Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Unix Operating Systems Software BSD

What's New in OpenBSD 4.2? 203

Posted by Zonk
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!'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What's New in OpenBSD 4.2?

Comments Filter:
  • 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 DrSkwid (118965)
        The isos have been around for a long time. They are just stubs, you have to download the tgz package files separately.

        OpenBSD installs quicker than the other OSes I've installed this past few years (FreeBSD, Windows, Various Linux distros, Plan9 from Bell Labs)
    • by sootman (158191)
      Woah, woah, woah, wait... there's links on the Internet now?!??!
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday November 01, 2007 @01:36PM (#21200195) 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.
    • by nacturation (646836) <nacturation AT gmail DOT com> on Friday November 02, 2007 @12:14AM (#21207711) Journal
      And if you want to learn about IPv6 [youtube.com] he has a good series of videos.
       
  • 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)

        by notamisfit (995619)
        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.

    • by cromar (1103585)
      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 :)
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by DrSkwid (118965)
      > some of the GNU tools aren't there

      That's called a feature
  • 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?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by king-manic (409855)

      What's BSD?
      A LSD precursor.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by marcello_dl (667940)
      I'd ask "what's google" next.
    • by 4D6963 (933028)

      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.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by e9th (652576)
      Theo has strong feelings [kerneltrap.org] about virtualization.
    • Getting Theo to accept a tool, or set of tools, that are not built to the OpenBSD standard of incredible efficiency and cleanness of code is extremely unlikely: I don't think Xen is there yet.

      Mind you, that cleanness of code and incredible efficiency comes at the cost of having a usable interface and key features that push people away from OpenBSD into something that will actually do the job they need done, and will do it now.
  • by cdn-programmer (468978) <terr@terraloLAPL ... t minus math_god> 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.
    • by kv9 (697238)

      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).

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        Welcome to the (lack of) driver support for OpenBSD.
        • by kv9 (697238)

          Welcome to the (lack of) driver support for OpenBSD.
          driver support exists as long as the OS installs. it's just a boot problem. bugs exist everywhere, yes?
          • No. There are stacks of hardware that are in use in the open source world that do not work well under OpenBSD, if at all. 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.

            Unless there's been a huge influx of driver support, which seems unlikely with Theo in charge and insulting polite GPL developers, I see it stuck in supporting network secur
            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by kv9 (697238)

              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?

              • Unfortunately, that "purity of essence" approach prevents it from operating on laptops for network probing applications, or on relatively new hardware platforms. So you get fascinating network purity, that runs twice as fast, on hardware that's 3-5 years old and therefore half the speed. Getting the "packetfilter" tools improved is great, but when you can't use it with the latest Broadcom drivers because key parts of the drivers were GPL licensed and Theo threw a hissy fit when the actual author noticed and
                • by kv9 (697238)

                  So you get fascinating network purity, that runs twice as fast, on hardware that's 3-5 years old and therefore half the speed. Getting the "packetfilter" tools improved is great, but when you can't use it with the latest Broadcom drivers because key parts of the drivers were GPL licensed and Theo threw a hissy fit when the actual author noticed and tried to work it out, all that speed is wasted.

                  it runs twice as fast on new hardware too. Broadcom does not make all of the network adapters in existence. I'm sure they will fix that in the next hackathon as usual. how hard is it to use hardware that is supported by your operating system?

                  And without good GUI's, or at least more usable interfaces, for systems people who are not quite so experienced, those tools will not be broadly used. That's not a good investment of engineering time.

                  let me try an analogy (and forget about my sig for a minute) because this is slashdot anyway: not many people can figure out rocket engines; are they not a good investment of engineering time?

                  • No, it runs twice as fast on the limited amount of hardware that it runs on. Broadcom is hardly the only GigE or high-end network component manufacturer, but they're extremely common. And hardware manufacturers go out of business or discard product lines on a regular basis, so you can't necessarily rely on those old, known good device manufacturers to still be available in a few years time.

                    To extend your analogy, a rocket engine that is beautiful and fuel efficient but has to be aimed by getting out and r
                    • by kv9 (697238)

                      Is there a better management tool for packetfilter in the last few years?
                      yes, it's called vi.

                      Because a filtering tool that is 20% faster doesn't matter if I can't hand off configuring it to reasonably competent engineer and go do more useful work.
                      an engineer which can't edit some simple rules in a text file is not remotely competent. do your network jocks configure Cisco equipment thru a GUI?
                    • Ahh. Ogg have better tool for making bearskins. Is called flatter rock. Ogg need to upgrade tool for bearskins? Use bigger rock! Makes flatter bearskin!

