OpenBSD imports x.org

[n0cmonkey]

We knew it was coming, but x.org finally got the blessing:

Hi,

I've imported the X.Org release 6.8.1 in XF4. This has some user visible
changes. For a complete list of changes, check the XF4/xc/RELNOTES file.
Most notable changes are:

- renaming of /usr/X11R6/bin/XFree86 to /usr/X11R6/bin/Xorg and
/etc/X11/XF86Config to /etc/X11/xorg.conf.
- switched the keyboard driver from the legacy 'keyboard' driver to a
XInput module 'kbd'.
- removed the XTT server side font rendering module.
- new XFixes, Composite, Damage and XEvIE extensions, disabled by
default. (They can be enabled using the new 'Extension' section in
xorg.conf(5)). These extensions will allow applications to get
transparency and drop shadows.
- updated Freetype from 2.1.4 to 2.1.8. This version has some
incompatibilites with previous versions that may break some ports.
- updated Xprint server and support for Xprint in some sample applications.

I recommend that you move away your existing /etc/X11 and /usr/X11R6
directories before installing the new X.Org sets.

There are probably some remaining problems. Please report them to me, or
file a PR.
--
Matthieu

Theo responds to a few user concerns:

On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 01:33:51AM +0100, Matthieu Herrb wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've imported the X.Org release 6.8.1 in XF4.

What does this exactly mean?

Moving forward.

You have imported X.org source code _over_ XFree86 4.x code?

Yes.

That would probably imply huge diffs.

X.org started from XFree86 code, so, that's what it is.

Why not a new CVS tree?

Because.

Also, what's the real advantage?

More free. More modern. Not dead.

Isn't X.org's license equally questionable?

No.

They have taken a project under MIT (equivalent to BSD) license
and are beginning to move it to GPL.

No they are not.

What's so good about that?

If they do that, they will get into the same trouble as XFree86 did.

Please, understand that these are genuine questions.
I'm not trying to oppose you.
I'm trying to understand what's going on here.
I believe you are much better informed.

I think we are. They may want to use some GPL'd build tools but if
they start putting GPL parts directly into X, then that is going to
cause another X split.

I promise.

 

[Crusty]

/me begins to wonder when Debian will follow suit

 

[drag]

Debian won't for a long time.

The change over from XFree86 4.2 to 4.3 was very painfull and drawn out. There is just to much going on with the X server and libraries for the change over to happen easily with Debian's way of doing incremental updates. So what they have pretty much decided to do is wait for X.org and the Freedesktop.org counterpart Debrix project to create a fully module X setup were you can update bits and peices of the X library and dependancies instead of having to upgrade the whole monolythic traditional XFree86 way of doing stuff. Or at least that's how I understand it. (keep in mind the vast number of packages that Debian supports and also the multiple ports they maintain on many different types of hardware)

But other then that, Debian is fully behind X.org. It's just not practical to switch yet for how their system is designed.

But OpenBSD switching is good news.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Go ahead, taint my OpenBSD thread with your Debian posts.



I'm kind of surprised it took OpenBSD this long to switch over.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Go ahead, taint my OpenBSD thread with your Debian posts.



I'm kind of surprised it took OpenBSD this long to switch over.

Makes sense considuring that they just released 3.6 not long ago. X takes up a pretty big hunk of realstate in a OS and probably switching would of hurt the effort to get 3.6 going.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Go ahead, taint my OpenBSD thread with your Debian posts.



I'm kind of surprised it took OpenBSD this long to switch over.

Makes sense considuring that they just released 3.6 not long ago. X takes up a pretty big hunk of realstate in a OS and probably switching would of hurt the effort to get 3.6 going.

Makes sense. I guess the XF86 split happened less than 6 months ago. :Q

 

[Nothinman]

/me begins to wonder when Debian will follow suit

According to http://necrotic.deadbeast.net/...debian/local/FAQ.xhtml :

Debian will move away from the XFree86 tree as soon as possible after the upcoming stable release due to its license issues (see above).

While moving from XFree86's monolithic tree to X.Org's is a relatively simple technical transition of itself, the transition to a fully-modularized set of packages will take longer ? indeed, an unknown amount of time which depends on the speed of upstream's progress ? but we expect the process will bring the packages' quality to a higher level, thanks to the introduction of a fast release cycle for each single component

 

[yelo333]

/ME wonders why the openbsd installer hates his KVM...the only thing that stopped me from installing it...

