Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenBSD 5.6: What will be there

openbsd.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 83 posts

Re: OpenBSD 5.6: What will be there

#31

Post by andreasvc »

inopinatus wrote: post #26
andreasvc wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say putting mobile devices behind carrier-grade NAT goes a long way. > end to end connectivity is the internet. It was definitely the original idea of the internet, but I'd say it no longer is the reality. People want to access Google and Facebook. The vast majority of users don't need or want their device to be directly reachable from the internet but communicate through cloud services.

On the contrary, the statement seems correct. End to end connectivity is the Internet.... and by contrast, privately addressed networks are not on the Internet but must reach it via gateways. Reaching one another via centralized services rather than distributed federation is a problem, not a solution, in communications protocol design. See also: Everyone Hates Facebook.

You are stating an opinion/ideal as fact. If you'd look at actual data, you'd see that the vast majority of internet use by consumers is client to server, not peer to peer traffic (e.g., youtube vs. bittorrent), which means there is no need to be "on the internet" for most people. Distributed federation is great and it does not require end-to-end connectivity for everyone.

> See also: Everyone Hates Facebook.

I don't know in what kind of bubble you are living but 1.3 billion people are on Facebook; whether it's cool to hate it is not germane to the topic at hand.

Re: OpenBSD 5.6: What will be there

#32

Post by pantalaimon »

sudowhodoido wrote: post #8
peatmoss wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was thinking the same thing myself. I keep thinking recent MacBook Airs would make a good candidate--reasonably standard Intel hardware, decent components, tons of systems in the wild. Hence my comment about trim support for SSDs.

Try FreeBSD if you want TRIM. Also has LLVM, PF and ZFS out of the box.

Might as well use Linux.

Re: OpenBSD 5.6: What will be there

#33

Post by Mandatum »

eropple wrote: post #22
sudowhodoido wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lenovo X201 works well. Not exactly modern but a nice machine and more than adequate.

Caveat laptopor. I installed OpenBSD on my X201 just to give it a shot, and the battery life is atrocious .

I've heard only positive things when using OpenBSD on Lenovo X2XX's. What window manager are you using?

Re: OpenBSD 5.6: What will be there

#34

Post by dmm »

CoconutPilot wrote: post #9
dmm wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the openbsd devs use thinkpads and they have good compatibility in my experience. The newest ones might have UEFI and they might not work well.

I heard this and installed OpenBSD on my thinkpad only to find out there is no support for nVidia. I suppose you need ATI or Intel video to get a working X. There is a brief warning about nVidia here: http://www.openbsd.org/amd64.html

Everybody else supports nvidia chips by running a big blog of proprietary code in the kernel. That kind of defeats the purpose of openbsd, right?

Re: OpenBSD 5.6: What will be there

#35

Post by adamrt »

eropple wrote: post #22
sudowhodoido wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lenovo X201 works well. Not exactly modern but a nice machine and more than adequate.

Caveat laptopor. I installed OpenBSD on my X201 just to give it a shot, and the battery life is atrocious .

http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man8/...

This may help. Using `apm -C` or `apm -A`

Re: OpenBSD 5.6: What will be there

#36

Post by vinceguidry »

sigjuice wrote: post #27

Should information like this be provided over an insecure HTTP connection? signify(1) pubkeys for this release: base: RWR0EANmo9nqhpPbPUZDIBcRtrVcRwQxZ8UKGWY8Ui4RHi229KFL84wV fw: RWT4e3jpYgSeLYs62aDsUkcvHR7+so5S/Fz/++B859j61rfNVcQTRxMw pkg: RWSPEf7Vpp2j0PTDG+eLs5L700nlqBFzEcSmHuv3ypVUEOYwso+UucXb

Public keys are intended to be public. So long as you're not transmitting them over the same connection as the one you're using them in, you're golden.

Re: OpenBSD 5.6: What will be there

#37

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

sigjuice wrote: post #27

Should information like this be provided over an insecure HTTP connection? signify(1) pubkeys for this release: base: RWR0EANmo9nqhpPbPUZDIBcRtrVcRwQxZ8UKGWY8Ui4RHi229KFL84wV fw: RWT4e3jpYgSeLYs62aDsUkcvHR7+so5S/Fz/++B859j61rfNVcQTRxMw pkg: RWSPEf7Vpp2j0PTDG+eLs5L700nlqBFzEcSmHuv3ypVUEOYwso+UucXb

Eh, I think it's fine. I advocate for HTTPS everywhere but I don't think this particular bit of information is so sensitive as to demand encryption.

Re: OpenBSD 5.6: What will be there

#38

Post by dbpatterson »

vinceguidry wrote: post #36
sigjuice wrote: post #27

Should information like this be provided over an insecure HTTP connection? signify(1) pubkeys for this release: base: RWR0EANmo9nqhpPbPUZDIBcRtrVcRwQxZ8UKGWY8Ui4RHi229KFL84wV fw: RWT4e3jpYgSeLYs62aDsUkcvHR7+so5S/Fz/++B859j61rfNVcQTRxMw pkg: RWSPEf7Vpp2j0PTDG+eLs5L700nlqBFzEcSmHuv3ypVUEOYwso+UucXb

Public keys are intended to be public. So long as you're not transmitting them over the same connection as the one you're using them in, you're golden.

The point of HTTPS is not to hide things, it's to prevent tampering... Which seems relevant when transmitting checksums.

Re: OpenBSD 5.6: What will be there

#39

Post by marktangotango »

sigjuice wrote: post #27

Should information like this be provided over an insecure HTTP connection? signify(1) pubkeys for this release: base: RWR0EANmo9nqhpPbPUZDIBcRtrVcRwQxZ8UKGWY8Ui4RHi229KFL84wV fw: RWT4e3jpYgSeLYs62aDsUkcvHR7+so5S/Fz/++B859j61rfNVcQTRxMw pkg: RWSPEf7Vpp2j0PTDG+eLs5L700nlqBFzEcSmHuv3ypVUEOYwso+UucXb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography
Post reply on HN