BSDCon '03 Nearly Here (OpenBSD 3.4, Too) 332
An anonymous reader writes "Pre-orders for the OpenBSD project's latest release, 3.4, are now being taken. This release will ship around November 1st. Significant enhancements have been made in this release, including i386 switch to ELF executable format, further W^X improvements for i386, ld.so on ELF platforms now loads libraries in a random order for greater resistance to attacks, inclusion of a static bounds checker to the compiler for basic checks on functions which accept buffers and sizes, strcpy/strcat function audit to replace with safer strlcpy/strlcat, ProPolice stack protection in the kernel, further manual page cleanups, large number of bug fixes and optimizations to the packet filter (PF) including packet tagging, stateful TCP normalization, passive OS detection, SYN proxy, and adaptive state timeouts, and many other improvements to the rest of the system.
Order a CD from the OpenBSD store. Ordering a CD helps support the project, as a bonus you get cool stickers, artwork, and an audio track!"
The same reader sent links to more information on this release, including new features, and the changelog between 3.3 and 3.4.
The important question (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The important question (Score:1)
Ceren? I don't know (but I'm also curious). I don't think she was at the last BSDCon.
Oh, and it's DAEMON, not devil.
Re:Oh and... (Score:1)
Oh, and she actually is not so hot at all, but who cares.....geek-babes are rare enough...;oP
Re:Oh and... (Score:1, Insightful)
Speak for yourself. Some people think she's hot.
Re:The important question (Score:1)
Ceren? attending? (Score:2, Informative)
Buzz Buzz Buzz (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Buzz Buzz Buzz (Score:1)
Technical sessions start Sept 10 (Score:5, Informative)
Speaking of the 10th... I'd better start working on my slides.
removing some utilities (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone know why OpenBSD is removing GNU tools
Re:removing some utilities (Score:5, Informative)
Basically, GNU licenced programs are only there if really necessary.
Re:removing some utilities (Score:4, Informative)
First of all, there has been a _small_ bit of interest in Tendra by just a few in the BSD community, but I don't think it's fair to say that they have been looking into replacing GCC.
Secondly, licensing isn't the only concern. An upgrade from GCC 2.9 to 3 is on the horizon, and at least one of the primary OpenBSD developers has said that they aren't happy with GCC 3. I don't think it's worth getting into detail, but it isn't licensing issues alone.
Re:removing some utilities (Score:2)
I said what I said because, AFAIK, they are not officially doing so. It seems to be just a few individual developers interested in the prospect.
I was refering, specifially, to the upgrade to GCC3. I've only heard one outspoken core developer voice objections about the transition.
Re:removing some utilities (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:removing some utilities (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah! Such enlightening insight into the world of open source licensing!
My dear sir, you are utterly incorrect. Were some corporation to "lock down" their source code (and I can only assume that by "lock down" you mean to re-release under a proprietary license) they would only be assuring that their version of the software would be utterly disregarded by the entire computer community, because (pay attention here) the free version would not somehow magically cease to exist! So on the one hand you would have the free, latest version. On the other hand, you would have the not-free, catching-up version. Gee, tough choice.
Now what the BSD license does allow is for some company to take some or all of the source and reuse it elsewhere, under a proprietary license if they so wish, without giving anything back to the Free software community. Whether or not this is necessarily a bad thing is a philosophical matter. However, your assertion that a company could "lock down" the OpenBSD code is completely and utterly incorrect.
Re:removing some utilities (Score:1)
They do give back to the community in many cases anyway. I fixed a bug in some code with a BSD-like license that we use in our proprietary product. It made sense for us to send a patch in to the maintainers because naturally it would have been impractical for us to maintain the software our
Re:removing some utilities (Score:4, Interesting)
absolutely! The BSD license implicitly encourages companies to share patches "upstream" because it will make future forking easier. The companies that used "forked" BSD software do not want to maintain tons of separate bug fixes in a different codebase. They just want to copy other people's work. That sounds "evil", but it does provide a strong incentive to share a common codebase.
Re:removing some utilities (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:removing some utilities (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. There's never enough money.
Re:removing some utilities (Score:3, Informative)
gplBSD here we come.
Re:removing some utilities (Score:2)
They want it to be "stolen"... (Score:5, Informative)
You don't understand the BSD license. It's impossible to steal something that's given freely. BSD has been such a seminal influence precisely because the code can be "stolen". That's the intent.
Besides, AT&T did try to steal (in the "you can't use it anymore" sense of the word) BSD's code. They lost.
If he thinks separating from the protection granted by GPL will further the survivability of OpenBSD, he's seriously mistaken.
