Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Operating Systems Software BSD

BSDanywhere Announces First Release 97

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the anywhere-that-has-an-optical-drive-that-is dept.
The call of ktulu writes "Good things come to those who wait. After eight months of work the relatively new project BSDanywhere has announced its first final release 4.3. BSDanywhere is a bootable Live-CD image based on OpenBSD. It consists of the entire OpenBSD base system (without compiler) plus enlightenment desktop, an unrepresentative collection of software, automatic hardware detection and support for many graphics cards, sound cards, SCSI and USB devices as well as other peripherals. Give it a spin."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BSDanywhere Announces First Release

Comments Filter:
  • BSD? (Score:5, Funny)

    by stim (732091) on Friday October 17, 2008 @03:09PM (#25417197) Homepage
    BSD? Whats that, some type of lunix?
    • BSD is a type of oral Sex, geez dont you watch any porno?
      j/k ... It think this is great, because OpenBSD is a great OS and is worth downloading an ISO of a live version.
      What i dont understand is why you would make it live? this software cant be something you would use for surfing the web or something. More for breaking and entering i would think. thats what im going to use it for ... System repairs, although im not sure is BSD supports NTFS? Some quick googling shows that NTFS is not enabled by default
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by stim (732091)
        Yeah, i can't really fathom why one would need a livecd for BSD other than ease of install... Unless they are gunning for desktop use, which BSD isn't exactly famous for, unless you count OS X (which I don't).
    • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by jcgf (688310)
      Nope, while they are both Unix-like operating systems, OpenBSD is the one that is secure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBSD_security_features [wikipedia.org] and linux is the one that is for bitches: http://linuxisforbitches.com/ [linuxisforbitches.com]
    • by Chemisor (97276)

      Nah, it stands for Blue Screen of Death.

  • no compiler? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by X0563511 (793323) on Friday October 17, 2008 @03:10PM (#25417223) Homepage Journal

    No compiler? What, why?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      Because CDs can only hold what -- 700 MB? Compilers take space. The purpose of the LiveCD is attract new users into the fold, not to preach to the choir.

      • Re:no compiler? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by X0563511 (793323) on Friday October 17, 2008 @03:21PM (#25417445) Homepage Journal

        Shame. Who would use OpenBSD beyond system admins and developers I can't really see. And as another post noted below, you still have to roll your own install media or fork over money.

        (oh, and the instructions on making your media are not very clear. Basically says "look at the files here, and have fun)

        • Re:no compiler? (Score:4, Informative)

          by Piranhaa (672441) on Friday October 17, 2008 @03:49PM (#25417943)

          Sorry, you are mistaken:
          http://sunsite.ualberta.ca/pub/OpenBSD/4.3/i386/install43.iso [ualberta.ca] (203M)

          They've had a bootable CD ISO for quite some time, but would be required to do a net install. It's not a big deal since the whole download is just over 100MB. If you couldn't do that you, would need to supply another CD or USB with the install files on it. In the last 2-3 releases, the OpenBSD started created a pre-compiled bootable ISO with all the files included.

          • Actually, it looks like the last prerelease beta's big "feature" was that it stripped away an already extant installation routine.

            There's a reason I don't bother with source-based Linux distributions anymore, and I've never seen one that made installation anywhere near the level of sheer PITA that you see in OpenBSD. User friendly LiveCDs like this are built to pitch an OS as a desktop OS, not a server OS. To strip away a user-friendly installation routine and call it a "feature" seems like a joke to me.

            It'

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by OrangeCowHide (810076) *
          I did fork over the money for a OpenBSD 4.3 CD, and I installed it on one machine. A few months later I was going to install it a second time, and the CD was nowhere to be found. I suspect they send out Daemons to sneak into your house and steal copies of your CDs so you have to buy it again (note: yes I am aware that they have downloadable ISOs now, that doesn't stop me from wanting to contribute to a good project).
        • Re:no compiler? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Friday October 17, 2008 @04:06PM (#25418231) Homepage Journal

          Who would use OpenBSD beyond system admins and developers I can't really see.

          What's wrong with OpenBSD? The latest release comes with a lot of software, including a recent(-ish) version of KDE. While it's not my first choice for a desktop, I wouldn't cry if someone told me I had to use it.

        • Re:no compiler? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by BPPG (1181851) <bppg1986@gmail.com> on Friday October 17, 2008 @04:12PM (#25418313)

          Shame. Who would use OpenBSD beyond system admins and developers I can't really see.

          Think kids. As in smart, curious kids. Yes, they still make those.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Spit (23158)

          OpenBSD has distrbuted the full install iso online for a few releases now. But if you're not a jerk you'll support the project by buying the official package.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mi (197448)

      No compiler? What, why?

      Why would you want a compiler on a read-only system? A text-editor may be useful to craft an e-mail (in /tmp), but results of compilation are typically expected to survive a reboot or two...

      • Re:no compiler? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Sponge Bath (413667) on Friday October 17, 2008 @05:02PM (#25419005)

        What about something like a student lab. The system boots to an always clean environment, you do some programming exercises including compilation and save the results to a USB flash drive. Next student reboots so nothing nasty is left over from previous users (except filth sneezed onto the keyboard).

