An anonymous reader writes "Twelve years ago OpenBSD developers started engineering a release process that has resulted in quality software being delivered on a consistent 6 month schedule — 25 times in a row, exactly on the date promised, and with no critical bugs. This on-time delivery process is very different from how corporations manage their product releases and much more in tune with how volunteer driven communities are supposed to function.
Theo de Raadt explains in this presentation how the OpenBSD release process is managed (video) and why it has been such a success."
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday July 16, @07:03PM (#28724745)
No wacky and nutty GPL kooks.
No screaming diatribes over 'purity' of ideology.
No foaming at the mouth tantrums that someone is using your code and not kissing your fat ugly ass in reverence.
Over the years I've learned that BSD developers are engineers while GPL developers are ideologues - ie. wackos and nutcases.
Thank god BSD is well on their way to ridding themselves of GCC and already have the amazing LLVM compiler tech building the system. The efforts the GNU crowd has done to keep open source developers locked into their compiler is sickening from anyone who likes to believe the open source world is some sort of technological marketplace of ideas compared to the Microsoft world.
Every BSD project I've followed or participated with has been a positive experience due to those types of licensed projects attracting engineers who just want to write good code and want their code to be available and free to everyone to make good use of it.
No foaming at the mouth tantrums that someone is using your code and not kissing your fat ugly ass in reverence.
You definitely don't know Theo de Raadt.
The efforts the GNU crowd has done to keep open source developers locked into their compiler is sickening from anyone who likes to believe the open source world is some sort of technological marketplace of ideas compared to the Microsoft world.
Yeah, how dare they make a superior product, couldn't they have made GCC suck a bit more so the alternatives wouldn't look so bad?
Every BSD project I've followed or participated with has been a positive experience due to those types of licensed projects attracting engineers who just want to write good code and want their code to be available and free to everyone to make good use of it.
Same here, and the same goes for GPL'ed projects. In all cases, its the users (and the ocassional Slashdot troll) who make them look bad. Well, except for Theo's yearly foaming-at-the-mouth, but he's such a talented engineer we're ready to let that one pass.
How exactly does GCC "lock in" anyone into using "GNU tech"? How exactly is GCC "not truly free"? The only way in which GCC limits you in licensing your code is that you can't build your own shiny new proprietary compiler on top of GCC, and that is a good thing. The "document format" in question here is C. GNU is not claiming ownership of C.
And yes, LLVM is nice, for many thing. By the same toke, it's no panacea, either.
Wow, just wow. First, that is not a tantrum. Second, he is 100% correct. Trying to alter someone else's copyright notice is a gigantic legal fuckup. Third, all he asks is a lack of modification of copyright notice, no ass-kissing. Fourth, you are a troll.
Linux (1991--present): The code base has never forked. The release process has remained largely in the hands of Alan Cox and Linus Torvalds throughout its history, and except for some cosmetic differences, patch submission and integration has been handled the same way. Most people consider the two head developers and various major contributors to be, on the whole, pretty nice guys, though the snafu with loading binary blobs, and the driver architecture supporting 'non-free' elements in kernel-space was notable for the high level of frustration on all sides.
OpenBSD (1994--present): Forked from NetBSD (1993--present), who forked from 386BSD (1992--1994), that originally derived its codebase from BSD4 (1977--1995). The history of BSD is a blood-bath of politics leading to forks; Most of the developers of the *BSDs are variously referred to as "difficult, abrasive, etc.," although Theo, to his credit, has had a major change in reputation over the past several years.
Historically, the BSD variants have enjoyed a smaller uptake in the market and casual open source contributors find it difficult to get involved because of cultural/political differences. They also tend to fragment, as noted by the number of variants, which further weakens their position. Linux, on the other hand, likely enjoys a much broader userbase and more contributions due to its more relaxed community standards and the general approachability of its core team. I would say the "release process works", but by feature count, contributions, and hardware support, the process is full of fail. Does that mean it's a failed project? No--I'm just saying that the differing priorities and political/cultural values held by the core developers has had an overwhelming impact. Businesses might appreciate the consistency of the release schedule and the relatively bug-free nature of those releases, but looking at market share it's pretty clear those are not the priorities for most businesses.
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday July 16, @07:18PM (#28724837)
Alan Cox hasn't really been an important figure in Linux for like 10 years.
Sometimes I think most of the people on this site got laid off after the dotcom boom and are just mindlessly repeating a view of the IT world circa 2001.
Alan Cox hasn't really been an important figure in Linux for like 10 years.
10 years? I disagree, it hasn't been that long, it'd say 5 or 6 years, since 2.5 started and akpm became the Linus' right hand. And while he has not been as active as he used to be, he still contributes quite frequently (50 changes in 2.6.30, 1032 in the last 10 versions), and he is quite active in the mailing lists. And the kind of work he does is not exactly easy, in the last year he has been fixing the tty locking, a long overdue task that not many hackers (if any) dared to do. He has also been a quite active libata/ide contributor (including new drivers), maintains the 8250 serial driver and edac related things, an sends patches that touch many other places of the tree. He has not the reponsibility he used to have, but i wouldn't say he is not an important figure
They have different philosophies. I really don't know where you're going with that post because isn't very accurate. You can't compare the "Linux Kernel" with OpenBSD's whole. A kernel is pretty much useless without a "userland." OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD are all operating systems. Linux, sorry to say, is not.
