Celebrating 20 Years of OpenBSD With Release 5.8 (openbsd.org) 158
badger.foo writes: 20 years to the day after the OpenBSD source tree was created for the new project, the project has released OpenBSD 5.8, the 38th release on CD-ROM (and 39th via FTP/HTTP). This release comes with four release songs instead of the usual one, and a long list of improvements over the last releases. (Probably a good time to donate to the project, too, even if you don't use it directly, because of all the security improvements that OpenBSD programmers contribute to the world.)
Thanks, Theo! (Score:1)
really all that needs to be said.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
No, it doesn't have systemd.
If a Poettering-like asshole was detected anywhere near OpenBSD, they would be shot down like an aircraft flying over the White House without clearance.
Re:Does it have systemd? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
This article isn't even about Linux, yet the comment section is filled with people who are pointing out serious flaws with systemd and the way it was shoved into every major distro.
In the articles that are actually about Linux, the comment sections look like war-zones. A significant amount of people voice their disapproval with systemd and the process by which RHEL shoved an extremely unpopular and major change into Linux. Yes, the distros did not have to adopt it. No, the distros can't defy RHEL's massi
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
linux doesn't have a systemd problem, systemd has an ignorant trolls problem
I would say they do considering this IS NOT A LINUX/SYSTEMD story!
Shoot I feel like I am watching Foxnews comments or MSNBC where a dog gets run over by a car caught on video and somehow it all goes back to Obama's fault. It is alike an autistic obession with these trolls. ... also that rant has nothing to do with OpenBSD either I may add.
But I see parallels now with anti SystemD here. What's next? A story about a new NVMe SSD storage breakthru ... a comment comes up about systemD in that in how we wouldn't
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
However, package managers are not able to express dependency on APIs. The only dependencies they can express are on other packages, or libraries. Now, dbus as an independent package has been terminated, so as it stands at present the way package managers express GNOME's true dependency on the DBUS API is to just list
Re: Does it have systemd? (Score:1)
dpkg most certainly can express virtual depends, such as depending on a package providing a dbus api.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
NetBSD has twm, and that's all that's needed, though an upgrade to fvwm2 is kinda nice. twm is a binary that you get automatically in the base install, from the 406MB iso if you're on an x86 platform.
Which is all well documented in the O'Reilly X11 manual set. (The User's Guide is Vol. 3, the Administrator Guide is Vol. 8)
Re: (Score:2)
twm is a Window Manager, not a Desktop Environment. As such, it has no start menu, taskbar, etc, and does not come packaged with a set of apps such as a file manager, print manager, etc. As such you will have a damn tough sell trying to get anyone used to using a DE to convert to a bare WM. If you want to run a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If a Poettering-like asshole was detected anywhere near OpenBSD, they would be shot down like an aircraft flying over the White House without clearance.
Only one allowed per project (cough Theo De Raadt cough). I do grant that Theo's stuff works.
Re:Does it have systemd? (Score:5, Funny)
No, I don't know of any OpenBSD 'features' that involve pissing off its userbase with half-functioning, amorphous garbage code like systemd.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
For variable values of "improvements". Some people (usually ones with a lot of experience and insights) think that the makers of systemd do not understand how Unix works or how to do professional system administration and hence view systemd rightfully as a step backwards.
Re:Does it have systemd? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Your point?
Re:Does it have systemd? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
What you claim is not possible. You seem to be stupid. But actually, my guess is you are just a systemd shill working from its propaganda manual. Just es he is.
Re: (Score:1)
Nice. You are now a criminal in quite a few jurisdictions. No surprise, matches the expressed mind-set.
Re:Does it have systemd? (Score:5, Insightful)
The UNIX philosophy was always groups of simple tools that do one thing and do it well. You pipe them together and parse the data however you want. Systemd does the exact opposite of that. One monolithic service doing everything but poorly. None of these new ideas have undergone any real testing other than shipping the distro when they compile. You're beta testing this bullshit.
Re: (Score:1)
tight versus loose coupling (Score:1)
The UNIX philosophy was always groups of simple tools that do one thing and do it well. You pipe them together and parse the data however you want. Systemd does the exact opposite of that. One monolithic service doing everything but poorly. None of these new ideas have undergone any real testing other than shipping the distro when they compile. You're beta testing this bullshit.
