And you call yourself a command line user? BSD is dead. As long as they have the antique command line tools. Last time I checked, the ksh that comes with the BSDs can do everything bash ca. You don't like the mg Emacs-like editor installed by default? What a fucking troll Now that's a huge waste of CDs, and really no easier, since you still have to get the layout right, and the like.
Or you could download everything in the ftp directory on another computer, host it locally, and install from there. Why don't you download the floppy boot images, do a net install and save having to waste a CDR?
Lucky you. That's roughly what you do anyway, it's been a while. One can choose to download only the parts one needs - i. If you need to run Apache 1. How about a coffee? Or was the 'fully bloated' supposed to be funny? They have no users? They are currently on 52 in the page hit rank on distrowatch. Right below linspire. You mustn't exclude the OpenBSD 4. Hmm, yes, I think I can sing that: Boo hoo, Linux won't share driver documentation with us, boo hoo boo hoo The last paragraph in the left hand column on that page is frankly nonsense.
Linux has more driver support because there are more people working on driver support. I would like to see evidence of any kind that the OpenBSD community has been refused driver documentation which has been given to the Linux community.
If you were to look into it, I think you would find that one of the reasons that Linux has more driver support is because Linux is willing to accept specs under non-disclosure agreements. OBSD developers are not will to do the same since it makes maintenance impossible for anyone who hasn't signed the NDA.
Looks like it's time for another donation to OBSD. They didn't show it very well in the cartoon, but the linux pengiun "stealing" the documentation is analogous to signing an NDA, as nobody else gets to see the documentation the whole point of the NDA And then for signing the NDA, he gets "stabbed" by the real thieves and he "dies" what happens to devices when there's no documentation.
I setup an OpenBSD box about 3 years ago. It has multiple gigE's and processes a reasonably tough load of network traffic 24 hours a day, even today. It has never ever crashed! Thanks for this. OpenBSD is rock solid! Score: 5 , Funny. Kind of. It has systrace, which allows the arguments to every system call to be validated before being issued, and either allowed, denied, or allowed with elevated privilege based on a policy.
Unlike UAC or SELinux , it can be enabled on a per-process basis, so you can only use it for the processes you don't trust, or use it for everything, depending on your level of paranoia. While I hear great things about OpenBSD, and realize it is for a niche market where stability and security are the number one concern, it seems to me that more people would check it out and use it, if not for this policy: "The OpenBSD project does not make the ISO images used to master the official CDs available for download.
As an incentive for people to buy the CD set, some extras are included in the package as well artwork, stickers etc. If for some reason you want to download a CD image, try searching the mailing list archives for possible sources. The source of an unofficial image may or may not be trustworthy; it is up to you to determine this for yourself. The people who are willing to pay, would buy regardless of a free ISO being available corporations and IT departments like having the official discs, and such.
I guess more than anything, this policy stikes me as a bit of "attitude", which turns me off the distribution, more than the mild inconvenience of not having ISO's readily available.
I understand your frustration with the policy and the attitude that it might imply but let me show you the other side of the story. The OpenBSD team works very hard to produce these releases and get little support in the form of donations from large companies that use pieces of the operating system. Theo De Raadt asked Sun for a donation for one of his hackathons and was not even given the time of day.
He was not even answered which is tantamount to a 'no. You could still make your own ISO, but please keep in mind the hard work of this project.
Honestly, OpenBSD team works very hard Score: 2. And the FreeBSD people dont? Or NetBSD? Its his work, and its his choice, but i also agree with many its a bit of an 'elitist' attitude, that really isnt necessary.
Its not about the cost, its about the attitude. Have you priced the official disks? Have you ever used OpenSSH? This attitude pisses me off. If you were actually using OpenBSD, you'd be willing to fork over a few buck to get the disks.
But you're not using it. The amount of time spent to produce such a high quality OS is worth the money in my book. Kinda cheap, huh? Maybe that's why they charge for their install disks. You clearly know nothing about OpenBSD. So they say their work is free for anybody to use, without payment, and then they get all bitchy when they aren't paid for their work?
And they resort to gimmicks like trying to copyright an ISO image? Shut the fuck up. There is nothing wrong with wanting to make money.. Well, it is Theo remember.. I used a Parallel's virtual machine to try an install.
The baseline netbook fired up, prompted me with a lot of text prompts and manual disk editing wow, they still do that? After getting base For an hour.
Doing nothing. So I restarted the install. It hung at the same place. No diag. Re: Score: 2 , Funny. Why do we care, because now people can use the code hex09f No idea, they make a nice SSH program though. Well, if that is the case then I must be that kid in the movies because I see dead OSs on lots of my servers. It seems to help the most under Linux, as far as I can tell; it helps somewhat under solaris and freebsd but not as much and doesn't help at all under windows.
I have to ask, Linux users There is nothing "wrong" with either. Linux tends to have abit better hardware support for stuff you really dont need at the rick of stability.
There is also more software that is ported to Linux. Did I say Linux was unstable? Well that depends, Debian is very well tested and will generally give you good preformance in the server role. Where are the problems with linux that aren't in BSD? Is it lack of standardization? Or are there specific things that should work that were broken in linux? Why do hard-core admins scoff at linux? There is a set specification [unix.
