OpenBSD Hackathon Underway 67
Triumph The Insult C writes "Aside from some stealth developers, the annual OpenBSD Hackathon, held in Calgary, is underway, according to Theo. They've been doing some recent work on SMP, and have some impressive AMD SMP gear there that they've got to hack around with. A few years ago, it was PF. Who knows what they'll come up with this time that knocks our socks off."
PF, now... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:PF, now... (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyway, nothing is stopping you from running 2.x or any other apache. It just won't be supported.
I think that Carp/pfsync is more important than apache. Plus now there is some SMP to work with.
Just my 2 cents.
Re:PF, now... (Score:2)
Of course, if you want to install it out of ports...
Re:PF, now... (Score:2)
There has been a lot of babbling on the mailing list. Everyone is against it. They are sticking with 1.3.39 (i think) with all of their security fixes. There will only be updates for security reasons. To quote the general thoughts of the developers: "If you don't like it, don't bitch at us; Bitch at Apache"
Or better yet, screw the default and install what -you- want.
Re:PF, now... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's fine. The whole point of free software is the freedom to do what you want. Make sure you know what you are doing though and don't expect help if you are on the mailing list saying:
"I compiled gcc 3.2 and apache 2.0..."
The reason I like bsd and why I feel it is so stable. It is the fact that the 'default' base system contains a group of tightly knit programs that have been proven to be secure and stable. Once you start adding programs th
Re:They will fix the OBSD "virus", + more sec stuf (Score:5, Informative)
I think a fix has already been found [neohapsis.com] for this particular "virus".
Re:They will fix the OBSD "virus", + more sec stuf (Score:5, Funny)
It's at times like this that we need a "-1: Idiocy of post only matched by idiocy of moderation" option for moderation.
it's scary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:it's scary (Score:3, Insightful)
Good code always comes in about a 10:1 planning:implementing ratio.
Re:A nice installer, after all? (Score:5, Interesting)
It only took 15 minutes to install the base system. All my hardware autodetected without problems. What's wrong with the installer?
Re:A nice installer, after all? (Score:1)
(hint: it's humor, laugh)
Re:A nice installer, after all? (Score:2)
Re:A nice installer, after all? (Score:1)
Better resumability/recoverability during the install would be nice, and the ability to easily build custom bsd.rd's that run your own install script/whatever for mass provisioning, would be nice.
I would like semi-automatic security updating like you can get with Debian's apt-get.
Re:A nice installer, after all? (Score:1)
Re:A nice installer, after all? (Score:1)
site.tgz,[install|upgrade].site (faq 4.13)
Re:A nice installer, after all? (Score:1)
Thanks, but it doesn't really address any of what I asked for. The man page you reference describes how to build a release--that isn't what I need since I can mirror the releases just fine. site.tgz doesn't help, because you still have to have someone sitting there partitioning the disk, selecting the install URL, selecting the disk sets, plus the site.tgz set, and doing other monkey-activities that you can avoid with a good kickstart disk--these are what I would want to automate through a custom bsd.rd. I
Re:A nice installer, after all? (Score:1, Informative)
vnconfig the fs image
mount it, edit the install scripts
umount, vnconfig -u and rdsetroot to stuff the filesystem back in.
takes 2 minutes to do and works extremely well.
A nice installer? Not if the locks up (Score:2)
Re:A nice installer? Not if the locks up (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems you have been quite unlucky.
I've been using OpenBSD since 2.5. The installer was a bit of a shock at first, but once it makes sense, it is wonderful (and it is sensible). I usually can install OpenBSD with X in under 5 minutes and I've only ever found one machine to not install for me (an IBM Thinkpad series 1300).
I've installed on tons of x86 machines, some MacPPC, a 68
Re:A nice installer? Not if it locks up (Score:2)
Re:A nice installer? Not if it locks up (Score:2)
Oh cool, I hope it works for you.
Sometimes when I create OpenBSD -stable UltraSPARC CD's, I boot from older genuine OpenBSD UltraSPARC media and then swap with my -stable CD (because I have put little effort into figuring out how to make a bootable UltraSPARC OpenBSD CD). One day, I rekon it might bite me. ; )
My Thinkpad is a type 1161-41U. Ope
Re:A nice installer, after all? (Score:2)
That said, I'm going back to Linux. Why? The scheduler: I really miss the ability to do a bunch of things at once and still keep playing Ogg files.
