be released on November 1, 2014. The OpenBSD group has a solid track record of making their official releases publicly available by the expected date.
To see an overview on what did get included in this version (like signed packages), see the release notes (which is pointed to by the first hyperlink of this Slashdot news story).
Next release... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Horse shit. It's exactly the same timing as Ubuntu and Fedora and much qicker than Debian and Redhat Enterprise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
USB Installer! (Score:5, Informative)
There's a USB installation image for i386 and amd64! Finally! Dear lord, it's been years. That's as big a deal as the time_t thing for me.
Re: (Score:1)
A more flexible way to create an OpenBSD flash installer:
http://blog.breeno.net/2014/02/creating-flexible-openbsd-usb-installer.html
Signed packages! (Score:2)
No, the biggest thing for me is the signed packages. For a security-focused distribution, the lack of signed packages seemed quite ironic.
NetBSD time_t (Score:4, Informative)
I use OpenBSD almost exclusively, but in all fairness NetBSD was the first to move to a 64-bit time_t on all its platforms.
Also, there's no chance that Linux would ever make such a jump. They'll invent something complex and annoying to maintain backward compatibility with all the proprietary crapware. OpenBSD and NetBSD can do it because they're not afraid to make everybody recompile their software.
(For people who don't understand the issue: on NetBSD and OpenBSD time_t is now 64-bits, even on 32-bit platforms. So the 2038 problem is non-existent going forward, even for 32-bit software.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but this openbsd release is a "flag day" release, meaning it *will* break old binaries, they need to be recompiled.
Re: (Score:1)
Not all platforms are as brain damaged as the x86. On SPARC64 type systems, you'll find that most all software is run in 32bit mode, as the ABI still allows you full register access. Most software doesn't need to access more than 4GB of memory anyways.
Also there is a lot of non-FOSS software that is only available as Linux x86 32bit executables, keeping t
Re: (Score:2)
So how does it perform? (Score:2, Interesting)
I have used OpenBSD a number of times over the years but when I have tried to use it as a high performance server it falls on its face. Has it gotten any better?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OpenBSD is not meant to be the fastest or most scalable OS in the world -- just the safest. The right tool for the job. You use OpenBSD as a firewall in front of your high performance server, which can then run whatever OS you choose. I wouldn't trust anything else. More specifically, the bare bones, well documented, best practice coded, continuously audited, secure by default approach means you can deploy an OpenBSD firewall router with minimal effort and minimal worry. Save the worry and effort for t
Can I relax now? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Using a signed 64-bit value introduces a new wraparound date that is over twenty times greater than the estimated age of the universe: approximately 292 billion years from now, at 15:30:08 on Sunday, 4 December 292,277,026,596.
Re: (Score:1)
Everyone forgot the most important bit! (Score:1)
5.5 base signify pubkey: RWRGy8gxk9N9314J0gh9U02lA7s8i6ITajJiNgxQOndvXvM5ZPX+nQ9h
5.5 fw signify pubkey: RWTdVOhdk5qyNktv0iGV6OpaVfogGxTYc1bbkaUhFlExmclYvpJR/opO
5.5 pkg signify pubkey: RWQQC1M9dhm/tja/ktitJs/QVI1kGTQr7W7jtUmdZ4uTp+4yZJ6RRHb5
Heartbleed not fixed in 5.5 by default (Score:1)
Just an FYI, heartbleed is not fixed in 5.5 without extra (source) patches.
See http://www.openbsd.org/errata5... [openbsd.org]
002: SECURITY FIX: April 8, 2014 All architectures
Missing bounds checking in OpenSSL's implementation of the TLS/DTLS heartbeat extension (RFC6520) which can result in a leak of memory contents.
A source code patch exists which remedies this problem.
Re: (Score:2)
patching openbsd is usually this dance:
1. wget or whatever to download the patch /usr/src and apply patch with patch -p0 my_patch.txt
2. best practice, use "signify" to check signature
3. cd
4. make obj; make; make install
Re: (Score:2)
oh, slashdot filter knocked out the < sign; nice going for a supposed geek tech forum eh?
/. IS a geek tech forum (Score:1)
patch -p0 < 005_openssl.patch.sig
Re: (Score:3)
A third party has created an auto-update app.
https://stable.mtier.org/ [mtier.org]
Re: (Score:2)
some caveats, that only does i386 and amd64. the package manager in openbsd automatically updates packages anyway, as for the openbsd binaries despite what that mtier.org says it's very simple and fast to update, in less than four minutes I had applied all outstanding patches to a system I brought up today.
Re: (Score:2)
by "automatic" I mean you type in pkg_add -u and it then updates all packages that have updates
Wayland (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
no it doesn't, just X
so far wayland has less features than X, but who knows about the future
Re: *BSD is dying (Score:1)
http://meta.unix.stackexchange... [stackexchange.com]