More accurately it's about tight versus loose coupling.
Under systemd, while there are many CLI commands, they are bound together and cannot be used independently. You can't really use journald, hostnamed, machined, timedated, etc., independently or replace them with something else that you've developed.
It's all very well to write a "better init", and maybe it has, but you're stuck with also running journald and can't put in rsyslog instead (only run in parallel). timedated may be good, and you want to use i
Re:Does it have systemd? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, those that do not understand Unix are bound to re-invent its mechanisms, poorly. Systemd is a text-book example of that. Unfortunately, with the Linux community growing, far more idiots came in in recent years than people with a clue.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, Android proved that Linux doesn't belong to the unix community. The good thing is, the unix community has never suffered from being a small subset of the entire computer-using public. And hey, then. This is a BSD topic so the fate of linux isn't central anyway. Personally I quit using linux and switched to NetBSD for my unix-like needs because of Red Hat 5.0 and the mess that was PCMCIA ethernet support at the time (a clown in a sidecar, when NetBSD had the drivers right in the kernel), and haven't lo
Re: (Score:2)
Well, those that do not understand Unix are bound to re-invent its mechanisms, poorly. Systemd is a text-book example of that. Unfortunately, with the Linux community growing, far more idiots came in in recent years than people with a clue.
Here we go again.
Init is standard because it is the best and why change for the sake of change? Name one other OS that has switched away from init? ... uh ... hey wait a minute. It is still init ... well modules in its place. You edit those. Hmmm different and not the traditional unix way ... hey wait a minute pal! Ubuntu is cool and no way and you MR. GATES ARE A TROLL!!
1. Solaris EMF (2008)
2. MacOSX LaunchD(2006)... well I guess it is not really Unix
3. NetBSD (2008?)
4. Ubuntu Upstart(2010?)
5, Linux (Syste
Re: (Score:2)
You are missing what is going on here: Making the boxes more "friendly" to novices and at the same time throwing out reliability, simplicity and security. Of course most users like that as most users do not have much of a clue how their box works. But when a distro like Debian (which is still regarded as the "rock solid thing for the server", but probably not much longer) does it, then this massive dumbing down and all its drawbacks start to affect people that actually have a clue and that is where the oppo
Re: (Score:2)
The rage is due to it being perpetually a half finished sack of shit expanding into other areas before the existing ones are fixed. It's more rage at poor implementation than the idea itself.
Re: (Score:1)
From what I read SystemD is modular and has separate components and follows the Unix philosophy more than Init.,
That's not what's meant by the unix philosophy. None of those components is independent of systemd, they're all part of it. You can't for example swap out syslog for jounrnald on a Gentoo machine running OpenRC. This is not like having GNU AWK and MAWK installed and switching one for the other.
The systemd modules are just that, modules. Like the kernel. They're not separate components which do thi
Re: (Score:2)
This bad? That is staggering. I think the following applies pretty well to the systemd team:
"Someone who considers himself too important for small jobs is often too small for important jobs" -- Jaques Tati
Solid engineering requires attention to detail. Rushing off to break even more other functionality before your replacement stuff works well is a sure recipe for disaster. Incidentally, while I do not have "rage" for them (they are far too unimportant to me), the defects of the idea itself ma
Re: (Score:2)
One thing the world has been plagued with is people who can't write init scripts for crap. Redhat was particularly bad and ubuntu was only a little better. Arch, prior to switching had rather short, simple RC scripts, certainly nothing like you describe. Oh and it booted faster with it's RC scripts than systemD, so there's that too.
Ah, yes. I have observed that too. Funny thing is the ones I wrote myself never gave me any trouble later. Of course, moving to systemd to fix that is about the worst thing they could have done. Hiding complexity does not make it go away, it just makes it so much worse when something breaks. Genuine simplicity can only be replaced by genuine simplicity and systemd has nothing of that.
FUD. (Score:2, Insightful)
The UNIX philosophy was always groups of simple tools that do one thing and do it well. You pipe them together and parse the data however you want. Systemd does the exact opposite of that. One monolithic service doing everything but poorly.
If you build systemd with all configuration options enabled you will build 69 individual binaries. These binaries all serve different tasks, and are neatly separated for a number of reasons.