More ontopic, nice to see yet another OS switch away from XF86...maybe it will pressure them enough that they change their licensing...

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: yelo333
/ME wonders why the openbsd installer hates his KVM...the only thing that stopped me from installing it...

What kind of KVM? I've got a bulkin omnicube and it works great. I had a cheap 2 port KVM for a bit that was horrible, but even that one worked.

More ontopic, nice to see yet another OS switch away from XF86...maybe it will pressure them enough that they change their licensing...

I don't think we'll be seeing XFree changing anytime soon. It doesn't matter anyways, it's dead.

 

[n0cmonkey]

When do you guys think Linux distributions will start dropping the unfree Apache?

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Apache is also notoriously sloppily coded. I wonder if a big time replacement project will ever come along?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
Apache is also notoriously sloppily coded. I wonder if a big time replacement project will ever come along?

OpenBSD has been maintaining the old licensed version, along with a few changes. I've kind of wondered how "portable" it is (if they messed with any of the #ifdefs and whatnot).

 

[djdrastic]

I think that Apache has too much of a market share , that the Linux Distros would cut it imo

Heh a company I used to work for used to install linux boxes because of Apache [They were hit so many times by horrible IIS and Windows Worms]

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: djdrastic
I think that Apache has too much of a market share , that the Linux Distros would cut it imo

Heh a company I used to work for used to install linux boxes because of Apache [They were hit so many times by horrible IIS and Windows Worms]

Apache used to be Free, it isn't now. OpenBSD's Apache version is still Free. You can still get Apache, without the unFree license.

Much like XFree86, it's time for F/OSS people to step up and take action to keep tools Free.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
Apache is also notoriously sloppily coded. I wonder if a big time replacement project will ever come along?

But still, it does what it's supposed to, doesn't have alot of horrible exploits(though that seems to have gotten worse unfortunately), and just about every *NIX admin has at the very least some basic knowledge about it.

Something to replace it would above all need to keep the config syntax pretty much the same IMO.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
Apache is also notoriously sloppily coded. I wonder if a big time replacement project will ever come along?

But still, it does what it's supposed to, doesn't have alot of horrible exploits(though that seems to have gotten worse unfortunately), and just about every *NIX admin has at the very least some basic knowledge about it.

Something to replace it would above all need to keep the config syntax pretty much the same IMO.

I think it would gain a lot by cutting out some of the more esoteric or non-*nix platforms. Take a look at a lot of the changelogs. Count the number of times you see "win32."

 

[Nothinman]

But still, it does what it's supposed to, doesn't have alot of horrible exploits(though that seems to have gotten worse unfortunately), and just about every *NIX admin has at the very least some basic knowledge about it.

Havn't most of the recent exploits been in 3rd party modules like php?

 

[yelo333]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: yelo333
/ME wonders why the openbsd installer hates his KVM...the only thing that stopped me from installing it...

What kind of KVM? I've got a bulkin omnicube and it works great. I had a cheap 2 port KVM for a bit that was horrible, but even that one worked.

It's the one found here.

My symtoms: I have a "main" box, and a "testing" box. the main box runs slackware 10.0, and the testing runs whatever OS I'm currently trying out. Both boxes are connected through the aformentioned KVM switch.

With the release of openBSD 3.6, I decided to try it out. I had the install manual open in a browser window on the main box, and the test box set to go. I then decided to do the net install of openbsd, which involved booting off a floppy(well, PXE boot or CD would have worked, but floppy was easiest). So, `dd if=foo of=/dev/fd0` the correct image to the floppy, and boot off it from the test box.

I have now switched my KVM switch to my test box, and have read far enough in the manual to know I can keep it there for awhile...

SO, I press [ENTER] at boot> prompt, it loads the whatever(if it was a linux distro( notice I am differentiating from linux and a linux distro ), i'd say kernel, but not 100% on that). Now, the boot process is displayed in this white-on-blue, which is odd, and, I hope, not normal(or, at least, confined to the boot disk). once that finishes up, I pick that I want to (I)nstall. after answering a few more questions, I need to go back to my main machine to lookup how to go about the "label" step(sorta an fdisk-like screen). I double-press the scroll-lock, and hit '1', to shift me back to the main box. This works fine, and I read through a few more pages of the install manual. No problem yet. Once I get it somewhat figured out, I dbl-hit the scroll-lock and press '2'(I realise I Could have hit the up or down arrow, but, I prefer absolute positioning to relative whenever possible).