If you want to compare BSD versions to Linux versions, then you'd have to compare with (in no particular order): -Gentoo -Debian - Ubuntu - Xubuntu - Xandros - (how many more are there?) -Slackware -RedHat -Ubuntu.... because I can't even keep track
So, you have a million confusion projects going on based on the code all, called "Linux". How many versions of "OpenBSD" are there out there? Umm, ONE. Sure, someone could go and make their own userland and such, but it cannot be called OpenBSD. So, before you go on a rant about how many times BSD has been forked, please get your facts straight.
They have different philosophies. I really don't know where you're going with that post because isn't very accurate.
You just said it: They have different philosophies. I'm answering the question of why, and what's come out of those approaches historically.
OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD are all operating systems. Linux, sorry to say, is not.
I think you're confusing the terms "operating system" and "distribution".
So, you have a million confusion projects going on based on the code all, called "Linux".
No, I believe they call themselves things like "Redhat" or "Gentoo", etc.
So, before you go on a rant about how many times BSD has been forked, please get your facts straight.
Sir, a full exploration of all of the facts and an exhaustive comparison between all the Unix variants has been the subject of many books, panel discussions, conventions, and academic discourses, and has yet to be fully explored. I think that a high-level overview is both more productive, and better suited, for a humble posting on an electronic forum.
Your post is off-topic from the video and the Slashdot article. This isn't a comparison about how Linux compares versus OpenBSD. The video, if you watch it, is about how the OpenBSD team manages their releases, meets their agreed upon release dates, and makes sure that each release is a quality product.
The points he discusses in his video revolve around conducting adequate testing of the product and having the developers use the to-be-released system rather than throwing something out as a release and moving on. His points about managing the release process are just as valid if they were applied to manufacturing and releasing cars, paper products, or skateboards as they are to operating systems.
The video, if you watch it, is about how the OpenBSD team manages their releases, meets their agreed upon release dates, and makes sure that each release is a quality product.
Yes, and I'm noting that various cultural and political influences that come from the core developers have a substantial impact on all of the above, and then comparing those influences in similar projects (ie, Linux).
His points about managing the release process are just as valid if they were applied to manufacturing and releasing cars, paper products, or skateboards as they are to operating systems.
And I don't think anyone's going to argue there's a different corporate culture at Ford than Toyota and it translates directly to the products those respective brands produce.
This is somewhat of an apples/oranges comparison. Linux proper is principally the kernel, while the development teams for most *BSD variants manage both the BSD kernel and the userland. While it may be the case (and I don't know for sure honestly) that there are no viable forks of the Linux kernel, that really doesn't provide a fair basis for comparison.
I would suggest that a BSD variant (OpenBSD, FreeBSD, etc) is much more analogous to a Linux distribution than just the Linux kernel. When you frame it that way, I think it is safe to say that there is much more fragmentation in the Linux world than the BSD world.
Most of the developers of the *BSDs are variously referred to as "difficult, abrasive, etc.," although Theo, to his credit, has had a major change in reputation over the past several years.
I've never heard that referring to anyone in the BSDs but Theo himself. When was the last time you heard complaints about NetBSD or the FreeBSD core team?
They also tend to fragment, as noted by the number of variants, which further weakens their position. Linux, on the other hand [...]
...is even more fragmented. How many Debian derivatives are there? RedHat? What about Gentoo, LFS, etc.? There's probably more similarity (and shared code) between FreeBSD and OpenBSD than between Ubuntu and Slackware.
Cut the BSDs some love. They deserve it, and there's plenty to go around.
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday July 16, @08:00PM (#28725131)
The original BSD code base was maintained by UC Berkeley and a bare bones system that was used as the basis for many industrial operating systems (e.g. SunOS). It was never meant to be a full fledged operating system for all usages, so different groups forked in order to target special niches. Similarly System-V would be considered forked (e.g. Solaris). Generally one considers both a base design, as neither were mature enough or managed in way to solve all of the purposes that were spawned.
386BSD was a port of 4.3BSD to x86 and when development ceased then NetBSD and FreeBSD were created simultaniously to continue development.
It was only the NetBSD/OpenBSD clash that was a political/cultural difference. All others were natural progressions given the maturity of the industry, communication technology, and specializations required. The primary reasons that Linux became successful was (a) the BSD lawsuit, (b) IBM. The SVLUG was one of the earliest user groups and its archives site members stating that they switched communities due to concerns at the time. Still, both were equally popular until IBM became involved in the late 90s promoting it with their illegal spray painting all over San Francisco. As IBM was a hardware company, the GPL was more attractive than the BSD license due to restricting competitors (Sun) from leveraging IBM's contributions. Before IBM's commitment and promotion of Linux, which was followed by other big vendors like SGI for similar reasons, FreeBSD was arguably more popular (e.g. it was adopted by EBay, Yahoo!, and other startups).
I disagree. The "forks" from original BSD weren't really forks. They were Berkeley giving up on it and letting others take over.
Most of the various BSD's are "forks" because they have different purposes. OpenBSD is security oriented, NetBSD is intended to run on vritually everything that has a CPU, FreeBSD was intended for more mainstram use.
The only real "schism" I can think of is when Matt Dillon broke off and formed DragonFly BSD. Everything else was pretty much some guys saying "I'm gonna go off and do this instead".
There may not be any real Linux "forks", but that's because Linus has tried very hard to make Linux "one size fits all", and that has resulted in its own set of problems (see the various scheduler wars, for instance.. they were bloody). There are also any number of "branches" in which different patches are applied to the mainline kernel for different purposes.
I disagree. The "forks" from original BSD weren't really forks. They were Berkeley giving up on it and letting others take over.
Berkeley "gave up" exactly once, in 1995. And it wasn't because they made room for others, but because of USL v. BSDi, a lawsuit that probably created the conditions for Linux to rise to power in the first place. Linus himself once said that had there been no legal ambiguity regarding the BSD code base, he probably wouldn't have started a completely new project from scratch.
