OpenBSD Hackathon Underway

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...

[Anonymous Coward]

If history repeats itself, it'd be an Apache clone.

Re:PF, now...

[lcde]

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"

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...

[ArbitraryConstant]

A pretty big minority said "What about thttpd?"? The official word is that the default will not be changed.

Of course, if you want to install it out of ports...

Re:PF, now...

[endx7]

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...

[lcde]

Or better yet, screw the default and install what -you- want.

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

[nacturation]

Accordingly, word on the street is that significant effort this hackathon will be put into fixing the first ever OpenBSD virus...

I think a fix has already been found [neohapsis.com] for this particular "virus".

Re:They will fix the OBSD "virus", + more sec stuf

[HSpirit]

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

[ArbitraryConstant]

These hackathons always scare me a bit. Major functionality has a habbit of going from non-existant to solid before it's over.

Re:it's scary

[Anonymous Coward]

From the outside, it always looks as if it's been thrown together at the hackathon. But the developers have repeatedly made comments along the lines of "we'd been discussing this for months/years and had come up with a good design, which we implemented over the last 48 hours".

Good code always comes in about a 10:1 planning:implementing ratio.

Re:A nice installer, after all?

[Clover_Kicker]

I installed 3.5 yesterday, oddly enough.

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?

[puff the barbarian]

It only took 15 minutes to install the base system. All my hardware autodetected without problems. What's wrong with the installer?

Exactly. Once you have done it three or four hundred times, it is just like riding a bicycle.

(hint: it's humor, laugh)

Re:A nice installer, after all?

[joshmccormack]

I did a network install on an old laptop, and once it got going, it was fine. However, the first time I tried to install it froze in downloading some packages, and there doesn't appear to be any way to cancel out of that, or anything to detect that there's a problem and back out. Not a huge deal - I just started over.

Re:A nice installer, after all?

[demi]

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?

[WH]

Fishing season is over so you can stop the trolling already and get back to your comfy win98 box.

Re:A nice installer, after all?

[Triumph The Insult C]

release(8)
site.tgz,[install|upgrade].site (faq 4.13)

Re:A nice installer, after all?

[demi]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

rdsetroot to extract the fs image
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

[HighOrbit]

I a few weeks ago, I decided to give OpenBSD a try, having used FreeBSD and Linux quite a lot. So I downloaded and wrote the ftp install disk and booted it on my old AMD Athlon 750. I set up all the disks slices and everything was going fine until it was time to initialize the NIC so I could start downloading packages. The install issued an error message about a "stray interrupt" on IRQ 7 and then it locked up hard. So, I thought "that was strange" and power cycled the machine and tried again. Same thing. S

Re:A nice installer? Not if the locks up

[Shanep]

The OpenBSD team needs to give their installer some more polish (from the functional standpoint not the prettiness standpoint)

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

[HighOrbit]

I plan to have another crack at that Thinkpad, now that OpenBSD 3.5 has new boot code.

I was using a 3.4 install disk. The Compaq that I tried it on wouldn't even boot at all with 3.4. If the boot code is different on 3.5, I'll give it another try.

Re:A nice installer? Not if it locks up

[Shanep]

I was using a 3.4 install disk. The Compaq that I tried it on wouldn't even boot at all with 3.4. If the boot code is different on 3.5, I'll give it another try.

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?

[Saint Aardvark]

I had the same experience with 3.5 -- very nice, very minimalist, very quick.

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?

[Shanep]

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.

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

i cant emagine an easier installer. i have yet to see a single os that can be installed as fast as openbsd without fast clicking the next and default buttons on some gui POS.

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?

[curator_thew]

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

[Korpo]

Actually all users could use a thoroughly code-reviewed system with a safe default install.

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

[curator_thew]

"Too bad you're so shortsighted!"

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

[Korpo]

Actually usability and security often enough go well enough hand in hand.

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

[ZeNTuRe]

Well, I had a Dual PII-300 and I've been forced to use a P200 for NATing and QoSing cos I didn't want to let a processor being unused. Clearly SMP isn't a security feature, and yes, it's a little popularity aimed. But remember OpenBSD slogan: Free, Functional and Secure.

Re:If that wasn't elitist

[PirateMeep]

I don't belive an installer would be the thing OpenBSD currently needs. What they need is to make the operating system a little more user freindly first. If it was easy to install then who would there be to rant about OpenBSD because they are to lazy to RTFM? A side note: Arg and I just installed FreeBSD on my SMP machine!

Re:If that wasn't elitist

[Korpo]

Well, you could argue, that once, when you are beyond installation, Unix/Linux systems don't differ very much.

If you're not using OpenBSD as a desktop, it will expose to you the same command line/ .conf,.rc file interface like all others. It will administer mostly like other, similar systems.

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

[JonMartin]

More user-friendly installer => wider user-base => less zombies for DDoS.

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.

[Korpo]

I guess the only chance OpenBSD will ever have in the corporate world is on servers and firewalls, and in security-related embedded devices.

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.

[whatsatie]

When was the laswt time you tried OpenBSD. The desk top is just like any other linux desktop. The documentation is superior. And if you buy the CDs from the website the walk through for the install is excellent and you can't miss. I have it loaded on one of my desktops at home and it rocks, no it does not have as many packages as debian but it has plenty for a desktop. Besides the focus is security with OpenBSD not instant world domination. Remember code audits take time.

Re:OpenBSD is a failure by any man's measure

[jpop32]

The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave.

Oh yeah? How about Amiga? How about BeOS? Hm... Never mind.

Let's hope for SMP

[agent dero]

With all the work that has been done on SMP, hopefully they'll get some good work done on it. miklas@ has done some wonderful work, while I may not agree with the big kernel lock, it's a start.

Good luck to those reading /. instead of hacking SMP up there :-p

Re:Let's hope for SMP

[ArbitraryConstant]

I dunno, biglock is the way to get it working. Portions of the kernel can then be multithreaded gradually over time.

Or who knows, they might decide to do it the DragonFly way.

Re:Let's hope for SMP

[iggymanz]

a big kernel lock is just fine for 2-way or 4-way smp in 97 percent of cases...do you really want to wait another 4 years for a perfectly microthreaded kernel?

FreeBSD is alive and kicking.

[SphericalCrusher]

Christ. I know this post is offtopic also, but what is the deal and all of these people bashing FreeBSD. I mean... if it's actually dead, new updates wouldn't be coming out, would they? You do know that FreeBSD 4.10 was released recently, don't you? I'm going to be throwing together a computer this summer just for installing FreeBSD on. As long as software has some users and continues to be updated, it's not dead. Hell, Windows 95 isn't even dead yet... it may not be updated any more, but a lot of people still use it.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Here.....

[NEOtaku17]

Is some more info on what SMP [wikipedia.org](Symmetric multiprocessing)actually is and what it's advantages and drawbacks are.