                      There are reasons people learned to use knives and other tools to skin bears, for the same reason we use good good GUI's or tools for editing sensitive configuration files. It leaves us time to stop chipping rocks into the shape we want and get on with our lives.
                    • by kv9 (697238)

                      Ahh. Ogg have better tool for making bearskins. Is called flatter rock. Ogg need to upgrade tool for bearskins? Use bigger rock! Makes flatter bearskin!

                      if we are to properly use your analogy, a GUI is a plastic knife and vi is the swiss army knife.

                      you still did not answer my question. do you configure Cisco equipment with a GUI? wrangle Oracle with a GUI or sqlplus? manage your servers with VNC or good old ssh?

                      you have one fucked up view of progress. sure a GUI is suited for video editing, 3D modeling or browsing the WWW and such but not modifying simple configuration plain text files. the right tool for the right job, you know?

                      so if it doesn't have a

                    • I've done deep Cisco work directly in IOS, and loath the Oracle work I've done for its painful interfaces. I throw them out as fast as possible for interfaces that let me get on with my work.

                      VNC is unnecessary, and its password handling and user authentication is a security issue. SSH with X capability provides a superior interface. However, when you need console access to a remote server, look at how many of the remote KVM devices are actually VNC wrapped into a web access utility, so I don't discard it co
                    • by kv9 (697238)

                      I've done deep Cisco work directly in IOS, and loath the Oracle work I've done for its painful interfaces. I throw them out as fast as possible for interfaces that let me get on with my work.
                      I too have tried to throw out IOS for an interface that lets me get on with my work but was never able to figure out where I plug the mouse.
                    • by scottv67 (731709)
                      do your network jocks configure Cisco equipment thru a GUI?

                      1. Well, ASDM is not a bad tool to have around when working with the ASA's

                      http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/security/asa/asa80/asdm60/user/guide/usrguide.html [cisco.com]

                      2. The Altiga VPN concentrator is 100% GUI - there is no CLI.

                      3. I manage a wireless network that has close to 400 APs. The WLSE (with its GUI) is much easier to use that telnet'ing to each AP. As soon as we upgrade to LWAPP, GUI administration for our wireless network will be SOP.
                    • by scottv67 (731709)
                      I've done deep Cisco work directly in IOS

                      What does that mean? Did you telnet to a switch, login, enter 'enable' and then 'config t'?
                      Everybody does that.

    • 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.
  • 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.
    • In fact, I bet it recognizes more devices than my Windoze Vista.

      I'll take that bet. Vista's device recognition is pretty damn solid, and is, in all likelihood, going to move from "solid" to "really good" with SP1. Now, I don't know OpenBSD's device recognition rate, but, I know that Linux still isn't as good as Windows, and it would stand to reason that OpenBSD, being less popular than Linux, will have even worse support in that department.

      Now to be able to afford a zillion hardware configurations to test both OSes on... ;)

      • I posted this on another thread... I was thinking of a less ambition approach... just common driver bug handling layer.

        I wonder if it is possible for all OSS software driver writers to coordinate their efforts and develop a common driver model for all OSS operating systems.

        Personally I have written hardware drivers... many years ago I wrote in assembler video drivers for ega/vga cards. After months of digging and gobs of work my conclusion is this is a thankless job... but it is a critically important job
        • I'm afraid not for practical as well as political reasons:

          1) Theo de Raadt, historically, does not play nice with others in the free software community. That shoots down OpenBSD right there.
          2) The license issues are very serious: the BSD licenses allow developers to build on other's work and proprietize it, the GPL insists that it remain available to all customers. That's a big, big deal with the proprietary information and NDA's on new hardware.
          • I respect the licensing issues. I probably do not appreciate all of these issues. It would seem to me that a _portion_ of the device driver layer could be released under say a BSD style license. This would allow certain portions to be available to all including the GPL people. A BSD driver is available to GPL users. Its just that anyone can take the BSD portion and incorporate it into their own proprietary products. So what if they do? This would not preclude the GPL people from using it.

            The only iss
            • Oh, my goodness. You need to go look at the Broadcom driver issue, where GPL code was apparently included directly in a BSD driver.

              http://threadgmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.wireless.general/1558 [threadgmane.org]

              Theo ranted at the actual copyright owner, who'd been extremely open and polite and had offered up-front to consider dual-licensing:

              > No, your message offered that he can come begging, because that is the best that thieves may do.
              >
              > Come little dog, come beg for forgiveness.

              You can't expect pe
              • your link is borken.

                Very good point. I'm getting good discussion on my main post as well and I'm surprised it got mod'ed up.

                So it appears the goose can fly but some of its legs are missing. Somehow we need to overcome the politics. I don't know what the solution is.

                Would the issues be overcome with a different license orientated just to the driver layer? Writing drivers is thankless work. There are some who enjoy doing this of course and the work is vital. Its a pity their work can't be used because
          • by Noryungi (70322)

            2) The license issues are very serious: the BSD licenses allow developers to build on other's work and proprietize it, the GPL insists that it remain available to all customers. That's a big, big deal with the proprietary information and NDA's on new hardware.