Second, since you may be unaware of what a "fork" means, it's simply a point where developers take the existing code and then begin independent development on it. With the exception of Minix and Linux, every UNIX-like operating system has its code base derived from the original Unics in some fashion. Every UNIX variant EXCEPT Minux and Linux has forks that trace back to that.
In an ideal world, I suppose, 386BSD would have been managed better and there would be no forks.
In your "ideal world" I suspect we would all be rather less well off.
I've never understood the appeal of one-size-fits all. Why is it the premise of so many off-the-cuff comments in every venue of discussion?
So far as I can see, it accomplishes two things: makes it easy to criticize others for not getting along, and relieves the commentator of having to learn or understand systems theory, which is subtle and difficult. If only the whales had not split off from the carnivorous ungulates, evolution, in the ideal world, would have accomplished so much more. Put into a real context, the idea barely parses.
Within the prokaryote kingdom, there is a great deal of horizontal gene transfer. Within the BSD clade, there is a great deal of horizontal transfer (of ideas and code) whenever the need arises.
The most profound fork is probably the GPL from the long-standing conventions of public domain, which the BSD license more nearly mimics.
I don't see much difference between the scope of source code and the scope of human interpersonal relationships. In an ideal world, we would all be better off if either A) all information was private, or B) all information was public. Turns out, some people have information they don't wish to share (for a list of reasons which includes every human motivation) so the GPL lacks universal appeal. Turns out, some people have information which they don't wish other people not to share, so neither does the BSD license have universal appeal.
Having the two license camps puts a crimp on horizontal transfer, but it hasn't caused the world to stop turning. Is it fundamentally a bad thing to implement an idea twice, beginning from two different sets of premises? Only if your goal is world domination. For maximizing insight, diversity rocks.
I could continue, but I'm sure the choir has already figured this out, and the sinners are set in their ways.
At the end of the day, fork has become a term of social derision founded upon a monolithic Garden of Eden which never existed, and wouldn't have been a paradise even if it had.
If the only reason to fork is that two parties can't get along (X, libc are possibilities, but I don't know enough of the story) then forking is a mite unseemly, much like a failed marriage. Do open source communities fork more often than any other walk of life? I suspect not. And no, I'm not counting whiner attrition, where one or two guys copy a code base into their own tree, make a dozen patches, and are never heard from again. Does IBM fork every time a deadbeat is fired or quits?
Many of these projects have accomplished things through volunteer collaboration that twenty years ago few would have believed possible, yet they are mostly criticized in retrospect for the occasional loud public spat prior to a parting of ways, by people who are deeply in touch with their inner primate.
Those of us in the results oriented camp are less inclined to praise the false nirvana of pretending to agree when you really don't.
For an interesting comparison, consider the disputes over the years within NASA over the "smaller, faster, cheaper" engineering meme.
I suspect smaller, faster, cheaper might work, but it won't ever be NASA who consistently pulls this off. NASA is what you get when an agency never forks. Ideal leaves a lot to be desired.
the poster is making the assertion that it works, a lot of people would say their release cycle is a terrible burden on the project.
1. code freeze happens every six months meaning you don't get to finish off features and fixes which might have been of huge benefit. it would make much more sense to base your release cycle around features and improvements, then some arbitary number of days.
2. openBSD EOL's it's releases so quickly, that only in the very rare instance that a business is willing to pay through the nose for inhouse support will you be able to see your system patched.
3. 6 months is way WAY too short of a time for a whole new release. 12 months (if you have to go with the retarded time based release) would be much less of a drain on resources as there is a certain amount of work that must go into a release wether it's got useful upgrades or not.
i've used openbsd in production environment, and it doesn't cut it in hardware support or speed. it's firewall was nice, but i've got that in freebsd now which is a far better OS.
I call bullshit on all of that, and I do have a couple OpenBSD systems installed in a commercial setting.
1.) if you wait for the coders to finish up the "cool", uh, sorry "desperately needed" features, you could just as well put the release date on Independence Day, 2025. Having a fixed date forces the coders to concentrate on the essential, instead of the "cool" stuff.
2.) yes, you need to upgrade rapidly. However, your point is misleading. Upgrading OpenBSD has, in all the many upgrades I have made, been no more problematic than, say, running "apt-get update && apt-get upgrade" on Debian.
3.) it's not a "whole new release". It's minor version numbers every six months. And six months can be a damn short time in the security world.
i've used openbsd in production environment, and it doesn't cut it in hardware support or speed.
So you're lamenting why, exactly? If the release cycle isn't even your main problem?
I could be wrong, but I think the primary reason they release so fast is because the OpenBSD team does not attempt to bundle all of existing open source software with their OS like say Debian is trying to do. In *BSD distros, there is the core OS that includes essentially only the operating system and some utilities, and then there is the ports collection. I believe a serious bug in some port package will not halt the release process of a BSD distribution, at least for non-essential ports.
Not that that would be a bad thing. The majority of people in the world are average, by definition. When a truly extraordinary person tells them what to do, and they shut up and do it, the collective ability of the group is far greater than the mere sum of its parts. If the extraordinary person happens to be a bit of a knob, that's irrelevant if they are all focused on the desired result and not their own silly little egos.
"Oh noes, he told me my code was stupid and wants me to to it again! Cry cry cry!"
If Theo tells you your code is stupid, then it is. End of story. Do it again. Yes, there are better ways to deal with people, but seriously, Theo gets knocked for his personality not because it's really that big a deal, but more because ordinary people are jealous of his enormous capacity.