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mi (197448)

          Student labs tend to be administered by professional admins. Those people neither need nor will accept a one-size-fits all solution made by someone else. And they can devise a read-only boot-from-the-network solution, that works better, is easier to maintain, and is otherwise superior to a pre-made CD.

          But yes, there may be cases, where a compiler could come handy even on a read-only system. Yet, when deciding, what to throw out to save space, the compiler toolchain is the obvious first candidate — r

    • Re:no compiler? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Piranhaa (672441) on Friday October 17, 2008 @03:25PM (#25417505)

      It's not a big deal. You can simply extract comp43.tgz from any OpenBSD mirror.. Just for the record, it's 75MB gzip COMPRESSED. But ya, why would you need a compiler for a bootable CD?

      Found here: http://sunsite.ualberta.ca/pub/OpenBSD/4.3/i386/comp43.tgz [ualberta.ca]

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by bhima (46039) *

      It's just a rescue CD anyway...

      I am trying think of a time I needed a compiler on a box I was using a rescue CD on and I'm pretty sure I've forced the experience from my memory. I have a pretty low tolerance for that sort of thing anyway. So usually I just go in grab the data and config files, then reinstall current. But I haven't done that recently either. Knock on wood...

      Also I am not sure of the utility of having an "unrepresentative collection of software" on a rescue CD. I guess this must be signif

  • by upside (574799) on Friday October 17, 2008 @03:11PM (#25417249) Journal

    ... of a dead OS? (Netcraft etc.)

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Piranhaa (672441)

      OpenBSD is far from dead, buddy. PF, OpenSSH, OpenCVS.. all being widely adopted and ported across OS'. Hell, even windows uses OpenBSD code BSD Licensed code in its OS (traceroute anyone?). The code is solid and highly audited before AND after release. There's a reason there have only been a couple of remote holes in over 10 years. There are NO binary blobs in source and drivers are reverse engineered if necessary to add to the OS. And on another note, the BSD license is a very easy license to follow if ne

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by stim (732091)
        WOOSH!
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by JustOK (667959)

        you must be new here.

      • by Wraithlyn (133796)

        "Netcraft confirms it, BSD [or other] is dying" is kind've a running joke around here (which is why OP is modded "funny").

        It's pretty much a rubber-stamp troll post designed to elicit responses like... well exactly like your post. ;)

        Read more about common Slashdot memes [wikipedia.org]. And yes, you must memorize every single one before posting another byte to the hallowed halls of /. ;)

    • by The Moof (859402)
      The name should've been ZomBSD.
    • by grub (11606)

      I don't know about the OS being dead, I've used it for many years.

      But there's another side to OpenBSD most geeks don't realize, I'll relate my experiences here.

      Many years around the early 2.x releases I read until my eyes were bleeding about OpenBSD. The ferocity towards 'noob' questions on the lists was legendary, even back then. I bought a copy of the CDs and installed it a Pentium I had.

      The next morning when I woke up I felt something odd around my nether-regions.

      My penis had grown at least 10 cm (4"
  • by gardyloo (512791) on Friday October 17, 2008 @03:12PM (#25417265)

    Many live CD systems now have taken to being installable from those same CDs. According to the release announcement, one still has to acquire an OpenBSD release set to install to hdd. Too bad.

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It's supposed to encourage users to purchase the real set from the project.

    • by couchslug (175151)

      Full-featured live CD/DVDs with installers are very handy.

      It's nice to surf for more information while you install, especially if you run into problems. Dual-use install media are a great convenience for Linux users. It is reasonable to expect other OS to be offered that way if their proponents are serious about market penetration. It works for Ubuntu/Kubuntu/other 'buntus.

    • The final version removed some of the stuff that's needed, just grab the betas.

    • by wdef (1050680)
      With a bit of fiddling it should be possible to hack this cd to copy the system onto a hard drive and get a boot loader set up. Though I'm not familiar with the initial stages of BSD boot, it can't be that hard to unravel? But you're right - it should have an install script to do that for you. Plus a knoppix-based live cd like Damnsmalllinux can run all from ramdisk (fast!), or can do a "frugal" install in addition to a conventional hd install. All automated. What options does this provide?
  • Yeah, but does it have FireWire support?

    http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/17/1331229 [slashdot.org]

  • by TheModelEskimo (968202) on Friday October 17, 2008 @03:36PM (#25417703)
    ...is it that makes it "unrepresentative?" Is this like those people who hand you their resume and say, "actually this doesn't really represent me so please feel free to call if you have any questions?"
  • I'm interested in running BSD, but let me know when they make a version that's as easy to install as Ubuntu and doesn't use KDE. I'm not a KDE fan, and it seems that with BSD you have an option of KDE or CLI and that's it.

    There are plenty of LiveCD versions of BSD, but you can't install any of them! Honesty, I really like FreeSBIE. [freesbie.org] I just wish they would make it capable of installing itself on a hard disk.