This is where it gets odd. Num-lock, caps lock, scroll lock are all off. Any input whatsoever is undetected. The only way out is to do a hard reboot w/ the reboot button on the physical computer case. Also, dbl-scroll-lock and a 1 does not bring me back to my main box, but, somewhat queued, as when I do push the reset button, it instantaneously flips me back.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

But still, it does what it's supposed to, doesn't have alot of horrible exploits(though that seems to have gotten worse unfortunately), and just about every *NIX admin has at the very least some basic knowledge about it.

Havn't most of the recent exploits been in 3rd party modules like php?

Just looking at OpenBSD's errata page for 3.5, there are a few issues (CAN descriptions added by me):

018: SECURITY FIX: September 10, 2004
httpd(8) 's mod_rewrite module can be made to write one zero byte in an arbitrary memory position outside of a char array, causing a DoS or possibly buffer overflows. This would require enabling dbm for mod_rewrite and making use of a malicious dbm file.

Multiple vulnerabilities have been found in httpd(8) / mod_ssl. CAN-2003-0020 (Apache does not filter terminal escape sequences from its error logs, which could make it easier for attackers to insert those sequences into terminal emulators containing vulnerabilities related to escape sequences. ), CAN-2003-0987 (mod_digest for Apache does not properly verify the nonce of a client response by using a AuthNonce secret.), CAN-2004-0488(Stack-based buffer overflow in the ssl_util_uuencode_binary function in ssl_util.c for Apache mod_ssl, when mod_ssl is configured to trust the issuing CA, may allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a client certificate with a long subject DN. ), CAN-2004-0492(Heap-based buffer overflow in proxy_util.c for mod_proxy in Apache 1.3.25 to 1.3.31 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (process crash) and possibly execute arbitrary code via a negative Content-Length HTTP header field, which causes a large amount of data to be copied.).

I'm not sure how 3rd party I'd consider those, or really how vulnerable they make Apache. There have been plenty of PHP issues too though.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: yelo333

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: yelo333
/ME wonders why the openbsd installer hates his KVM...the only thing that stopped me from installing it...

What kind of KVM? I've got a bulkin omnicube and it works great. I had a cheap 2 port KVM for a bit that was horrible, but even that one worked.

It's the one found here.

My symtoms: I have a "main" box, and a "testing" box. the main box runs slackware 10.0, and the testing runs whatever OS I'm currently trying out. Both boxes are connected through the aformentioned KVM switch.

With the release of openBSD 3.6, I decided to try it out. I had the install manual open in a browser window on the main box, and the test box set to go. I then decided to do the net install of openbsd, which involved booting off a floppy(well, PXE boot or CD would have worked, but floppy was easiest). So, `dd if=foo of=/dev/fd0` the correct image to the floppy, and boot off it from the test box.

I have now switched my KVM switch to my test box, and have read far enough in the manual to know I can keep it there for awhile...

SO, I press [ENTER] at boot> prompt, it loads the whatever(if it was a linux distro( notice I am differentiating from linux and a linux distro ), i'd say kernel, but not 100% on that). Now, the boot process is displayed in this white-on-blue, which is odd, and, I hope, not normal(or, at least, confined to the boot disk). once that finishes up, I pick that I want to (I)nstall. after answering a few more questions, I need to go back to my main machine to lookup how to go about the "label" step(sorta an fdisk-like screen). I double-press the scroll-lock, and hit '1', to shift me back to the main box. This works fine, and I read through a few more pages of the install manual. No problem yet. Once I get it somewhat figured out, I dbl-hit the scroll-lock and press '2'(I realise I Could have hit the up or down arrow, but, I prefer absolute positioning to relative whenever possible).


This is where it gets odd. Num-lock, caps lock, scroll lock are all off. Any input whatsoever is undetected. The only way out is to do a hard reboot w/ the reboot button on the physical computer case. Also, dbl-scroll-lock and a 1 does not bring me back to my main box, but, somewhat queued, as when I do push the reset button, it instantaneously flips me back.

The white on blue is normal. Kernel messages are usually displayed like that in OpenBSD.

No offence, but it sounds like a cheap KVM. I haven't had one that hasn't had a button on it, but I have noticed some issues with multiple machines/OSes when using the hotkeys on my omnicube. I also had a lot more problems with the extra cheap ($30, no name) KVM switch. So much so that I gave the stupid thing away.