As far as admins complaining about Linux not being "standard" it often genuinely is the case with a number of binary Linux distributions that a number of the utilities outlined by that specification are not installed by default, but rather are vie.
If you have a Linux server or any server for that matter that requires daily reboots and you can squarely blame it on the OS, why are you running that OS? I'll reply to the least offensive post. Why do people think that insulting others somehow makes their argument more compulsive?
The guy asked a question, I gave him a potential reason why people might think that way - look around, guys, I'm just reporting what others are saying. For the record. No, really not into Goatsecs. The only server that I managed that needed frequent reboots was one running Windows NT that I 'inherited' - soon fixed that, memory leak.
Seems I tend to agree somewhat with one of the more offensive posters: 1. If that chap asked a question, why cite what you wrongly, as is think that others were saying?
Instead of giving your own opinion and experience? Finally, it's well known that Linux is not yet ready to used be an 'enterprise' OS with heavy DB access. Is there somehow anything that you know about databases, or are you. Besides, Linux users are always in the public eye, due to the profusion of basically 3 types of articles: 1 "Look, Ma!
Look at my Beryl spinning cube interface!! Net, Free Mac OS, etc. I agree with you, I found installing OpenBSD not very hard or complicated, because the assistance the installer gave to me was enough to find out what to do.
As an opposite, some GUI installers offer choices to click on, but the average user does not know what they mean, e. No help button? Org 6. Does this really mean that the XFree 3. I was going to install openbsd the other day then realized 4.
I do not know where your questions go. And package management is brilliant IMHO. The only person who can answer that question is you, as it depends on what your needs and expectations are. As with all operating system decisions, the question is: can it do the job you desire in the way you wish?
You must answer this question for yourself. Good answere from obsd regarding the desktop. But it would be nice if there would be a tutorial how to setup xorg,gdm and stuff. Mostly i fetched the ports from one of the ftp servers did a make install from the particular package directory but often i got an error message. There are already hundreds if not thousands of places with that info. IIRC you just start it from rc.
Since xorg has autodetecting functions xorg —configure, if I remember correctly , the xorg. You just need it do setup strange or older hardware where autodetection does not work properly.
But with most modern hardware it works just fine. If I can recall correctly, gdm works as a substitution for standard xdm which comes with xorg , to change it you just replace. The same procedure can be applied for kdm. Using the ports usually is only neccessary where applications can be configured with special abilites such as mplayer with its many plugins or when a certain grade of optimization is needed and intended.
Otherwise, the precompiled packages are completely okay to use. I havent had to use a configuration file for at least a year, probably more. On OpenBSD there are packages for most flavors. Likewise i installed gnome and kde in a matter of minutes. You only need to compile mplayer in special cases, using the Makefile. Some of these settings are predefined, others are only needed to make mplayer run under restricted circumstances e. For modern hardware, autodetection should work without problems.
Ports are interesting if you need or want to test bleeding edge software because the packages usually contain stable versions precompiled.
Furthermore, you can use the ports to tweak programs to run under restricted circumstances see my other reply for an example. There are other security aspects such as automated login, asterisks displayed in the password input field, not needing root passwords to install systemwide software — marginal aspects, I agree, but step by step security barriers get overridden by comfortability considerations. This is one important aspect regarding security.
If an OS is designed properly, there is a less chance of major damage even if a vulnerability is exploited while the admin is off-work, sleeping, commuting, etc.. When you go back to the history of Windows vs. I have to disagree with you. A windows box can be made to be very secure, with only a small amount of effort.
Most unneeded services are disabled by default, and the system is setup to require authentication to even view open shares and services. In some situations, Windows would be the best tool for the job, and Exchange and SQL server are very good products. A really good administrator with a shitty OS wont do a damned bit of good…. I modded you up and wish I could give you a few points. The reason I modded you up is it is obviously people are modding you down because they disagree with you.
You comment is very true and important to remember — no OS is secure without a trained administrator at the helm. Mod a comment down because:. My guess is we are right and somebody is upset about it. I am a UNIX fan. I use Debian Linux all the time.
OpenBSD is secure by default. Therefor I believe that the security of a server depends on its administrator, not the running OS. Debian and FreeBSD have a very excellent security history. They also use less power and keep from heating up my computer room. This detects both buffer underflows and overflows at runtime on free 9 and realloc 9 , and prints backtraces from where memory was allocated and from where it was freed.
For more details, see the redzone 9 manual page. No buffer overflows and no hackable software are laudable goals, saying that things like this are worthless is extremely ignorant. No, OpenBSD wont save you from stupidity, no one is claiming that it will. But it just might save you from some obscure buffer-overflow someone discovers in bind or sendmail or whatever that allows someone to root your box. Your right, their security records are pretty good too. Use what makes sense to you, but all the reasons you have brought up are bogus.
If your website gets defaced or personal data from the users of that website are compromised, do you think a chrooted webserver will prevent any more structual damage? Reputation damage can also be really bad for a company. A secure OS is nice.
You install it with nothing open, and then create access rules accordingly. The same principal applies to OpenBSD.
You get basically no services up front and then add them as needed. Theoretically, this lets you control your environment with a higher degree of certainty and confidence than you might find with an open service oriented OS like Windows or Fedora Core.
0コメント