Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

What's New in OpenBSD 4.2?

Posted by Zonk on Thu Nov 01, 2007 01:32 PM
from the new-footloose-and-fancy-free dept.
blackbearnh writes "OpenBSD 4.2 was released today, and has a host of new features. O'Reilly's ONLamp site has a pretty thorough overview of the release. 'Even though security is still there, this release comes with some amazing performance improvements: basic benchmarks showed PF being twice as fast, a rewrite of the TLB shootdown code for i386 and amd64 cut the time to do a full package build by 20 percent (mostly because all the forks in configure scripts have become much cheaper), and the improved frequency scaling on MP systems can help save nearly 20 percent of battery power. And then the new features: FFS2, support for the Advanced Host Controller Interface, IP balancing in CARP, layer 7 manipulation with hoststated, Xenocara, and more!'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Where to get it... (Score:5, Informative)

    by KingSkippus (799657) * on Thursday November 01 2007, @01:33PM (#21200159) Homepage Journal

    Since the submitter didn't bother linking to their site (!!?), if you want to try out some of these amazing new features and improvements instead of just reading about them, you should head over to the OpenBSD 4.2 page [openbsd.org] and snag a copy!

    • by notamisfit (995619) on Thursday November 01 2007, @01:42PM (#21200247)
      I didn't see anything about it in the interview, but it looks like they've made install ISO's available for the various platforms (install42.iso in each directory). Might give it a spin if I can find a machine for it -- I gave 4.1 a try (and even bought a CD set) and was mostly impressed.
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I think I'll wait until those evil linux developers rip the BSD copyright from the headers and relicense the lot under GPLv3. /ducks
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <my/.username@@@gmail.com> on Thursday November 01 2007, @01:36PM (#21200195) Homepage Journal
    It should probably be noted (as one of the articles states) that this release is dedicated to a man who passed away a few days ago. From another article [kerneltrap.org] on KernelTrap:

    "Jun-ichiro 'itojun' Itoh Hagino passed away on October 29, 2007 at the age of 37. "To those in the BSD communities he was simply Itojun, best known in his role as IPv6 KAME project core researcher. Itojun did the vast majority of the work to get IPv6 into the BSD network stacks. He was also instrumental in moving IPv6 forward in all aspects through his participation in IETF protocol design meetings. Itojun was helpful to everyone around him, and dedicated to his work. He believed and worked toward making technology available to everyone. He will be missed, and always remembered."
    Truly unfortunate for the open source community, the networking community & all of Itojun's family. It's a shame to see someone so promising go at a young age.
    • And if you want to learn about IPv6 [youtube.com] he has a good series of videos.
       
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        It says a lot about the kinds of people who post here when things like this happen, a man dies, and some random jackass makes a crack about it. Fuck you, you little shit, itojun was a good man. He put a huge amount of his life's work into the KAME project, and through it provided the world with IPv6, that's a significant accomplishment. What have you done? Made a jab about a dead man.
  • I use OS X on my workstations, because I think it's the best *nix workstation at the moment, but I use Linux, exclusively on the server. I really need to try BSD. I really enjoy ports on OS X, so I'm sure I'd like it in BSD.

    The only problem I run into on OS X is some of the GNU tools aren't there, and the BSD version of stuff like ls and such are different. But you can port install that stuff, so really that issue is mute. I think I'll fire up a virtual server and try out BSD
    • Re:I need to try BSD (Score:5, Informative)

      by ByOhTek (1181381) on Thursday November 01 2007, @01:51PM (#21200357) Journal
      One of the first things I do on FreeBSD after installing bash and portupgrade...

      portupgrade -Nf sysutils/gnutools
      echo "
      alias ls='gls --color=always'
      alias cp='gcp'
      alias mv='gmv'
      " >> ~/.bashrc

      Something similar will probably work on OpenBSD

      (oh, and for those who need their [modified] meems... OpenBSD is Undead, netcraft confirms it!)
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Hmmm, I just learned to get used to no color, no longopts, and readable man pages. Crazy, innit? (Although, IMNSHO, zsh kicks the shit out of bash for usability).
      • With 'ls', at least, you can skip a step. Replace:

        alias ls='gls --color=always'

        with:

        alias ls='ls -G'

        What GNU extensions to you use to 'cp' and 'mv' so often to alias them? In a decade of using Linux and FreeBSD interchangeably, I've never noticed a significant difference in those very basic tools.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          colorls is in ports for gnubies,
          Can't you just turn on color with ls -G like in OS X? No need for gnu ls. The only reason I'd want gnu stuff is to be consistent with the Linux servers, so I could have 1 set of scripts. Personally, I don't install gnu tools in OS X, I use ls - G, and curl instead of wget, etc.

