OpenBSD 5.2 Released 141
An anonymous reader writes "OpenBSD 5.2 has been released and is available for download. One of the most significant changes in this release is the replacement of the user-level uthreads by kernel-level rthreads, allowing multithreaded programs to utilize multiple CPUs/cores."
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
Users are the worst security threat around.
Re:Daemon Penguin (Score:3, Insightful)
If Theo hadn't systematically pissed off everyone in large corporations that he's come in contact with, they might have written some drivers.
Linus is pragmatic, manages a team of experts well and the so the corporations are happy to work with him.
RMS (Score:5, Insightful)
RMS is amazingly useful that way. [wikipedia.org]
Standing next to him, [xkcd.com] all sorts of people look sane. Get enough like-minded people together, Open Source might even start to seem (gasp!) normal.
I believe that the flow of digital information will shape the human landscape as powerfully and inexorably as water carves continents.
Re:Daemon Penguin (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Daemon Penguin (Score:5, Insightful)
True. The difference is that if a NetBSD developer emailed me to ask about using RdRand in the kernel (A thing I would know about) I would happily enter into a technical discussion and help them out. If Theo emailed, I would have to refer the email to the lawyers.
Re:Daemon Penguin (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two replies to this:
1) OpenBSD supports tons of hardware. Click on one of the supported platforms [openbsd.org]. First you'll notice is OpenBSD runs on more than x86. Second, click through. You have to work hard to find a class of hardware that doesn't have some support. Most mainstream hardware is supported with many vendors to select from. When you do find missing hardware it's due to the point 2 below.
2) There may be some truth to the claim that Theo has pissed-off some vendors but it plays a small part. A more significant reason there aren't tons of corporate drivers for OpenBSD is the OpenBSD community won't accept any undocumented code (settings that use magic numbers), binary blobs (other than micro code or firmware) and won't sign NDAs to get the info. For code to go in the base it also has to be licensed under a BSD or ISC license.[1]
Many vendors want us to buy their hardware and trust their giant binary blob won't crash our systems. That's their call. Refusing to buy their hardware is ours.
Because of Theo's and the developer's stand against binary blobs OpenBSD base is one of the freest OSs you'll find. If that means a few missing drivers then so be it. Our systems run fine without them.
[1] The only GPL licensed code in base I can think of is gcc.
Re:LOL (Score:4, Insightful)
Abusive asshole creates (copies?) a closed system, expensive, mobile phone - world wide hero
News Flash: Theo is hard to deal with... (Score:4, Insightful)
...film at 11.
We all know that. But do not confuse "the man" with "the OS". Theo probably maintains less control over OpenBSD than Linus does over Linux (a lot of what he does involves maintaining the project's resources and logistics so that the developers can get on with their work rather than dealing with hardware and sysadmin stuff). Yes, he's the founder & leader of the project, but OpenBSD developers are amazing and could easily continue the project without him if required (not that that's at all likely to happen any time soon). Corporations would kill to have this consistent level of developer talent.
Which is why I've been using OpenBSD for 15 years for critical systems, and have no plans to change that.