A package involving 69 individual binaries can hardly be called monolithic. What is different from prior solutions however, is that we ship more components in a single tarball, and maintain them upstream in a single repository with a unified release cycle.
The Biggest Myths [0pointer.de]
[2013]
You're beta testing this bullshit.
Then you are in damn good company.
Much of the debate about systemd is academic at this point because here's a truth that you'll discover in Debian 8, Ubuntu 15.04, and just about every other major distro around: systemd is here.
Debian 8: Linux's most reliable distro makes its biggest change since 1993 [arstechnica.com] [May 1, 2015]
Red Hat is the inventor and primary booster of systemd, so the best distros for playing with it are Red Hat Enterprise Linux, RHEL clones like CentOS and Scientific Linux, and of course good ole Fedora Linux, which always ships with the latest, greatest, and bleeding-edgiest.
Understanding and using Systemd [linux.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Systemd does the exact opposite of that. One monolithic service doing everything
Presumably by "service" you're not referring only to what process 1 does by itself (rather than by services it runs) on a system with systemd.
Re: (Score:2)
The Unix philosophy is about the userland, not the init system and other core components of the system
Who told you that? Or did you just come to this conclusion on your own? Either way, it's wrong.
If it was then Unix would have a micro kernel.
No, it wouldn't be Unix any more if it were microkernel-based. (OSX doesn't really use its microkernel, it's really just used as a HAL.)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not sure why, exactly. AFAIK Unix doesn't dictate any particular kernel structure. NetBSD uses an 'anykernel' that is definitely Unixy but modular and more flexible.
It's not like the Unix kernel never changed. Mach was originally just an attempt to restructure the Unix kernel, and the microkernel philosophy emerged out of that as they abstracted more services out of the 'core' kernel.
Re:Does it have systemd? (Score:5, Informative)
Agreed 100% that post #50754359's AC is an uninformed blowhard ... however ...
XNU (OSX's kernel) does have a bunch of Mach-based code running in it, and it is being "used"; in fact it is performing critical functions:
Preemptive multitasking and multithreading
Memory protection
Virtual memory management
Inter-process communication
Interrupt management
Real-time support
Kernel debugging support
Console I/O
There is also a bunch of FreeBSD-based code running in XNU, implementing essentially all the other kernel functions, including POSIX support, filesystems
Is XNU microkernel-based? That's one for the semanticists to debate. Arguably the Mach-based code is not performing microkernel functions. What is not debatable is that there are or have been Unix-"alike" OS'es baed on microkernels. Minix is one. Hurd is another. They are as Unix-alike as Linux is. I would say POSIX defines Unix-ness, and there is absolutely nothing to prevent a microkernel from implementing POSIX just as fully and faithfully as a monolithic kernel.
Re: (Score:2)
Is XNU microkernel-based? That's one for the semanticists to debate. Arguably the Mach-based code is not performing microkernel functions.
I'm not sure that it arguably is performing them; it seems pretty clear to me that it isn't.
What is not debatable is that there are or have been Unix-"alike" OS'es baed on microkernels. Minix is one. Hurd is another.
The Hurd is definitely a better example.
Re: (Score:3)
OSX uses a microkernel. Besides, there are/were plenty of Unix that used microkernels: OSF/1, Digital Unix/Tru64, etc.
The point is moot any way, most of you aspies don't understand the debate is moot because Linux is not unix.
The debate is moot because too many people involved in the debate are using "Unix" as a hammer to beat down anything that provokes their nerd rage.
I'd say that "the Unix philosophy" is spelled out by the various documents that the Wikipedia "Unix philosophy" page [wikipedia.org] cites. Whether it covers mechanisms such as the init system, much less the kernel-mode code, is, well, subject to debate.
And something doesn't have to "be Unix" in the trademark sense or in the "you can draw some line of descent by which the cod
Re: (Score:2)
XNU (OSX's kernel) does have a bunch of Mach-based code running in it, and it is being "used"; in fact it is performing critical functions:
They are not using Mach, the microkernel part, to do any of that shit. For example, they are not using it to do process management. That's done by the kernel, not the microkernel. That's the primary reason why XNU is not actually microkernel-based any more than NT is. It has a microkernel-like architecture, but then they underutilize it.
I would say POSIX defines Unix-ness, and there is absolutely nothing to prevent a microkernel from implementing POSIX just as fully and faithfully as a monolithic kernel.