Get over it people. Theo's good at what he does, OpenBSD could and would not exist without him, and the world is a better place for it.
The problem with your statement is that you assume that Theo is perfect. If he's not (and he's definitely not, just like all of us), then "shut up and do what I say, and I don't need you trying to explain me why I'm wrong, cause I'm never wrong!" mentality will lead to a disaster when he gets something wrong. You could say that it's alright so long as, on average, he's right more often than he's wrong; however, the real problem with mistake combined with arrogance is that mistakes often tend to become grave in such circumstances. It's the "fuhrer problem" - it's very tempting to put a brilliant guy in complete control with no backup, but it only works for limited time in practice.
Theo's good at what he does, OpenBSD could and would not exist without him, and the world is a better place for it.
Who knows; perhaps, if OpenBSD didn't exist, NetBSD would be better?
No, but assuming you can operationalize 'intelligence', it's a testable hypothesis. And it's always better to explicitly and not implicitly assume. Otherwise people think you're hiding something, 644bd346996 -- if that is even your real name.
What I got out of it was that the core developers, not some other group, do the testing. Rather than hand the task of quality control/testing to some other group just prior to release, all developers are held to a high level of participation in this regard. Theo and other developers use nightly builds in their day-to-day work and the entire system compiles most every night.
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday July 16, @07:02PM (#28724735)
Two points:
1) they do not create a separate branch for a release. The release stays in TRUNK until it is released. This has the advantage that ALL developers are working towards a release. Introduction of features is slowed as a release approaches. He does not address the disadvantage of this system: that many developers sit around idle when their work is completed early during this phase.
2) Everyone tests. There is no test team. All developers test things before a release. He does not talk about agile and how everyone should be testing their own stuff anyways.
Point 1) was interesting. It works for them because they are volunteer based. They are not paying the salaries of the idle developers during the release phase. It would not work in a corporate environment because those people are to valuable to be underutilized.
NOTE: I did not listen to him talk... just read his slides.
If everyone tests, the developers who are "sitting idle" are spending that idle time testing, no?
It would be pointless to test prior to integration of all submitted components. From the time the first component is completed and submitted and the last, those developers can test, but it's not meaningful if the goal is to evaluate the integrated product as a whole.
You do both. Automated testing is only as good as the people who write the tests. If you make assumptions in the code, and also in the tests, you won't find bugs until users actually use it.
I know all about how you can rearrange responsibilities and someone other than the developer writes the tests blah blah whatever, it never works 100%. After I get done with all of my testing I have a human try it and about a third of the time that user will try to do something that wasn't in the requirements and did not get tested because it wasn't expected. Maybe a bug comes out of that, maybe it's just documentation that needs updated, but you have to have people using it in real life situations to be called a true test. I've seen automated testing pass things and then users, because they operate more slowly, expose timing or deadlock problems. Real people are needed.
As a developer, I think I'd work faster/better if I knew a quality product would let me work on side projects in the end. If I knew that I'd never have time to experiment and play then I'd just trudge along and get depressed. It would be a tremendous moral boost. Developing has downtime unless you work for a slave trade.
To translate to the "agile" buzwords of the day, they use a 2 week sprint cycle, and at the end of each sprint, the features for that sprint are complete and working, and the product is stable. They ensure this by doing daily builds and testing on those builds. Everyone runs the current build (he implies they run the daily build, but I expect that is too much hassle to upgrade every day, so in fact everyone runs the last sprint build (which is less than 2 weeks old, and has had a brief stabalizaiton period).
It's not rocket science, the notion of small "sprints" and a releasable product ready at the end of each sprint is fairly well known. All it requires is more discipline than 99% of development teams have.:-) Kudos to them for having the discipline to make it work.
That is the secret of its security! OpenBSD is carefully crafted to ensure it either won't run at all, or at the very least won't run long enough for someone to exploit the server. It's really rather clever when you think about it.
SELinux and RSBAC don't necessarily provide any additional security. They certainly seem to suggest it, but the software you trust is just software like everything else.
But, I think the primary 'hmm' here is that you suggest that there aren't more granular levels in BSD. Of course there are.
* chroot * privilege separation (root from an apache server? sounds like a linux box to me..) * sysctls for kernel and other behavior (security level, immutables) * built-in stack protection (isn't that half of why you'd need SELinux anyway?? * encrypted swap/fs * randomized malloc()
There's a variety of standard, well documented features that anyone can use. Each element on it's own has it's own vulnerabilities, used in concert correctly they are very effective and predictable. Unlike SELinux for instance that will randomly just not let something happen emitting a cryptic error message. And, while we're at it.. why do you trust SELinux? Audited it's code?
Given the overall security track record of the Linux distros (Debian SSH RNG anyone?) -- I trust OpenBSD a tiny bit more.
Theo de Raadt may be an asshole (Score:5, Insightful)
but at least he is stubbornly consistent. Without it, openBSD would not exist in its current fine form.
That video can serve as a lesson to others on how to manage a project for an extended period of time and keep things consistent and predictable.
No Bearded GNU Freaks Why BSD Is So Good (Score:4, Insightful)
No wacky and nutty GPL kooks.
No screaming diatribes over 'purity' of ideology.
No foaming at the mouth tantrums that someone is using your code and not kissing your fat ugly ass in reverence.
Over the years I've learned that BSD developers are engineers while GPL developers are ideologues - ie. wackos and nutcases.
Thank god BSD is well on their way to ridding themselves of GCC and already have the amazing LLVM compiler tech building the system. The efforts the GNU crowd has done to keep open source developers locked into their compiler is sickening from anyone who likes to believe the open source world is some sort of technological marketplace of ideas compared to the Microsoft world.