    • Out of curiosity, which commands in GNU tools are different/missing from OS X? (I guess I am showing a bit of ignorance of GNU/Linux... on Slashdot no less! Ouch :)
    • > some of the GNU tools aren't there

      That's called a feature
      • Hey, wait a second... But you're dead... I saw the car go off the cliff myself... It can't be, it just can't... Dad, is that you?
  • Love! (Score:5, Funny)

    by antifoidulus (807088) on Thursday November 01 2007, @01:44PM (#21200281) Homepage Journal
    Remember, Theo de Raadt loves each and every one of you, he includes love in each copy of OpenBSD! Well, love or an incredible hatred of the x86 platform and everything not OpenBSD.
  • Huh? (Score:4, Funny)

    by LotsOfPhil (982823) on Thursday November 01 2007, @01:48PM (#21200321)
    What's BSD?
    • What's BSD?
      A LSD precursor.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      I'd ask "what's google" next.
    • What's BSD?

      It stands for Bisexual Satanic Daemon. That's a service for Linux that filters packets from the internet and replaces the text from web pages with random extracts from the Satanic Bible and random occurences of '666', and replaces images with obscene pornographic depictions.

      You can just ask Google if you don't believe me.

  • 4.2BSD (Score:3, Informative)

    by m2943 (1140797) on Thursday November 01 2007, @01:51PM (#21200361)
    Ah, that brings back memories of 4.2BSD, the first BSD with real Internet support.

    (OpenBSD 4.2 seems somewhat less exciting to me.)
  • Christoph Egger did a OpenBSD Xen port (based on the NetBSD xen stuff) see: http://hg.recoil.org/openbsd-xen-sys.hg [recoil.org] It looked pretty promising. It's too bad they aren't going to support that platform. I've got lots of customers who'd really like a OpenBSD option.
  • by cdn-programmer (468978) <terrNO@SPAMterralogic.net> on Thursday November 01 2007, @01:54PM (#21200399)
    I've filed a bug report on this but at this point I'm not even sure its a bug... could be a hardware issue..

    If anyone is running Adaptec SCSI 2940 controllers with more than one SCSI hard drive and it works then I'd like to know... if anyone is having problems I'd like to know.

    The issue is that I have one 2940 fast narrow card and it won't boot... says there is no O/S. In the same machine... swap that card out to a 2940 fast wide and it boots just fine. Perhaps this is a firmware card issue. I have so far only tested these two cards... I plan to go get a handfull more.

    Next issue. With the fast wide all seems 100%. Then I start an rsync from another machine and within seconds I get a kernel panic. There is a bug report here: http://paste.lisp.org/display/49908#1 [lisp.org]

    Is OpenBSD bug report # 5616

    I'm not at this point asking anyone to debug this. I want to know if others have a similar setup and it works.

    This machine is a Pentium I, with two fast narrow SCSI disks and in this case an AHA 2940 FW card. There is nothing else on the bus.

    O/S version was 4.1 and now I can try the new version. Since OpenBSD is such a great O/S I sure would like to get to the bottom of this without wasting people's time. If we have a problem we need to know about it and potentially fix it. If its an isolated issue then I need to know this so I can shelve the hardware if in fact it is flakey hardware.

    Note: With that fast wide controller... dd if=/dev/sd1 of=/dev/sd1 bs=2048 will run 100% and never glitch at all. But try that rsync on the system.. kernel panics 100% of the time within seconds.
    • The issue is that I have one 2940 fast narrow card and it won't boot... says there is no O/S. In the same machine... swap that card out to a 2940 fast wide and it boots just fine. Perhaps this is a firmware card issue. I have so far only tested these two cards... I plan to go get a handfull more.

      I use a couple of 2940 narrow and wide "in production" under NetBSD (without problems) and sadly I cannot test this issue under Open. however, I do have anecdotal evidence of the situation you are describing being true (friends with same config as yours tried and failed to boot OpenBSD on the thing -- install works fine and so do other operating systems).

      • Welcome to the (lack of) driver support for OpenBSD.
            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              3d graphics cards, anyone? USB->serial adapters? Wacom graphics tablets? External USB DVD burners? I've seen reports of all of them failing with OpenBSD, where they work well under Linux, even with live Linux CD's.

              all these have no purpose in a server orientated OS. OpenBSD supports lots of hardware and people that check if their hardware is supported before whining are known to be running it as a workstation (not a "desktop"). OBSD is exciting because of its PF goodness, various other network magics and security, not because it supports the latest tablets.