I've got a slower machine -- used to be an overclocked (450MHz! woo-hoo!) Celeron, now down to stock 300MHz after a bunch of crashes recently. I run IceWM, bunch of xterms, XMMS and Phoenix/Firebird. Under Debian, 2.6 kernel, I could do all of that without any problems. Same m
Re:A nice installer, after all? (Score:2)
This is surprising. I ran OpenBSD on a PII-300. I would run MP3's without any skipping, while surfing the net and making -stable release in a minimized xterm.
I have not tried the Linux 2.6 kernel yet, however, so I can't comment on feel.
Linux 2.4 certainly did skip MP3's on this machine.
Re:A nice installer, after all? (Score:2, Insightful)
its just that most people dont understand how a hard disk works, and if you cant take the time to learn fdisk and disklabel, you probably wont be able to take the time to learn how to use an operating system without newbie user abstraction. openbsd is free, functional, and secure. i dont think ive ever seen any reference to advancement
Re:A nice installer, after all? (Score:3, Insightful)
I actually hope they don't make the installer more user friendly: otherwise we'll have too many supercifical and clueless users coming to use the system. OpenBSD (and NetBSD is a bit like this as well, more in contrast to FreeBSD and Linux) tends to be directed to knowledgable technical users, which goes in tandem with its security ethos. If you like nice installers, try another O/S: OpenBSD isn't reall for you.
I'd much prefer them to be using their time on innovative security features, not pretty installe
If that wasn't elitist (Score:2, Interesting)
The net would be a bit safer for sure, even if it was just a bit.
More user-friendly installer => wider user-base => less zombies for DDoS. Maybe even more money for OpenBSD development? More OpenBSD related jobs? More interest in embedded ports? More positive PR?
Too bad you're so shortsighted!
Re:If that wasn't elitist (Score:2)
Wrong. It's you that's shortsighted, you can't see the big picture.
If the OpenBSD guys chew up their limited energy workong on usability features, then they have less time/energy to work on the security features: not only that, the secondary effect is that they have to deal with support, hassle and all other things that come with more popularity (server load, cvs bandwith costs, etc).
Much better for the OpenBSD guys to focus as much as they can on the security issues, for
Rather not, Mr Big-Picture-Man (Score:1)
The easier the default install, the less likely are errors. The more powerful the configuration interface, the less errors, the more safe installs.
Features like W^X or stack canaries make it harder to crack a box, but not impossible. But an app free of overflows and with a good config does. So add nice management/installation tools.
In fact, with the choice of already available installer apps out there it shouldn't be too hard adapti
Re:Rather not, Mr Big-Picture-Man (Score:1)
Re:If that wasn't elitist (Score:1)
Re:If that wasn't elitist (Score:1)
If you're not using OpenBSD as a desktop, it will expose to you the same command line/
For example the "Unix Administration Handbook" or the the "Linux Administration Handbook". Both are fine books. But beyond installation you notice that most Unix-like systems administer the same except for some detail
Re:If that wasn't elitist (Score:2)
You are putting the wrong cart in front of the horse.
Maybe that's the wrong metaphor.
The point is that an easier installer is not what OpenBSD needs. What OpenBSD needs is application support. Office productivity stuff, browser plugins, etc. If you want OpenBSD to take over the world the place to start is the corporate market where there are dedicated admins to install and configure things. OpenBSD can then use this exp
OpenBSD in the corporate world. (Score:1)
It's fine for this because it is designed for this and it clearly is the focus of its designers.
I cannot imagine a desktop OpenBSD simply because nobody is there who's willing to apply the necessary polish to make it worthwhile and usable in a user sense.
If no one is willing to contribute a better installer, while every Linux distro can offer one (even Debian is hack
Re:OpenBSD in the corporate world. (Score:1)
Re:OpenBSD is a failure by any man's measure (Score:3, Funny)
Oh yeah? How about Amiga? How about BeOS? Hm... Never mind.
Let's hope for SMP (Score:2)
Good luck to those reading
Re:Let's hope for SMP (Score:2, Interesting)
Or who knows, they might decide to do it the DragonFly way.
Re:Let's hope for SMP (Score:2)
FreeBSD is alive and kicking. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Here..... (Score:1)
Is some more info on what SMP [wikipedia.org](Symmetric multiprocessing)actually is and what it's advantages and drawbacks are.