Every BSD project I've followed or participated with has been a positive experience due to those types of licensed projects attracting engineers who just want to write good code and want their code to be available and free to everyone to make good use of it.
Parent
Re:No Bearded GNU Freaks Why BSD Is So Good (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:No Bearded GNU Freaks Why BSD Is So Good (Score:5, Insightful)
No wacky and nutty GPL kooks.
But in return you get wacky and nutty BSD kooks.
No screaming diatribes over 'purity' of ideology.
You don't know who Theo de Raadt is?
No foaming at the mouth tantrums that someone is using your code and not kissing your fat ugly ass in reverence.
You definitely don't know Theo de Raadt.
The efforts the GNU crowd has done to keep open source developers locked into their compiler is sickening from anyone who likes to believe the open source world is some sort of technological marketplace of ideas compared to the Microsoft world.
Yeah, how dare they make a superior product, couldn't they have made GCC suck a bit more so the alternatives wouldn't look so bad?
Every BSD project I've followed or participated with has been a positive experience due to those types of licensed projects attracting engineers who just want to write good code and want their code to be available and free to everyone to make good use of it.
Same here, and the same goes for GPL'ed projects. In all cases, its the users (and the ocassional Slashdot troll) who make them look bad. Well, except for Theo's yearly foaming-at-the-mouth, but he's such a talented engineer we're ready to let that one pass.
Parent
Re:LLVM Is A Key Turning Point In Open Source (Score:5, Insightful)
How exactly does GCC "lock in" anyone into using "GNU tech"? How exactly is GCC "not truly free"? The only way in which GCC limits you in licensing your code is that you can't build your own shiny new proprietary compiler on top of GCC, and that is a good thing. The "document format" in question here is C. GNU is not claiming ownership of C.
And yes, LLVM is nice, for many thing. By the same toke, it's no panacea, either.
Parent
Re:No Bearded GNU Freaks Why BSD Is So Good (Score:5, Informative)
Wow, just wow. First, that is not a tantrum. Second, he is 100% correct. Trying to alter someone else's copyright notice is a gigantic legal fuckup. Third, all he asks is a lack of modification of copyright notice, no ass-kissing. Fourth, you are a troll.
Parent
Its not... (Score:3, Funny)
Slashdotted??? (Score:3, Funny)
Is it possible to slashdot youtube? I tried to watch but the video had these annoying pauses...
Re:Slashdotted??? (Score:5, Funny)
That was a William Shatner video.
Parent
It works? (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's compare --
Linux (1991--present): The code base has never forked. The release process has remained largely in the hands of Alan Cox and Linus Torvalds throughout its history, and except for some cosmetic differences, patch submission and integration has been handled the same way. Most people consider the two head developers and various major contributors to be, on the whole, pretty nice guys, though the snafu with loading binary blobs, and the driver architecture supporting 'non-free' elements in kernel-space was notable for the high level of frustration on all sides.
OpenBSD (1994--present): Forked from NetBSD (1993--present), who forked from 386BSD (1992--1994), that originally derived its codebase from BSD4 (1977--1995). The history of BSD is a blood-bath of politics leading to forks; Most of the developers of the *BSDs are variously referred to as "difficult, abrasive, etc.," although Theo, to his credit, has had a major change in reputation over the past several years.
Historically, the BSD variants have enjoyed a smaller uptake in the market and casual open source contributors find it difficult to get involved because of cultural/political differences. They also tend to fragment, as noted by the number of variants, which further weakens their position. Linux, on the other hand, likely enjoys a much broader userbase and more contributions due to its more relaxed community standards and the general approachability of its core team. I would say the "release process works", but by feature count, contributions, and hardware support, the process is full of fail. Does that mean it's a failed project? No--I'm just saying that the differing priorities and political/cultural values held by the core developers has had an overwhelming impact. Businesses might appreciate the consistency of the release schedule and the relatively bug-free nature of those releases, but looking at market share it's pretty clear those are not the priorities for most businesses.
Re:It works? (Score:4, Interesting)
Alan Cox hasn't really been an important figure in Linux for like 10 years.
Sometimes I think most of the people on this site got laid off after the dotcom boom and are just mindlessly repeating a view of the IT world circa 2001.
Parent
Re:It works? (Score:4, Informative)
Alan Cox hasn't really been an important figure in Linux for like 10 years.
10 years? I disagree, it hasn't been that long, it'd say 5 or 6 years, since 2.5 started and akpm became the Linus' right hand. And while he has not been as active as he used to be, he still contributes quite frequently (50 changes in 2.6.30, 1032 in the last 10 versions), and he is quite active in the mailing lists. And the kind of work he does is not exactly easy, in the last year he has been fixing the tty locking, a long overdue task that not many hackers (if any) dared to do. He has also been a quite active libata/ide contributor (including new drivers), maintains the 8250 serial driver and edac related things, an sends patches that touch many other places of the tree. He has not the reponsibility he used to have, but i wouldn't say he is not an important figure
Parent
Re:It works? (Score:5, Insightful)
They have different philosophies. I really don't know where you're going with that post because isn't very accurate. You can't compare the "Linux Kernel" with OpenBSD's whole. A kernel is pretty much useless without a "userland." OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD are all operating systems. Linux, sorry to say, is not.
If you want to compare BSD versions to Linux versions, then you'd have to compare with (in no particular order): .... because I can't even keep track
-Gentoo
-Debian - Ubuntu - Xubuntu - Xandros - (how many more are there?)