Printing out the installation manual is great, but I doubt most people like to take notes when they're installing (I do it all of the time).

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I have had install issues when using the KVM, so I generally try to let it install without using it. And I haven't installed 3.6-RELEASE yet, and I might not ever. I got the cds, and the i386 directory going in bittorrent, but I'll probably just pull a snapshot in a few weeks.

 

[yelo333]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

The white on blue is normal. Kernel messages are usually displayed like that in OpenBSD.

No offence, but it sounds like a cheap KVM. I haven't had one that hasn't had a button on it, but I have noticed some issues with multiple machines/OSes when using the hotkeys on my omnicube. I also had a lot more problems with the extra cheap ($30, no name) KVM switch. So much so that I gave the stupid thing away.

Printing out the installation manual is great, but I doubt most people like to take notes when they're installing (I do it all of the time).

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I have had install issues when using the KVM, so I generally try to let it install without using it. And I haven't installed 3.6-RELEASE yet, and I might not ever. I got the cds, and the i386 directory going in bittorrent, but I'll probably just pull a snapshot in a few weeks.

I'll just get used to the white-on-blue...

I realise it's a cheap KVM...paid all of $7AR @newegg.com during one of their sales. Whether or not it's cheap is beside the point...the openbsd installer does not work with it, the freebsd one, and all the linux distro's ones I've tried do work with it. I'd need a good reason to go through the trouble to hook up a real keyboard/monitor, unless I can be convinced it's really that much better than other OS'es(hint-hint)...Also, the fact it worked after the install is good news, so, I'm leaning in that direction a bit already.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: yelo333

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

The white on blue is normal. Kernel messages are usually displayed like that in OpenBSD.

No offence, but it sounds like a cheap KVM. I haven't had one that hasn't had a button on it, but I have noticed some issues with multiple machines/OSes when using the hotkeys on my omnicube. I also had a lot more problems with the extra cheap ($30, no name) KVM switch. So much so that I gave the stupid thing away.

Printing out the installation manual is great, but I doubt most people like to take notes when they're installing (I do it all of the time).

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I have had install issues when using the KVM, so I generally try to let it install without using it. And I haven't installed 3.6-RELEASE yet, and I might not ever. I got the cds, and the i386 directory going in bittorrent, but I'll probably just pull a snapshot in a few weeks.

I'll just get used to the white-on-blue...

It's only kernel messages, you shouldn't see them often.

I realise it's a cheap KVM...paid all of $7AR @newegg.com during one of their sales. Whether or not it's cheap is beside the point...the openbsd installer does not work with it, the freebsd one, and all the linux distro's ones I've tried do work with it. I'd need a good reason to go through the trouble to hook up a real keyboard/monitor, unless I can be convinced it's really that much better than other OS'es(hint-hint)...Also, the fact it worked after the install is good news, so, I'm leaning in that direction a bit already.

I understand. The kernel on the installation media is cut down quite a bit too, so it could just be an issue with that.

I'm not going to try and convert or convince you. Those types of discussions often turn ugly.

 

[yelo333]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

I understand. The kernel on the installation media is cut down quite a bit too, so it could just be an issue with that.

I'm not going to try and convert or convince you. Those types of discussions often turn ugly.

I have just been convinced...was awaiting getting modded flame-bait, or getting flame-bait in return - when I get a response like that, it sounds like there is something hidden+special about openbsd...I'll give it a try tomorrow morning

Wow, you're closing in on 30K posts...

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: yelo333

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

I understand. The kernel on the installation media is cut down quite a bit too, so it could just be an issue with that.

I'm not going to try and convert or convince you. Those types of discussions often turn ugly.

I have just been convinced...was awaiting getting modded flame-bait, or getting flame-bait in return - when I get a response like that, it sounds like there is something hidden+special about openbsd...I'll give it a try tomorrow morning

Cool. I don't think there's a point in trying it unless you're interested. Trying to convince someone to try it out won't do much for anyone. Plus, to be a good advocate, I'd have to be nice and stuff.

Wow, you're closing in on 30K posts...

I've been spending too much time in ATOT lately.

 

[groovin]

apache not free? does this refer to the apache 2.0 licence listed as current at their site? can someone explain to me how its not free? i tried reading it, but i cant understand lawyer-speak.