              Unless there's been a huge influx of driver support, which seems unlikely with Theo in charge and insulting polite GPL developers

              judge a man by his deeds, not his attitude.

              I see it stuck in supporting network security applicances, not desktop use.

              I don't see that as "stuck". not everyone is trying to make the next point-click-drool Noobuntu, you know?

    • Maybe, just maybe, it'd be better to send a mail to one of the OpenBSD mailing lists. Perhaps then, you'll actually get some help.

      Just a thought.
      • I have the adaptec hardware manuals for the 2940 and other cards. Yes I have heard about bugginess.

        I'm not a kernel guru and I've not written or even looked at drivers. It takes so much time to even get into this that for me I'd have to be granted another lifetime before I can get seriously involved.

        One question that comes to mind is that I've personally never run into an issue with linux on similar h/w and with the same cards. Linux drivers are OSS so it would seem that any issues the linux and other *
  • Good Desktop OS (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LM741N (258038) on Thursday November 01 2007, @01:58PM (#21200451)
    I know OpenBSD is renowned as a secure system, but it also is a good desktop OS. In fact, I bet it recognizes more devices than my Windoze Vista. I was pleasantly surprised the last time I tried out OpenBSD on my laptop. My only complaint is that the ports are not as comprehensive as FreeBSD. But then, maybe I should be a maintainer for one and stop complaining, lol.
  • by BlueParrot (965239) on Thursday November 01 2007, @02:02PM (#21200531)
    One of the things that has put me of OpenBSD is the need to compile from source if you want to use the stable branch. I realise this is partially due to limited resources and priorities, but I would argue that this is probably one area where there is room for improvement.

    In any case they have done a lot of good work. Copyleft vs OSS ideology disputes aside. ; )
    • How long does it take to build the world now days?

      I haven't played with OBSD for a couple of years, but I remember starting a build at night and having it done when I got up the next morning (on hardware that was, even then, considered old). I can't imagine that things haven't improved since then.
      • How long does it take to build the world now days?
        ~10 mins for the kernel and about an hour for the userland (2xP3/933, 512M, 2x10K). and considerably more on weaker hardware (as expected).
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      One of the things that has put me of OpenBSD is the need to compile from source if you want to use the stable branch. I realise this is partially due to limited resources and priorities, but I would argue that this is probably one area where there is room for improvement.

      no you do not. stop spreading FUD. there are binary sets for multiple archs [openbsd.org] in every release. this also goes for the ports. it is clearly stated in the FAQ that if you want stable you should use binary packages. the only time when you have to compile is when you make changes to the kernel (or are tracking -current system or ports).

  • So have they included any sort of package auditing yet? Something along the lines of portaudit in freebsd? For those of us who don't enjoy upgrading just to upgrade, and don't want to have to monitor mailing lists to see everytime a package has an issue, is there any automated package auditing?
  • One thing I never really figured out with OpenBSD is why errata patches [openbsd.org] are handled the way they are. Why doesn't OpenBSD offer binary updates? For example, here are the instructions to fix errata entry 009 ("Fix possible heap overflow in file(1), aka CVE-2007-1536."):

    Apply by doing:
    cd /usr/src
    patch -p0 < 009_file.patch

    And then rebuild and install file:
    cd usr.bin/file
    make obj
    make cleandir
    make depend
    make
    make install

    Given that I installed from binary packages as do most users, and I might not even have a compiler installed, the startup cost of following those steps is fairly substantial. It seems like it would be easier for someone at OpenBSD to run those commands, see which files changed, wrap them up into a tarball, and distribute those - at least for the most popular architecture or two.

    Now, I'm not saying they should do this or that they owe it to us end users to do it. I just mean that it'd be amazingly convenient with a seemingly minimal amount of extra work. Am I wrong about what would be involved?

    • I completely agree. FreeBSD started offering official binary security updates. Maybe one day OpenBSD will do the same. Until then give Radmind [umich.edu] a shot. It works beautifully for any BSD OS.
    • It's my understanding that the OBSD developer community is small enough that they can't tackle everything that they'd like to do between releases. This means that any new work to be done has to displace something else on the TODO list.

      I actually think this is a good thing. This keeps development focus on improvements that benefit the whole OBSD community rather than on developer's pet projects.
    • Because... (Score:3, Insightful)

      ...the OpenBSD philosophy is security through openness. When you receive a security patch as source code, you can see exactly what is being done. If the patch were to include a binary image, verification would be slightly more difficult.