            Except, of course, that OpenBSD is against binary blobs and NDAs [kerneltrap.org], while some (not all) Linux programmers don't mind [kerneltrap.org]. This has been very well documented in the past [oreillynet.com].

            I am always amazed when people who know nothing about OpenBSD or licenses talk about t

            • The binary blobs are a problem: they're a nasty compromise. Even the cites you provide, however, do not say the Linux developers don't mind! Where do you get this?

              And that doesn't refute the difference between the BSD and GPL licenses where BSD permits those software programs to be proprietized and closed. So it's OK if a BSD developer does it, but not OK if an upstream hardware vendor does it? That's.... unfortunately common among the BSD fans I've worked with.

  • 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. ; )
    • by Dan Ost (415913)
      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.
      • by kv9 (697238)

        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).
        • You're building X windows, various window managers, and the more useful X GU's like Firefox in less than an hour? Or is that a relatively small "userland" you're using there?
          • by kv9 (697238)

            You're building X windows, various window managers, and the more useful X GU's like Firefox in less than an hour?
            userland without X (I don't use OpenBSD as a workstation). Firefox and such is not in the base source sets and you don't have to build it because it's available thru ports as a binary package.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by kv9 (697238)

      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).

    • by kestasjk (933987)
      In the BSDs there are 3 kinds of CVS branches: RELEASE, STABLE, and CURRENT. CURRENT is the latest developers release with tried&untested patches, at the bleeding edge. STABLE is also a developers release, but it is supposed to contain new stuff that has been tested in CURRENT and doesn't seem to break anything. RELEASE are the milestones like 4.2, where everything is tried&tested and only security patches are added to it, to create a stable platform.

      It's annoying that STABLE is actually less sta
      • That's FreeBSD's release engineering, not "BSD"'s. OpenBSD's -CURRENT works about the same, but their "-STABLE" is an errata branch, getting bugfixes and security updates. New releases are always cut from -CURRENT, so an extra branch for minor releases isn't needed.
  • 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?
    • by Noryungi (70322)
      Do you even know what you are talking about?

      OpenBSD indicates all changes to its Ports/Packages on the following page [openbsd.org].

      If you have configured your OpenBSD machine properly, all that is needed to upgrade an installed package is to enter sudo pkg_add -vv -i -u package_name. No fuss, no muss, and it only takes a few minutes to upgrade all the installed programs to the latest version. No need to read mailing lists or web pages.

      Finally, if you can't be bothered to read mailing lists and/or web pages to make sure
      • Ok Theo. Making administration easier is definitely a *BAD THING*. Who could POSSIBLY want easy to use utilities that can be scripted to scan the system, and then the requisite repo to see if there's any vulnerable packages installed. I should definitely memorize every package on all 250 of the systems I admin to make sure that they're properly patched.

        Maybe when you grow up and get a real job you'll understand that manually checking systems is not an acceptable solution. Hard to understand why openb
  • by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Thursday November 01, 2007 @02:13PM (#21200669) Homepage Journal

    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?

    • by rsax (603351)
      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.
    • by Dan Ost (415913)
      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)

      by emil (695)

      ...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

  • 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.
    • PF == Packet Filter, akin to iptables in Linux.

      TLB == Translation Lookaside Buffer, this is a special table of values that a cpu creates to manage memory in such a way as to cause all processes to think they are the only process that exist..

      So, PF being twice as fast means that OpenBSD can do intelligent things with network packets twice as fast as before.

      TLB stuff being faster means that each time a process is switched out, it takes less time to do so. Do recall that fork() creates a new process, so the TL
  • 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.
      • by Tweekster (949766)
        So basically the BSD license is more free, as long as someone doesnt use all the benefits of the license (using it in a close sourced product, one of the benefits touted of the BSD license mind you)
    • by Teckla (630646)

      There are SO many 1U security "black boxes" that obviously rip off OpenBSD for 95% of their product it's just pathetic.

      They are not ripping off OpenBSD. They are using BSD licensed code within the letter and spirit of the license. Sheesh.

      • by Danathar (267989)
        So is taking the BSD licensing code and adding GPL restrictions (or adding freedoms..depending on your perspective) to them, but Theo seems to think that's more evil than than a company taking the code proprietary.
    • by Tweekster (949766)
      You mean they use it exactly as the license allows?

      it isnt ripping off if you are not only allowed, but encourage to do just that.
  • The only problem I have ever had with OpenBSD was rustiness. I tend to have Linux on things that are close at hand and and I'm playing with regularly. I've used OpenBSD on boxes that are install-and-forget. I had a primary box for me at a colo running OpenBSD 2.9 until just this summer (a few days short of 6 years). I had to panic on the day of the OpenSSH vulnerability... and that was it. Just kept working. So, when I decided to replace it, I had to brush of on some of OpenBSDs uniquenesses from Linu

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Working...