-Slackware
-RedHat
-Ubuntu
So, you have a million confusion projects going on based on the code all, called "Linux". How many versions of "OpenBSD" are there out there? Umm, ONE. Sure, someone could go and make their own userland and such, but it cannot be called OpenBSD. So, before you go on a rant about how many times BSD has been forked, please get your facts straight.
Thanks,
Parent
Re:It works? (Score:4, Insightful)
They have different philosophies. I really don't know where you're going with that post because isn't very accurate.
You just said it: They have different philosophies. I'm answering the question of why, and what's come out of those approaches historically.
OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD are all operating systems. Linux, sorry to say, is not.
I think you're confusing the terms "operating system" and "distribution".
So, you have a million confusion projects going on based on the code all, called "Linux".
No, I believe they call themselves things like "Redhat" or "Gentoo", etc.
So, before you go on a rant about how many times BSD has been forked, please get your facts straight.
Sir, a full exploration of all of the facts and an exhaustive comparison between all the Unix variants has been the subject of many books, panel discussions, conventions, and academic discourses, and has yet to be fully explored. I think that a high-level overview is both more productive, and better suited, for a humble posting on an electronic forum.
Parent
Re:It works? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your post is off-topic from the video and the Slashdot article. This isn't a comparison about how Linux compares versus OpenBSD. The video, if you watch it, is about how the OpenBSD team manages their releases, meets their agreed upon release dates, and makes sure that each release is a quality product.
The points he discusses in his video revolve around conducting adequate testing of the product and having the developers use the to-be-released system rather than throwing something out as a release and moving on. His points about managing the release process are just as valid if they were applied to manufacturing and releasing cars, paper products, or skateboards as they are to operating systems.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
The video, if you watch it, is about how the OpenBSD team manages their releases, meets their agreed upon release dates, and makes sure that each release is a quality product.
Yes, and I'm noting that various cultural and political influences that come from the core developers have a substantial impact on all of the above, and then comparing those influences in similar projects (ie, Linux).
His points about managing the release process are just as valid if they were applied to manufacturing and releasing cars, paper products, or skateboards as they are to operating systems.
And I don't think anyone's going to argue there's a different corporate culture at Ford than Toyota and it translates directly to the products those respective brands produce.
Re:It works? (Score:5, Informative)
This is somewhat of an apples/oranges comparison. Linux proper is principally the kernel, while the development teams for most *BSD variants manage both the BSD kernel and the userland. While it may be the case (and I don't know for sure honestly) that there are no viable forks of the Linux kernel, that really doesn't provide a fair basis for comparison.
I would suggest that a BSD variant (OpenBSD, FreeBSD, etc) is much more analogous to a Linux distribution than just the Linux kernel. When you frame it that way, I think it is safe to say that there is much more fragmentation in the Linux world than the BSD world.
Parent
Re:It works? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the developers of the *BSDs are variously referred to as "difficult, abrasive, etc.," although Theo, to his credit, has had a major change in reputation over the past several years.
I've never heard that referring to anyone in the BSDs but Theo himself. When was the last time you heard complaints about NetBSD or the FreeBSD core team?
They also tend to fragment, as noted by the number of variants, which further weakens their position. Linux, on the other hand [...]
...is even more fragmented. How many Debian derivatives are there? RedHat? What about Gentoo, LFS, etc.? There's probably more similarity (and shared code) between FreeBSD and OpenBSD than between Ubuntu and Slackware.
Cut the BSDs some love. They deserve it, and there's plenty to go around.
Parent
Re:It works? (Score:5, Informative)
The original BSD code base was maintained by UC Berkeley and a bare bones system that was used as the basis for many industrial operating systems (e.g. SunOS). It was never meant to be a full fledged operating system for all usages, so different groups forked in order to target special niches. Similarly System-V would be considered forked (e.g. Solaris). Generally one considers both a base design, as neither were mature enough or managed in way to solve all of the purposes that were spawned.
386BSD was a port of 4.3BSD to x86 and when development ceased then NetBSD and FreeBSD were created simultaniously to continue development.
It was only the NetBSD/OpenBSD clash that was a political/cultural difference. All others were natural progressions given the maturity of the industry, communication technology, and specializations required. The primary reasons that Linux became successful was (a) the BSD lawsuit, (b) IBM. The SVLUG was one of the earliest user groups and its archives site members stating that they switched communities due to concerns at the time. Still, both were equally popular until IBM became involved in the late 90s promoting it with their illegal spray painting all over San Francisco. As IBM was a hardware company, the GPL was more attractive than the BSD license due to restricting competitors (Sun) from leveraging IBM's contributions. Before IBM's commitment and promotion of Linux, which was followed by other big vendors like SGI for similar reasons, FreeBSD was arguably more popular (e.g. it was adopted by EBay, Yahoo!, and other startups).
Parent
Re:It works? (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. The "forks" from original BSD weren't really forks. They were Berkeley giving up on it and letting others take over.
Most of the various BSD's are "forks" because they have different purposes. OpenBSD is security oriented, NetBSD is intended to run on vritually everything that has a CPU, FreeBSD was intended for more mainstram use.
The only real "schism" I can think of is when Matt Dillon broke off and formed DragonFly BSD. Everything else was pretty much some guys saying "I'm gonna go off and do this instead".
There may not be any real Linux "forks", but that's because Linus has tried very hard to make Linux "one size fits all", and that has resulted in its own set of problems (see the various scheduler wars, for instance.. they were bloody). There are also any number of "branches" in which different patches are applied to the mainline kernel for different purposes.
Parent
Re:It works? (Score:4, Informative)
I disagree. The "forks" from original BSD weren't really forks. They were Berkeley giving up on it and letting others take over.