If you actually used the microkernel, then you would have some processes managed by the microkernel, and perhaps some managed by the kernel. But they're not using the microk
Re: (Score:2)
The Hurd is definitely a better example.
Absolutely, since it actually is microkernel-based. And GNU's not Unix, and neither is The Hurd. It's a POSIX-compatible Unixlike operating system, but it ain't Unix or UNIX.
Re: (Score:2)
The Hurd is definitely a better example.
Absolutely, since it actually is microkernel-based. And GNU's not Unix, and neither is The Hurd. It's a POSIX-compatible Unixlike operating system, but it ain't Unix or UNIX.
As far as I know, nobody has run GNU/Hurd through the Single UNIX Specification validation suite, and therefore it's apparently not eligible to have the "Unix" trademark used for it (i.e., it's not a "Unix(R) system"), and none of its code can trace its ancestry to any Unix code from Bell Labs.
However, it probably looks enough like actual Unix systems that one could ask whether it violates the "Unix philosophy"(TM) or not; given that its userland is GNU, Doug McIlroy might argue that it's been fed enough g [dartmouth.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know, nobody has run GNU/Hurd through the Single UNIX Specification validation suite, and therefore it's apparently not eligible to have the "Unix" trademark used for it (i.e., it's not a "Unix(R) system"), and none of its code can trace its ancestry to any Unix code from Bell Labs.
No, not Unix(R), but UNIX(R). Unix is the name for the family of Unixlike. UNIX is the trademark, or at least, that's the convention people use to differentiate between Unixlikes and UNIX. The convention was created by UNIX, which was emphatic about the all-caps until recently, and not by the community.
If you think The Hurd is Unix, then so is QNX, right?
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know, nobody has run GNU/Hurd through the Single UNIX Specification validation suite, and therefore it's apparently not eligible to have the "Unix" trademark used for it (i.e., it's not a "Unix(R) system"), and none of its code can trace its ancestry to any Unix code from Bell Labs.
No, not Unix(R), but UNIX(R). Unix is the name for the family of Unixlike. UNIX is the trademark, or at least, that's the convention people use to differentiate between Unixlikes and UNIX.
There may well be people who use that convention, but I am not one of them. Another convention that people use is to refer to Unix-like systems, whether they passed the SUS validation suite or not and whether they contain code derived from Bell Labs UNIX code or not, as "Un*xes".
The convention was created by UNIX, which was emphatic about the all-caps until recently, and not by the community.
The convention was created by the people who created it. Eric Raymond claims that Dennis Ritchie says the all-caps version stems from being "intoxicated" by the ability to produce small caps with troff and the new typesetter, and [catb.org]
Re: (Score:3)
If you want to know why systemd doesn't follow the Unix way (which means it's lousy), I discuss parts of it here [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:1)
That's a very well elucidated description of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh the one you linked. The bit about concentrating on code rather than interfaces. I'd not thought of it like that, but that makes a good deal of sense.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember you've written posts in the past about systemd that were rather insightful, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there is a point in talking about Posix standards as the way Unix works.
Re: (Score:2)
For variable values of "improvements". Some people (usually ones with a lot of experience and insights) think that the makers of systemd do not understand how Unix works or how to do professional system administration and hence view systemd rightfully as a step backwards.
So what? Use BSD, and revel in your superiority. If it is better, it will take over in no time.
From what I have read from y'all, it simply does not work, causes cancer, and will make your dog run away, and your wife either leave you or come back - whichever situation you don't want.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly what features or improvements would that be? restarting capability for badly designed crap code that keeps falling over (instead of robustly written services)? integrated firewall, masquerading etc that should be in a separate system (and IS in BSD)?
Your "problems" are not a need for systemd, they are a need for proper tools and methodologies that exist already.
Re:Does it have systemd? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is as it should be. Restarting a service (or not) is dependent on the nature of the service and that nature of its crash. You can easily end up DoS-ing your machine by automatic unconstrained restarts. Hence service restart and service management has no place in an init-system or actually in the OS. Done right, it is a part of the service. It is also not hard to do and there are several packages that can serve as a basis for this.
