OpenBSD 5.0 Released • Hacker News Board

Re: OpenBSD 5.0 Released

#41

Post by priteau » Wed, Nov 02, 2011, 12:20 AM UTC

ez77 wrote: post #40

ez77 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That reason seems pretty shallow coming from the OBSD team... How can changing the language make it more secure by itself? Is a rewrite in C the next planned enhancement?

At the risk of dumping yet more karma, let me rephrase more constructively. OpenBSD has focused on security from the beginning. Precisely for that reason, and considering all the audits they run, it feels like, if OpenBSD has used (up to 4.9) shell scripts for security(8), there mustn't be any compelling reason against using the shell. Surely they must not have them. I realize this was a changelog and not an article,…

From the CVS log 7 months ago:

Work in progress to replace /etc/security, not yet linked to the build.

Main design goals: 1. Safely handle untrusted file names and file content. 2. Output compatibility with current security(8) to please people parsing the output with scripts (except when improving functionality right away saves considerable implementation effort). Substantial functional enhancements are for later.

Prodding to do this in Perl by deraadt@. Using some feedback from espie@.

http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/libexec/security/s...

Re: OpenBSD 5.0 Released

#42

Post by rmgraham » Wed, Nov 02, 2011, 1:17 AM UTC

My favourite part is that NULL is now (void *)

Re: OpenBSD 5.0 Released

#43

Post by hackermom » Wed, Nov 02, 2011, 1:18 AM UTC

tedunangst wrote: post #37

derleth wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> OpenBSD was never meant to be a desktop BSD. Where would people find this out? Has anyone listed the BSDs and said which task each was meant for? Are there any good BSD-to-BSD comparisons being done now?

Lots of people have listed the BSDs and said which task each was meant for. Lots of people have also been completely wrong. There's a whole internet of misinformation out there if you're really interested.

Yes, of course, but there is a general aim and focus among the developers of the three main flavors, that is prevalent in the capacities of said flavors:

NetBSD - portability. OpenBSD - security. FreeBSD - performance and usability.

With that said, no, that definitely does not mean that each flavor can't stand out in the other two fields. Heck, I used OpenBSD as my desktop OS for 2 years on and off, so I know very well how capable it is "off field", and looking at the most popular flavor in BSD-powered server parks we see FreeBSD instead of OpenBSD contrary to what logic might try to dictate.

Re: OpenBSD 5.0 Released

#44

Post by sigzero » Wed, Nov 02, 2011, 1:22 AM UTC

levabalkin wrote: post #32

dmm wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On OpenBSD, all of your interface configuration is done with ifconfig and it's all documented with 'man ifconfig'. On a linux system 'man ifconfig' doesn't even mention iwconfig or wpa_supplicant. I think that makes it a little easier to learn how to do it.

I guess in Linux ifconfig is deprecated in favor of iproute2.

Really? No Linux SA that I know...and I know a lot...is using iproute2 over ifconfig.

Re: OpenBSD 5.0 Released

#45

Post by vegai » Wed, Nov 02, 2011, 7:43 AM UTC

KonradKlause wrote: post #26

dmm wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - ancient userland pthread implementation There is support for kernel threads in the form of a flag on rfork(2). The golang port uses this. The pthreads library is still the shitty userland one though. OpenBSD is great because the man pages aren't absolute shit like Linux and networking is so much better. Linux wifi drivers are absolute crap in comparison. Configure WPA on OpenBSD: ifconfig nwid wpa wpakey up; dhcl…

>OpenBSD is great because the man pages aren't absolute shit like Linux and networking is so much better. Linux wifi drivers are absolute crap in comparison. For example?

http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=wireless&se...

I like Linux in practice, but one must admit that BSDs' manuals are way better.

Re: OpenBSD 5.0 Released

#46

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 02, 2011, 8:30 AM UTC

vegai wrote: post #45

KonradKlause wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>OpenBSD is great because the man pages aren't absolute shit like Linux and networking is so much better. Linux wifi drivers are absolute crap in comparison. For example?

http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=wireless&se... I like Linux in practice, but one must admit that BSDs' manuals are way better.

[deleted]

Re: OpenBSD 5.0 Released

#47

Post by cturner » Wed, Nov 02, 2011, 8:47 AM UTC

vegai wrote: post #45

KonradKlause wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>OpenBSD is great because the man pages aren't absolute shit like Linux and networking is so much better. Linux wifi drivers are absolute crap in comparison. For example?

http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=wireless&se... I like Linux in practice, but one must admit that BSDs' manuals are way better.

The problem with linux is that nobody owns responsibility for making the whole man system good.

Linux kernel stuff is covered by the linux man project. This is run by Kerrisk, who is a good communicator - _The Linux Programming Interface_ reads like Stevens but is richer in practical advice.

But if you go to the man page for something like awk or bash or grep (the common use-case - where you need a quick reference), they're maintained by the team who write the tool, or - often enough - not maintained by the team. There are undocumented flags, often the doc only tends to make sense if you already understand the internals of the tool. GNU tool man pages are generally obtuse.

BSD and plan 9 have much better man systems. Unless a linux distribution comes along and makes a conscious effort to solve GNU/linux doc, the man system available to linux users will always suck - it's structural.

Re: OpenBSD 5.0 Released

#48

Post by stock_toaster » Wed, Nov 02, 2011, 8:54 AM UTC

getsat wrote: post #35

alrs wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're missing pf you might check out Debian/KFreeBSD. http://wiki.debian.org/Debian_GNU/kFreeBSD

Plain FreeBSD has also had pf since 2003. OSX also comes with it.

FreeBSD's version of pf is a tad old though (before new-format as I recall).

"""FreeBSD 8.X and prior is using the same version of PF as OpenBSD 4.1. FreeBSD 9.X and later is using the same version of PF as OpenBSD 4.5.""" [1]

[1]: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/firewalls-pf.html

Re: OpenBSD 5.0 Released

#49

Post by wazoox » Wed, Nov 02, 2011, 12:40 PM UTC

levabalkin wrote: post #32

dmm wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On OpenBSD, all of your interface configuration is done with ifconfig and it's all documented with 'man ifconfig'. On a linux system 'man ifconfig' doesn't even mention iwconfig or wpa_supplicant. I think that makes it a little easier to learn how to do it.

I guess in Linux ifconfig is deprecated in favor of iproute2.

It's a mistake IMO for old hats like myself. After 20 years using ifconfig, it's almost impossible to get used to some new, linux-only tool (even though it may be better).

Re: OpenBSD 5.0 Released

#50

Post by CrLf » Wed, Nov 02, 2011, 1:46 PM UTC

sigzero wrote: post #44

levabalkin wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess in Linux ifconfig is deprecated in favor of iproute2.

Really? No Linux SA that I know...and I know a lot...is using iproute2 over ifconfig.

The "ip" command has been the preferred way to configure network interfaces in Linux for a few years now. Most functionality isn't available through "ifconfig" at all.