Berkeley "gave up" exactly once, in 1995. And it wasn't because they made room for others, but because of USL v. BSDi, a lawsuit that probably created the conditions for Linux to rise to power in the first place. Linus himself once said that had there been no legal ambiguity regarding the BSD code base, he probably wouldn't have started a completely new project from scratch.
Second, since you may be unaware of what a "fork" means, it's simply a point where developers take the existing code and then begin independent development on it. With the exception of Minix and Linux, every UNIX-like operating system has its code base derived from the original Unics in some fashion. Every UNIX variant EXCEPT Minux and Linux has forks that trace back to that.
Parent
faux inefficiency (Score:5, Insightful)
In an ideal world, I suppose, 386BSD would have been managed better and there would be no forks.
In your "ideal world" I suspect we would all be rather less well off.
I've never understood the appeal of one-size-fits all. Why is it the premise of so many off-the-cuff comments in every venue of discussion?
So far as I can see, it accomplishes two things: makes it easy to criticize others for not getting along, and relieves the commentator of having to learn or understand systems theory, which is subtle and difficult. If only the whales had not split off from the carnivorous ungulates, evolution, in the ideal world, would have accomplished so much more. Put into a real context, the idea barely parses.
Within the prokaryote kingdom, there is a great deal of horizontal gene transfer. Within the BSD clade, there is a great deal of horizontal transfer (of ideas and code) whenever the need arises.
horizontal gene transfer [wikipedia.org]
The most profound fork is probably the GPL from the long-standing conventions of public domain, which the BSD license more nearly mimics.
I don't see much difference between the scope of source code and the scope of human interpersonal relationships. In an ideal world, we would all be better off if either A) all information was private, or B) all information was public. Turns out, some people have information they don't wish to share (for a list of reasons which includes every human motivation) so the GPL lacks universal appeal. Turns out, some people have information which they don't wish other people not to share, so neither does the BSD license have universal appeal.
Having the two license camps puts a crimp on horizontal transfer, but it hasn't caused the world to stop turning. Is it fundamentally a bad thing to implement an idea twice, beginning from two different sets of premises? Only if your goal is world domination. For maximizing insight, diversity rocks.
I could continue, but I'm sure the choir has already figured this out, and the sinners are set in their ways.
At the end of the day, fork has become a term of social derision founded upon a monolithic Garden of Eden which never existed, and wouldn't have been a paradise even if it had.
If the only reason to fork is that two parties can't get along (X, libc are possibilities, but I don't know enough of the story) then forking is a mite unseemly, much like a failed marriage. Do open source communities fork more often than any other walk of life? I suspect not. And no, I'm not counting whiner attrition, where one or two guys copy a code base into their own tree, make a dozen patches, and are never heard from again. Does IBM fork every time a deadbeat is fired or quits?
Many of these projects have accomplished things through volunteer collaboration that twenty years ago few would have believed possible, yet they are mostly criticized in retrospect for the occasional loud public spat prior to a parting of ways, by people who are deeply in touch with their inner primate.
Those of us in the results oriented camp are less inclined to praise the false nirvana of pretending to agree when you really don't.
For an interesting comparison, consider the disputes over the years within NASA over the "smaller, faster, cheaper" engineering meme.
Small Is Beautiful, But Big Is Necessary [nasa.gov]
I suspect smaller, faster, cheaper might work, but it won't ever be NASA who consistently pulls this off. NASA is what you get when an agency never forks. Ideal leaves a lot to be desired.
Parent
god i hate wanky titles. (Score:5, Interesting)
1. code freeze happens every six months meaning you don't get to finish off features and fixes which might have been of huge benefit. it would make much more sense to base your release cycle around features and improvements, then some arbitary number of days.
2. openBSD EOL's it's releases so quickly, that only in the very rare instance that a business is willing to pay through the nose for inhouse support will you be able to see your system patched.
3. 6 months is way WAY too short of a time for a whole new release. 12 months (if you have to go with the retarded time based release) would be much less of a drain on resources as there is a certain amount of work that must go into a release wether it's got useful upgrades or not.
i've used openbsd in production environment, and it doesn't cut it in hardware support or speed. it's firewall was nice, but i've got that in freebsd now which is a far better OS.
Re:god i hate wanky titles. (Score:4, Interesting)
I call bullshit on all of that, and I do have a couple OpenBSD systems installed in a commercial setting.
1.) if you wait for the coders to finish up the "cool", uh, sorry "desperately needed" features, you could just as well put the release date on Independence Day, 2025. Having a fixed date forces the coders to concentrate on the essential, instead of the "cool" stuff.
2.) yes, you need to upgrade rapidly. However, your point is misleading. Upgrading OpenBSD has, in all the many upgrades I have made, been no more problematic than, say, running "apt-get update && apt-get upgrade" on Debian.
3.) it's not a "whole new release". It's minor version numbers every six months. And six months can be a damn short time in the security world.
i've used openbsd in production environment, and it doesn't cut it in hardware support or speed.
So you're lamenting why, exactly? If the release cycle isn't even your main problem?
Parent
The primary reason they release so fast (Score:5, Insightful)
I could be wrong, but I think the primary reason they release so fast is because the OpenBSD team does not attempt to bundle all of existing open source software with their OS like say Debian is trying to do. In *BSD distros, there is the core OS that includes essentially only the operating system and some utilities, and then there is the ports collection. I believe a serious bug in some port package will not halt the release process of a BSD distribution, at least for non-essential ports.
Re:Summary? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Summary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that that would be a bad thing. The majority of people in the world are average, by definition. When a truly extraordinary person tells them what to do, and they shut up and do it, the collective ability of the group is far greater than the mere sum of its parts. If the extraordinary person happens to be a bit of a knob, that's irrelevant if they are all focused on the desired result and not their own silly little egos.