    IMHO BSDanywhere is completely pointless.
    • Gnome is in packages and there are lots of other Window Managers ported to OpenBSD...
    • by BPPG (1181851)

      Try out PCBSD [pcbsd.org], based of FreeBSD, aiming to be a alternative to Ubuntu.

      If you are really that interested, you should be able to stomach installing GNOME on your own. Heck, google around, maybe somebody has already made a PCBSD remix with gnome as default.

  • Great initiative (Score:3, Interesting)

    by chrysalis (50680) on Friday October 17, 2008 @04:07PM (#25418255) Homepage

    Nowadays, anyone who wants to discover a new operating system wants to try a live CD first.

    Although there were other live OpenBSD CDs (like OliveBSD), yet another one, especially based upon something original like Enlightenment, is a great thing.

    OpenBSD is often described as a server-only (or network-stuff-only) operating system. Actually, it can also be a decent desktop OS.

    I'm using OpenBSD on my primary workstation for 7 years and I'm quite happy with it. The only thing I *really* miss, especially as a web developper, is the lack of Flash support (except crappy support with Opera). nspluginwrapper + linux emulation is still as stable as nitroglycerine.

    • by nawcom (941663)

      Nowadays, anyone who wants to discover a new operating system wants to try a live CD first.

      Although there were other live OpenBSD CDs (like OliveBSD), yet another one, especially based upon something original like Enlightenment, is a great thing.

      OpenBSD is often described as a server-only (or network-stuff-only) operating system. Actually, it can also be a decent desktop OS.

      I'm using OpenBSD on my primary workstation for 7 years and I'm quite happy with it. The only thing I *really* miss, especially as a web developper, is the lack of Flash support (except crappy support with Opera). nspluginwrapper + linux emulation is still as stable as nitroglycerine.

      Not to be an OSS whore, but check out the latest development sources for gnash [gnashdev.org]. If definitely improved since the last time I've used it. I've also heard that some flash 9 apps are starting to load just fine, but what do I know.

      bzr branch http://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/r/gnash/trunk [gnu.org]

      If you can try it out tonight, reply to this because i'm curious on how it works out on OpenBSD

    • While I've never contested the fact that any *BSD can be a decent desktop OS given enough time to fiddle with it, I'm downloading it for yet another reason: I've never tried any *BSD OS.

      I'm a man of old habits and have been using Linux for 12 years now. Time to discover what's "out there" ;)

      In fact, I've been looking into OpenBSD at some time, but was rebuked by its user community, which I found quite unhelpul (an OpenBSD IRC channel which I went on to gather information about the OS likened me to a "Gentoo

  • by ducomputergeek (595742) on Friday October 17, 2008 @04:43PM (#25418795)

    I was waiting for this as we have a need for a few digital signage/internet kiosk application and I can't think of a better OS that OpenBSD on the default security side. Now to see if I can get it to boot off a Compact Flash card.

    • > Now to see if I can get it to boot off a Compact Flash card.

      Posting this from OBSD 4.3 booting from a Toshiba 1GB CF for the system and a 4GB generic CF for writable partitions. With the CFs in an IDE adapter ( or even a Cardbus adapter ) the OBSD installer just treats the CFs as IDE disks.

    • I dunno about this repackaging, but I've been booting OpenBSD off of CF cards since 3.5 or so.

      'Course, the latest one hasn't shut down and rebooted in 600-ish days, so I guess I haven't been testing that very well. :-)

  • First version: 4.3? Something weird's going on with the versioning here...
    • by kace (557434)
      Not weird. It's just a live-CD version OpenBSD, so it's following their versions. Definitely the best way to do it. PC-BSD (based on FreeBSD) is doing that now, too.

      Oh, and RTFA. :-P
  • Need to wipe and reload my primary home computer. I've been thinking about permanently booting from CD and then launching virtual OS, OS, OS,... from there. I like the idea of a read-only OS. Virtual instances are much easier to backup/deploy.

    I'm going to take a performance hit. Other than that, what sort of problems am I going to have? Why is this a good/bad idea?

    Thanks, SB
    • by kace (557434)
      It's a good idea because OS's may need to change and you can easily keep all of your data on the HD (on a widely supported file system, on its own primary DOS partition) across OS changes.

      It's a bad idea because of performance (as you note). On a live-CD system I'm familiar with, FreeSBIE, the files are compressed to save space so access is slowed by both the CD drive and decompression (first access of each file, at least).

      It's also a bad idea because you lack the flexibility of easily updating the OS
      • by sbillard (568017)
        Thank you for the thoughtful reply. You're right, I would lack the flexibility of updating the OS. But then again, so do the "bad guys" . I'm currently running XP and I think I've been rooted and so there is the source of my paranoia and desire to boot WORM. Happy to say no more windows for me after this. I think I'll go with your last statement. Works out nice since I have an 80 GB IDE and 400 GB SATA.
  • jggimi's OpenBSD is quite good as well, you can choose between Gnome KFD Xfce or FluxBox; and they come up usually one week after the official release rather than waiting for months. http://jggimi.homeip.net/livecd/downloads.html [homeip.net]

"Bureaucracy is the enemy of innovation." -- Mark Shepherd, former President and CEO of Texas Instruments

Working...