Re:Does it have systemd? (Score:4, Interesting)
That is as it should be. Restarting a service (or not) is dependent on the nature of the service and that nature of its crash. You can easily end up DoS-ing your machine by automatic unconstrained restarts. Hence service restart and service management has no place in an init-system or actually in the OS. Done right, it is a part of the service. It is also not hard to do and there are several packages that can serve as a basis for this.
Crash management is probably the least interesting bit, it's the power management (sleep/suspend/resume/hibernation) and hotplug/dynamic devices (plugging in/unplugging monitors, headphones, USB devices, Bluetooth, wired and wireless networks) with dependency management that makes people want to turn the init process into a general service management system. Being able to restart a crashed process is just a spin-off and it's pretty easy to set generic constraints so it won't go in an infinite crash loop. Sure it's better to have software that doesn't crash but in the real world you often have to run the buggy software to keep availability up as downtime costs $$$ while you debug to find a solution. Maybe it was a wacky race condition that happens once a decade or a mystery bit corruption, you can't just shut down everything every time you run into a bug and keep it down until you've fixed it.
Re: (Score:1)
you can't just shut down everything every time you run into a bug and keep it down until you've fixed it.
Yikes.
Actually, you can bring it up again reliably until you've fixed the bug. I suppose you can have processes that keep pounding away at the system to try to force things to work, until the whole thing crashes. Or just nibbles away at resources until every part of the system is nerfed.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps what the controversy is about is really one of desktop vs server (with an OpenBSD firewall being more akin to a server than a desktop. OK yes, I realise that OpenBSD can run as a desk
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly so. None of that crap has anything to do with a server. Maybe USB storage for backup, etc. For hotplug, besides USB, the only one I can think of is disk drive removal/insertion. My exper
Re: (Score:2)
And seriously, even USB hot-plug is not something that needs to be automatized. If you need to run some scripts manually anyways, just mount it manually. Udev has far too much "auto-mess" functionality for my tastes and I routinely find it making things worse instead of better.
Re: (Score:3)
It seems to be the classical Windows/Unix split: Some people want a system that assumes they are dumb and does everything for them. Others want control and understanding. Traditionally, the dumb ones standardized on Windows. Now some of them have seen that Linux actually has advantages, and they demand that dumbing-down on Linux as well, hence systemd. That this removes the main reasons to use Linux completely escapes them.
Those on Linux because it gives them access and control, and even a thing like the us
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that was sorted out with Win2k, WinXP and Mac OS X? A server OS (WinNT or *nix) turned out to be far better for the desktop than desktop only shit like WinME.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be confuses as to the nature of a server OS. You also seem to not have read or understood what I wrote about restarts. I did not say to not do it, I did say that it is a service-dependent thing. Yes, you do it for buggy software, but that is even more specific, as it depends on the service and the bug. What you often need to do is service-specific cleanup before you restart. In fact, that is almost standard.
Re: (Score:1)
I doubt OpenBSD is going to even touch that until openlaunchd has been fleshed out.
Re: (Score:2)
If your service is crashing there is something wrong with its code; respawning it does not solve core problem. That is somethig I've seen a Drupal-tard, for example do to make up for their shitty code running away every ten minutes. either that or put restart as cron job */10. So systemd is a bandaid for badly written shaky crap, thanks for clearing that up
What's this thing called CD-ROM? (Score:2)
I recently saw a video review of a new computer in a box that was too small have a CD-ROM drive but came with the drivers on a CD-ROM. *face palm* Fortunately, the drivers also came on a USB stick.
I still have a few spindles of blank CD and DVD discs lying around, but I haven't burned a disc in three or four years. Have USB sticks, will travel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are such things as USB CD/DVD-ROM drives, you know. They are very compact and can be powered right via the USB cable. Everybody I know of has at least one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll download and spin it up... (Score:3)
It's worth checking out in a VM. I've been enjoying GhostBSD quite a bit and have been thinking of installing it on bare metal instead of just using it in a VM. I will miss Opera though. At any rate, congrats and thanks - I'll have lots of fun poking at it. I've only played with FreeBSD and GhostBSD so I might as well give this one a shot too.
Re:I'll download and spin it up... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been using OpenBSD and FreeBSD for years.