"Oh noes, he told me my code was stupid and wants me to to it again! Cry cry cry!"
If Theo tells you your code is stupid, then it is. End of story. Do it again. Yes, there are better ways to deal with people, but seriously, Theo gets knocked for his personality not because it's really that big a deal, but more because ordinary people are jealous of his enormous capacity.
Get over it people. Theo's good at what he does, OpenBSD could and would not exist without him, and the world is a better place for it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Summary? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with your statement is that you assume that Theo is perfect. If he's not (and he's definitely not, just like all of us), then "shut up and do what I say, and I don't need you trying to explain me why I'm wrong, cause I'm never wrong!" mentality will lead to a disaster when he gets something wrong. You could say that it's alright so long as, on average, he's right more often than he's wrong; however, the real problem with mistake combined with arrogance is that mistakes often tend to become grave in such circumstances. It's the "fuhrer problem" - it's very tempting to put a brilliant guy in complete control with no backup, but it only works for limited time in practice.
Theo's good at what he does, OpenBSD could and would not exist without him, and the world is a better place for it.
Who knows; perhaps, if OpenBSD didn't exist, NetBSD would be better?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Summary? (Score:5, Funny)
No, but assuming you can operationalize 'intelligence', it's a testable hypothesis. And it's always better to explicitly and not implicitly assume. Otherwise people think you're hiding something, 644bd346996 -- if that is even your real name.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
mode != mean
first post getting -1 redundant mod == mean
Re:Summary? (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead, too many struggle by and end up thinking someone should hire them to code.
Parent
Re:Summary? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Summary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Summary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Two points:
1) they do not create a separate branch for a release. The release stays in TRUNK until it is released. This has the advantage that ALL developers are working towards a release. Introduction of features is slowed as a release approaches. He does not address the disadvantage of this system: that many developers sit around idle when their work is completed early during this phase.
2) Everyone tests. There is no test team. All developers test things before a release. He does not talk about agile and how everyone should be testing their own stuff anyways.
Point 1) was interesting. It works for them because they are volunteer based. They are not paying the salaries of the idle developers during the release phase. It would not work in a corporate environment because those people are to valuable to be underutilized.
NOTE: I did not listen to him talk... just read his slides.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Summary? (Score:4, Informative)
If everyone tests, the developers who are "sitting idle" are spending that idle time testing, no?
It would be pointless to test prior to integration of all submitted components. From the time the first component is completed and submitted and the last, those developers can test, but it's not meaningful if the goal is to evaluate the integrated product as a whole.
Parent
Re:Summary? (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be pointless to test prior to integration of all submitted components.
Stay away, stay faaaaaaar away from my code and applications.
Parent
Re:Summary? (Score:4, Insightful)
If it's not a human testing, it's already wrong.
You do both. Automated testing is only as good as the people who write the tests. If you make assumptions in the code, and also in the tests, you won't find bugs until users actually use it.
I know all about how you can rearrange responsibilities and someone other than the developer writes the tests blah blah whatever, it never works 100%. After I get done with all of my testing I have a human try it and about a third of the time that user will try to do something that wasn't in the requirements and did not get tested because it wasn't expected. Maybe a bug comes out of that, maybe it's just documentation that needs updated, but you have to have people using it in real life situations to be called a true test. I've seen automated testing pass things and then users, because they operate more slowly, expose timing or deadlock problems. Real people are needed.
Parent
Re:Summary? (Score:4, Insightful)
As a developer, I think I'd work faster/better if I knew a quality product would let me work on side projects in the end. If I knew that I'd never have time to experiment and play then I'd just trudge along and get depressed. It would be a tremendous moral boost. Developing has downtime unless you work for a slave trade.
Parent
Re:Summary? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not rocket science, the notion of small "sprints" and a releasable product ready at the end of each sprint is fairly well known. All it requires is more discipline than 99% of development teams have.
Parent
Re:No critical bugs? BS. (Score:5, Funny)
MS-DOS: zero remote holes in the default install.
Parent
Re:No critical bugs? BS. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:No critical bugs? BS. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Is there a transcript? (Don't have time to watc (Score:5, Funny)
Long story short: Theo rules with an iron fist and springs releases like pop quizzes.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He's not talking about MS, you tool. Fedora Core fits that description.
Hell, I'd say at least 80% of software projects (and a good many non-software endeavors) fit that description.
- T
Re:WHY does OpenBSD's release process work? (Score:5, Funny)
OpenBSD is as useless as a bag of rocks
**hits anonymous cowardon the head with a bag of rocks
**thinks that was actually pretty useful.
Parent
Give me what I need, not what anyone needs (Score:4, Insightful)
SELinux and RSBAC don't necessarily provide any additional security. They certainly seem to suggest it, but the software you trust is just software like everything else.
But, I think the primary 'hmm' here is that you suggest that there aren't more granular levels in BSD. Of course there are.
* chroot
* privilege separation (root from an apache server? sounds like a linux box to me..)
* sysctls for kernel and other behavior (security level, immutables)
* built-in stack protection (isn't that half of why you'd need SELinux anyway??
* encrypted swap/fs
* randomized malloc()
There's a variety of standard, well documented features that anyone can use. Each element on it's own has it's own vulnerabilities, used in concert correctly they are very effective and predictable. Unlike SELinux for instance that will randomly just not let something happen emitting a cryptic error message. And, while we're at it.. why do you trust SELinux? Audited it's code?
Given the overall security track record of the Linux distros (Debian SSH RNG anyone?) -- I trust OpenBSD a tiny bit more.
Parent