      There have been binary patch projects (I used to use one at openbsd.org.mx), but since I have resigned myself to installing a compiler and the whole of the OS source code into /usr/src, I find the binary patches to be superfluous.

      OpenBSD does cling to some of the other B

      • It would be a pain to devote one of each arch's build machines to -stable instead of -current.

        Assuming FreeBSD's tools with a few options over OpenBSD's for simplicity:

        1. On release day, do a clean install onto a donated Pentium set aside for such a purpose.
        2. When a patch comes out, follow its instructions.
        3. Run:

          # cd /
          # find . -newermt '10 minutes ago' | tar -cvzT - -f /tmp/binarypatch009.tar.gz

        4. Copy that tarball to the website for mass downloading.

        It is also generally considered a stock response that an administrator should be doing the patches, so that they understand what's happening in their machine.

        I don't know what's on the machine in the first place beyond what the OpenBSD folks said is there; I certainly haven't audited it myself.

        • a donated Pentium
          hah. You're seriously underestimating the work involved. An OpenBSD release covers around a dozen machine architectures: one donated Pentium won't cut it. And besides the machines, also needed would be additional power, cooling, another rack, *space to put all of this*, before you even start on the non-trivial amounts of time (necessarily that of a trusted developer) to prepare and test things out.
      • But the problem is you don't really know if Theo is the one who made the binary.

        I don't really know if Theo is the one who compiled the ISO I just downloaded and installed, either. At some point there's a leap of trust.

  • There is a new song, as far as I am concerned, that is one of the more exciting features in OpenBSD 4.2. :)
  • Oh boy! (Score:4, Funny)

    by rabel (531545) on Thursday November 01 2007, @02:41PM (#21201101)
    basic benchmarks showed PF being twice as fast, a rewrite of the TLB shootdown code for i386 and amd64 cut the time to do a full package build by 20 percent (mostly because all the forks in configure scripts have become much cheaper)

    And the bifflespaf WTF has more pargodoogen XRR! But what about the Garblerackin' snarkenlugey 533p?

    Yeah, yeah, I know, it's /. so this is to be expected, but this is getting ridiculous.
  • sp1? (Score:5, Funny)

    by farkus888 (1103903) * on Thursday November 01 2007, @03:18PM (#21201811)
    I am thinking some of the optimizations to pf and the network stack are pretty cool but I think I will be waiting for sp1 when they have worked out all the bugs and security holes before I upgrade my machine.
  • All the popular distros have them! How about "Demonic Deadyet"?
  • by FoolsGold (1139759) on Thursday November 01 2007, @05:41PM (#21204135)
    The only reason I clicked on this article is 'cos I really dig the red stylesheet for BSD news here. Reminds me of strawberries.

    I assume BSD has other, more useful features though.
  • BSD License (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Danathar (267989) on Thursday November 01 2007, @05:56PM (#21204325) Journal
    And since this is all BSD licensed code you are free to take the code, put it in your proprietary "net security appliance" making any improvements of course without giving one single improvement back.

    There are SO many 1U security "black boxes" that obviously rip off OpenBSD for 95% of their product it's just pathetic. I don't recall many of them touting that they used OpenBSD or ever hearing some of the "cool" features they SAY they have ever being contributed back to the main code repository for OpenBSD.
    • Re:BSD License (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Slashcrap (869349) on Thursday November 01 2007, @07:27PM (#21205371)

      And since this is all BSD licensed code you are free to take the code, put it in your proprietary "net security appliance" making any improvements of course without giving one single improvement back.

      There are SO many 1U security "black boxes" that obviously rip off OpenBSD for 95% of their product it's just pathetic. I don't recall many of them touting that they used OpenBSD or ever hearing some of the "cool" features they SAY they have ever being contributed back to the main code repository for OpenBSD.
      Yes, I used to work for a company that did exactly this. They had a range of VPN gateways which were basically OpenBSD with a user interface. And while I'm not saying that they never contributed anything back, it definitely wasn't a priority.

      On the other hand, they also have a great deal of Linux based products. And whenever they need to fix any Linux bugs or add features, they always contribute them back. Doing otherwise would be a breach of the license and expose them to legal liabilities.

      The point is that as a rule, large corporations aren't going to do anything that they aren't legally obliged to do. You would probably call RMS a political zealot and an unrealistic idealist. But at the end of the day he's not the one that expects commercial enterprises to change their nature and act altruistically just because it would be nice. If they give those "cool" features back, they're also giving them to their competitors. Which is probably not a career extending move for the person responsible.

      If these realities offend you so much, I would suggest that you avoid releasing any software under the BSD license.