BSD predates the GPL.
Re:huh? (Score:3, Informative)
Inspire competition, the community creates a superior program to the corporation, etc etc. This cycle has been going on for a very, very long time.
Some of us are OK with sharing, even if it means someone else might make money off of it.
Re:huh? (Score:1)
Re:huh? (Score:1)
Re:huh? (Score:1)
Re:huh? (Score:2)
Re:removing some utilities (Score:3, Interesting)
While I'm greatful I have these tools for free, and they have served me well, they are not without brain damage. For example, I found to my horror that 'patch' will, under certain circumstances, seek out and change my original files used to generate a patch, instead of what a reasonable reader would think to be the target files (the ones marked with "+++"). This is in fact documented behaviour, presumably thought to be go
Re:removing some utilities (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:removing some utilities (Score:2, Informative)
FreeGrep is also FAR more extensible and, in general, better designed. It would not be difficult to add support for grepping bzipped files, other compressed types, or even new types of files. It's also easier to add new options and features, though I do think the entire alphabet has been exhausted.
FreeBSD filesystem (Score:2, Interesting)
So anyway, how does FreeBSD's filesystem stack
Re:FreeBSD filesystem (Score:5, Informative)
FreeBSD chose to address this problem by making fsck capable of running in the background. fsck cooperates with the kernel, checking all files/inodes, and when a file is requested that has not yet been checked, the file operation is held while that check is moved to the front of the unique "moustache ride-ordered" queue.
Journaling without sacrificing performance and clean algorithms simply isn't possible, and corruption is still possible on a journaling filesystem with out-of-order writes as done by many kinds of cache-enabled drives and controllers, leading to a false sense of security when fsck is bypassed. FreeBSD's approach catches every situation, and guarantees an intact filesystem on every boot.
Re:FreeBSD filesystem (Score:1, Offtopic)
I dunno, have you see the previous article [slashdot.org]? I'd like to see FreeBSD catch this [datadocktorn.nu]!
Now that would be impressive!
Re:FreeBSD filesystem (Score:2)
Say it to IBM and SGI. They would like to hear your arguments just to discover that years of research and practice were useless.
Re:FreeBSD filesystem (Score:3, Informative)
That the FreeBSD filesystem blows the above away is one of its greater strengths. Sun is the only UNIX with a faster filesystem, but at nothing like the price point of course.
There's a reason why FreeBSD and Solaris are the only platforms where Oracle doesn't require a dedicated partition to create its own database filesystem. FreeBSD and Solaris can hack it. JFS, XFS, Reiser and friends are a fairly distant second.
Please do your research before posting. This kind of performance
Re:FreeBSD filesystem (Score:1)
(ducking)
Re:FreeBSD filesystem (Score:1)
Hopefully Linux will see this added in 2.8 or similar. Or they may take OpenBSD's tact ofadding commit markers to the journal queues to force syncs before blocks that update metadata. (This is good for reliability, but a little bad for performance, and very bad for potentially losing much more data if power is yanked or ma
Re:FreeBSD filesystem (Score:1)
Sure. That's the difference between GPL and BSDL. With GPL no need to worry - IBM or SGI will contribute something like that to Linux sooner or later (most likely sooner). With BSD don't waste your time: you gotta code it yourself.
Re:FreeBSD filesystem (Score:5, Interesting)
This could well be a good phd project for someone who wants to work on a thesis project that gives back to the community, and would surely secure them a job at Oracle or one of the other Big Data Storage Management companies.
Re:FreeBSD filesystem (Score:1, Funny)
Re:FreeBSD filesystem (Score:4, Funny)
Sigh... why do people mod things up as "interesting" or "insightful" when they don't understand what they mean? The parent should potentially be modified up as +1 funny.
Note the following terms used (and think of associated acronyms):
Re:FreeBSD filesystem (Score:1)
Re:FreeBSD filesystem (Score:1, Funny)
Nice troll... (Score:2)
Re:Nice troll... (Score:2)
Please please please don't throw me in the briar patch, Mr. Brer Bear!
Uh oh, looks like I've angered the trolls. Obviously someone's mother didn't pay him enough attention as a child. Hey AC, go post a couple more *BSD is dying threads -- someone just might notice you and give you the recognition you so desperately crave!
Re:FreeBSD filesystem (Score:2, Informative)
Load of arse. ext2 is both fast and reliable. If you're having lots of disk problems, you should look at your hardware.
Re:FreeBSD filesystem (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:FreeBSD filesystem (Score:2)
Bull! I've had many-a-time that my Linux system lost power, and an ext2 partition was corrupted. Usually my /home partition.