They're different, but not horribly so. Most basic configuration is similar, and they both have excellent documentation. FreeBSD does have a lot of features that OpenBSD lacks, but I think that's a good thing; I use OpenBSD for network services (firewall, DHCP, DNS, etc.) and it's dead simple to deal with. That simplicity can make unusual things easy - getting my firewall to run diskless and boot off the DHCP server, for instance.
My basic rule of thumb: if I need ZFS or jails, I use FreeBSD - otherwise, I use OpenBSD.
I tried to set up NetBSD as a backup server (since it can act as a ISCSI target), but the monitor I use in the server room freaks out every time I boot it. It does it with OpenBSD too, but if I boot it with the KVM somewhere else and switch after boot, it works with OpenBSD. Oh well, maybe next upgrade cycle, I'll get a better monitor for in there.
I've never tried GhostBSD, nor heard much about it.
Re: (Score:2)
I've installed NetBSD more often over the serial console than with a monitor. Old Sparc hardware usually doesn't show up in my life with a monitor or keyboard.
I suspect there's probably a way to install it headless on Pee Cees, too.
Re: (Score:2)
OpenBSD can install off the serial console on a PC, so I assume NetBSD also has the capability.
The machine in question was a little booksize box with no serial ports though, and while I've got USB to serial converters, I've had bad luck with them as serial consoles (at least on FreeBSD). I would have had to dig around in the closet to find one, and the ISCSI idea was just a whim anyway.
I'd like to use a Sparc as my firewall, but unfortunately I don't have any sbus network cards.
Re: (Score:3)
I kind of like Ghost, it's been stable in a VM for... Err... 68 days without a reboot. I thrash on it once in a while just to see if it breaks. It's only got 4 GB of RAM dedicated to it. It's seemingly pretty light and speedy. I'm really interested to see what it does on bare metal. What I need to do is just sit down and take the plunge and install it and use it exclusively for a few months in a row instead of playing around with it in VM.
*sighs*
I think I might do that this week. I'll try Open and Net too.
Re: (Score:2)
As a very longtime Linux user, my introduction to the BSD world was through Mac OS X. Since then, I've gained a great appreciation for it. More of my new servers end up being FreeBSD and OpenBSD lately.
If you're familiar with Linux (or Mac OS X), I definitely recommend checking it out. It's a very accessible and very rewarding environment.
Re: (Score:2)
I use both, but my criteria is that if I need complicated pf rules, I use OpenBSD. OpenBSD is too "early 2000s" without something like:
* freebsd-update
* portsnap
* pkgng
Life is too short to do all the steps to update OpenBSD all the time.
Best. Release note. Ever. (Score:5, Funny)
As an engineer who knows the pain of debugging someone else's locking problems, I lost it when I read this release note:
Pah... (Score:1)
Update program now changes your routing tables (Score:1)
Apparently the "upgrade" program on the CD twiddles with your routing tables, in case you're having problems getting packages to download. By default my system wouldn't connect to the network, so I chose the shell option, cleared the tables, used dhclient on a different interface, and then restarted the process by running "upgrade." This *still* didn't work and was kind of confusing. Control-C out of the program shows that the routing tables got changed somehow (it sets the default route to the _external
Re:Please don't donate (Score:4, Insightful)
You are mixing apples and oranges here. You should still give to both. By OpenSSH alone, OpenBSD has saved a lot of lifetime (although in smaller pieces than Doctors Without Borders) from getting wasted. And it is a critically needed fall-back if Linux continues to go down the train.
Re: (Score:1)
Lately there's been a backlash against GPL & RMS, who used to be highly praised around here. I think it has a lot to do with GPL3, but somehow the vitriol has been redirected toward his personal hygiene.
Linus is still held in pretty high regard, except for his sometimes-abrasive style. Lennart may well be the downfall of L
Re: (Score:3)
Just 5 years ago there's no way we'd be celebrating 20 years of open bsd on slashdot.
Seriously? Even Haiku releases get celebrated here.
Re: (Score:2)
Just 5 years ago there's no way we'd be celebrating 20 years of open bsd on slashdot.
Yeah no shit, sherlock. That's because that would've been 15 years of "open bsd" (sic).
Re: (Score:2)
Just 5 years ago there's no way we'd be celebrating 20 years of open bsd on slashdot.
No, that wouldn't have made sense, as 5 years ago OpenBSD had only been around 15 years.
Re: (Score:2)
VHS tapes aren't either. What's your point?