I can give you a 100% guarantee that is was not my hardware for two reasons. First of all, I had the exact same experience with a handful of different hard drives. Secondly, I'm still using all of those hard drives, and they haven't lost a single byte of my data, even with numerous power-outages, heavy-duty writing, and uprades from version to versi
Soothing break (Score:5, Funny)
Tell me you don't want BSD on your laptop now [madchat.org].
Further persuasion available here [madchat.org]. This is definitely +1 Interesting material to any heterosexual male. Mod me down if you are the sendmail author or otherwise uninterested.
Re:Soothing break (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Soothing break (Score:2)
Hey baby, you can do my security audit anytime!
Hey, wanna go out for a FreeBSD install and a fsck?
Hey baby, bet you can't install a rootkit in my homedirectory!
:-)
Ouch, ouch, I know... well back to hungover slumber then
Re:Soothing break (Score:1, Funny)
+5, serious; I want BSD on top of my lap. Is that the same thing?
Re:Soothing break (Score:2, Funny)
one issue that should be hot on the table (Score:3, Interesting)
Any linux related (binary compat in this case) that wants to move or shake should investigate ximian compatability....
I for one welcome out new ximian overlords.
Imagine a schimick GUI interface, FreeBSD underneath, all you'd need is a cheese grater aluminum case......
Soon? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Soon? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why, god. Why is it that an OS must be usable "on the desktop", "by mom", or by "the regular consumers" in order for it to be considered "good"? First we had Linux, and then they mom-ified Linux. Now you want them to mom-ify *BSD too? Fuck that shit!
There are server OSs. There are desktop OSs. Any attempt at combination is bound to fail miserably at one or the other and quite likely both.
Re:Soon? (Score:1)
The trouble is, (most) managers only see what's in the pc magazines so they don't know about the power of *BSD or other OS'.
I'm all in favor of seperate OS versions for server and for desktop uses. I still curse everytime I see totally useless junk installed on a Windoze server like Imaging, Pinball, etc...
Hell, if we had our way at work there would have been on
Re:Soon? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know. FreeBSD is a fine desktop/workstation OS. I use it on my laptop. However, it's not quite mummified yet (sorry, but we all have to have a reference to '*BSD is dead', don't we?). I recently installed it on my desktop as well, and wantet GDM as a
Re:Soon? (Score:3, Insightful)
OpenBSD has been working fine as my desktop for years. I'm using Mozilla on OpenBSD on my Laptop to type this message right now.
It's really quite easy to install, and you only need the tiniest bit of knowledge to setup X and install applications. I wouldn't say it's for "the regular consumers", but only because those people are horrified if they have to type-in a s
Re:Soon? (Score:1)
It's that kind of choice that would have given Windoze a big extra. At one point those OS will come together, when the BSD's can be as simple to install or use as Windoze, and Windoze can be customized as good as the BSD's. Then we can really make a choice on OS.
Re:Soon?-BSDs convoluted path. (Score:1)
I was surprised at the speed in which I had FreeBSD/KDE running. Much faster than a Windows 2000 install. Not to mention installing a simple web/ftp/nfs server.
That was what I was looking for at that time, a server set up in 5 minutes instead of at least half an hour.
Re:Soon? (Score:2)
Re:Soon? (Score:1)
Re:Soon? (Score:1)
I would recomend it over Windows to people that aren't very technical, but that's about it.
Don't mind me, just ranting here.
Re:Soon? (Score:1)
*BSD is just as open too, except the license is different, maybe less intruding. It gives everyone a chance to make some money from the software they write/enhance upon.
I recommend BSD to people so they don't have to go through all the different distributions of GNU/Linux to find the one that might suit them best. With the three big flavors of BSD you make more of a choice between security, portability, and o
Re:Soon? (Score:1)
Re:Soon? (Score:2)
Re:Soon? (Score:2)
Yes.
It probably has FreeBSD code, and they make efforts to make it FreeBSD compatable in some respects, but it's only loosely related.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/technologies/darwin.h t ml [apple.com]
The stability of Mac OS X begins with Darwin, an Open Source, UNIX-based foundation. Darwin is a complete BSD UNIX implementation, derived from the original 4.4BSD-Lite2 Open Source distribution. Darwin uses a monolithic kernel based on FreeBSD 4.4 and t
Re:Soon? (Score:1)
OpenBSD 3.4 song? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:OpenBSD 3.4 song? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:OpenBSD 3.4 song? (Score:1)
The "about three weeks" he sarcastically quotes is how long Theo had said his wife would be in the hospital from surgical complications just before she passed away early this spring. "About three weeks" is a troll used at every opportunity on the OpenBSD mailing lists, and it's twice caused Theo to have to take time away from the lists.
This is neither informative nor funny. Come on, people -- whether you like Theo or not, Angie had nothing to do with the BSD project, and this is just c
Re:OpenBSD 3.4 song? (Score:1)
I didn't know about any songs. There seems to be a "songs" directory on each OpenBSD mirror, I've never noticed it before. Perhaps because I'm always inside "3.3".
Maybe I can download them later.
Don't go! (Score:4, Funny)
Damn! (Score:1)
Anyways, you guys have fun!
DragonFly at BSDCon (Score:5, Informative)
Re:DragonFly at BSDCon (Score:2)
Hey Dillion, I was wondering if you had plans to make drivers for cams on Dragonfly? I am sick and tired of those who say FreeBSD is deing, look at driver support, you should try Gentoo, etc. I noticed my usb keyboard had support from FreeBSD long before Linux, contary to what the trolls tell me.
Just a request since I love my logitech quickcam and hate using Windows all the time. I know kernel work is alot more important to you but I figured its worth a shot to ask.
OpenBSD Journal is dying (not a troll) (Score:5, Interesting)
So, I wonder if anyone here knows of another site that will take-over? BSD-specific, with knowledgable users, and plenty of comments... BSDforums has a large number of factors working against it, keeping it from becomming anything really good, so rule that one out.
The BSD section here at
Any suggestions?
Re:OpenBSD Journal is dying (not a troll) (Score:1)
Well, you are pointing to a good example of trolls, and why comments have been disabled.
*nods* (Score:1)
Re:OpenBSD Journal is dying (not a troll) (Score:1)
That is a OpenBSD site. There shouldn't be any Linux users there anyhow.
Besides, I find that comment quite appropriate... GNU version of programs are notorious for being huge, bloated, slow, and sometimes unstable.
Good. Don't use it. You won't be missed. OpenBSD isn't Linux, nobody in the OpenBSD community is trying to take over t
Re:OpenBSD Journal is dying (not a troll) (Score:2)
There's a lot of cults to choose from.
Re:OpenBSD Journal is dying (not a troll) (Score:2)
Take your trolling to SecurityFocus if you want to be a PaX fanboy.
Re:OpenBSD Journal is dying (not a troll) (Score:2)
Not true. What you should say, is that most *Linux Users* don't like BSD users, or at least that was true just a few years ago. I think it's safe to say that (to a much lesser extent) the reverse is true. Many Linux users all too often make themselves look like dumb children on BSD mailing lists and websites. You could say that is a definate advantage of BSDers, that they tend to stay on their own ground, while Linuxers seem to stray from their own h
non-executable stack? (Score:2)
-Rock
Re:non-executable stack? (Score:1)
Re:non-executable stack? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:non-executable stack? (Score:2)
I don't know what the other BSD's are doing about it. It takes a fair bit of work in the kernel, so it's not a straight port.
Very interesting, but... (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, but what *I* want to know is whether the BSD babes are going to be there.
Mmmm. Mondo cleavage and red latex!
Keynote: Computing fallacies (Score:2, Interesting)
Since this very presentation was discussed on
Links to ordering site & items -- (Score:3, Informative)
There is a new Tshirt: 3.4 Tshirt $20 [openbsd.org] or for Europe EUR 20 [openbsd.org]
The new 3.4 poster [openbsd.org] is very nice too, get it for $10 US [openbsd.org] or EUR 14 in Europe [openbsd.org]
If you prefer OpenSSH, have a look at this new Tshirt OpenSSH 2 $20 [openbsd.org] or for Europe EUR 20 [openbsd.org]
thank you.
Re:Second deleted post (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why so late? (Score:2)
Re:Why so late? (Score:2)
BIND 9 (with patches) was included in OpenBSD 3.3.
Re:Why so late? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I know, but... (Score:2)
FreeBSD has had native Java for several years as well, it is only recently however that Sun, which according to the license must approve of all binary distribution, approved of distributing *binaries* of Java for FreeBSD; so you no longer have to first install the Li
Re:I know, but... (Score:1)
Re:BSD troubles (Score:2)
This troll is a cut and paste change of a nearly 5 year old troll written attacking the alleged performance of a pre OS X Apple Macintosh. See the original troll [kottke.org], which is identical except for a few words c
Re:BSD troubles (Score:2)
This part bugs me everytime I see it... how about changing "Emacs Lite" to MicroEmacs [aquest.com] next time?