OpenBSD releases the 3.7 song.

[n0cmonkey]

lyrics and download

Theo's email to misc@.

It's 10 minutes and 18MB. I haven't gotten a chance to listen yet, but I'm guessing it'll be interesting. As always, read the commentary. Here it is for anyone that's too lazy to click the link:

For an operating system to get anywhere in "the market" it must have good device support.

Ethernet was our first concern. Many vendors refused to supply programmers with programming documentation for these chipsets. Donald Becker (Linux) and Bill Paul (FreeBSD) changed the rules of the game here: They wrote drivers for the chipsets that they could get documentation for, and as they succeeded in writing more and more drivers, eventually closed vendors slowly opened up until most ethernet chipset documentation was available. Today, some vendors still resist releasing ethernet chipset documentation (ie. Broadcom, Intel, Marvell/SysKonnect, nVidia) but the driver problem is mostly solved in the ethernet market.

Similar problems have happened in the SCSI, IDE, and RAID markets. Again, the problem was solved by writing drivers for documented devices first. If the free software user communities use those drivers preferentially, it is a market loss for the secretive vendors. Another approach that has worked is to publish email addresses and phone numbers for the marketing department managers in these companies. These email campaigns have worked almost every time.

The new frontier: 802.11 wireless chipsets.

Over the last six months, this came to a head in the OpenBSD project. We asked our users to help us petition numerous vendors so that we could get chipset documentation or redistributable firmware. Certainly, we did not succeed for some vendors. But we did influence some vendors, in particular the Taiwanese (Ralink and Realtek), who have given us everything we need. We also reverse engineered the Atheros chipsets.

Want to help us? Avoid Intel Centrino, Broadcom, TI, or Connexant PrismGT chipsets. Heck, avoid buying even regular old pre-G Prism products, to send a message. If you can, buy 802.11 products using chips by Realtek, Ralink, Atmel, ADMTek, Atheros. Our manual pages attempt to explain which vendors (ie. D-Link) box which chipsets into which product.

Send a message that open support for hardware matters. A vendor in Redmond largely continues their practices because they get the chipset documentation years before everyone else does. What really upsets us the most is that some Linux vendors are signing Non-Disclosure Agreements with vendors, or contracts that let them distribute firmwares. Meanwhile both Linux and FSF head developers are not asking their communities to help us in our efforts to free development information for all, but are even going further and telling their development communities to not work with us at pressuring vendors. It is ridiculous.

:music:

 

[n0cmonkey]

OpenBSD 3.7 is due May 19, so far. Hopefully it'll be an early release. The new t-shirt looks amazing and I can't wait for it to arrive.

A more complete list of changes is here.

[BUL]
[*]802.11g support: atheros (AR5210, AT5211, AR5212), Ralink Technology (RT25x0: ural for USB, ral for non-USB), Intel (2200BG, 2225BG, 2915ABG) chipsets.
[*]802.11b support: Intel (2100) and Realtek (RTL8180L) chipsets added.
[*]New platforms: sgi and zaurus.
[*]X.org 6.8.2 +patches.
[*]OpenSSH 4.0.
[*]Code cleanups all over, especially httpd!
[*]ksh improvements and cleanups all over the place. What's bash?
[*]ospfd added.
[*]OpenCVS started.
[*]hme(4) improvements.
[*]sudo updated to sudo-1.6.8p7.
[*]Sendmail-8.13.3.
[*]i386 and powerpc using gcc-3.3.5.
[*]Major work on package/ports system.
[*]nFrce3-250 IDE controller supported.
[*]VIA VT612x PCI gigabit ethernet driver imported.
[*]Privilege seperation added to ftpd.
[*]Numerous memory leaks fixed.
[/BUL]

This is just a handfull of things changed. And 3.8 is gearing up to be even better!

 

[Sunner]

Yep, gonna be time reinstall my venerable firewall once 3.7 is out.

One day I should listen to all of those songs

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Sunner
Yep, gonna be time reinstall my venerable firewall once 3.7 is out.

I'll be installing snapshots sometime. There's some neat stuff in -current.

One day I should listen to all of those songs

They're good, in a cheesey sorta way. P

 

[Sunner]

I tend to stay with the stable releases, my firewall is one of those things I prefer to have in a state of "just working"
While looking through some info I found that the NIC connecting to my ISP doesn't support 100 Mb/FD operation, so I need to take it down and change that anyway, usually I just leave it be to do it's thing, unless I need to patch something that requires a reboot, which tends not to happen very often with OpenBSD

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Sunner
I tend to stay with the stable releases, my firewall is one of those things I prefer to have in a state of "just working"
While looking through some info I found that the NIC connecting to my ISP doesn't support 100 Mb/FD operation, so I need to take it down and change that anyway, usually I just leave it be to do it's thing, unless I need to patch something that requires a reboot, which tends not to happen very often with OpenBSD

Snapshots are usually at the quality that I'll use them for a while without issues. I think my main machine still has a 3.6 beta snapshot.

 

[Sunner]

Well, I'm a chicken, which is why I still like Solaris 7, despite it's userland

 

[n0cmonkey]

Solaris 9 or nothing.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Solaris 9 or nothing.

I just don't trust it as much yet, though I guess now that 10 is out...
But I trust it more than most anything anyway, so yeah, Solaris 9 where it's at these days, as far as Solaris goes anyway

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Solaris 9 or nothing.

I just don't trust it as much yet, though I guess now that 10 is out...
But I trust it more than most anything anyway, so yeah, Solaris 9 where it's at these days, as far as Solaris goes anyway

Solaris 9 was the first one to come with SSH. I can't go with anything less.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Solaris 9 or nothing.

I just don't trust it as much yet, though I guess now that 10 is out...
But I trust it more than most anything anyway, so yeah, Solaris 9 where it's at these days, as far as Solaris goes anyway

Solaris 9 was the first one to come with SSH. I can't go with anything less.

Yeah I know, along with a few other things I miss when using 7, such as bash and Disksuite.
Installing OpenSSH on Solaris boxes sucks...

 

[kamper]

Just curious, what's the point of OpenCVS (specifically with a view to the existence of subversion)? Are there philosophical differences? Is svn not considered secure enough?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: kamper
Just curious, what's the point of OpenCVS

Quoting OpenCVS.org:

OpenCVS is a FREE implementation of the Concurrent Versions System, the most popular open source revision control software. It can be used as both client and server for repositories and provides granular access control over data stored in the repository. It aims to be as compatible as possible with other CVS implementations, except when particular features reduce the overall security of the system.

The OpenCVS project was started after discussions regarding the latest GNU CVS vulnerabilities that came out. Although CVS is widely used, its development has been mostly stagnant in the last years and many security issues have popped up, both in the implementation and in the mechanisms.

(specifically with a view to the existence of subversion)?

They use CVS.

Are there philosophical differences?

No, they use CVS.

Is svn not considered secure enough?

It's in ports, but they use CVS.

 

[kamper]

I think I get it. Is the answer just that they use cvs and want OpenCVS for their own use?

I don't have any problem with them branching cvs (if they even took any code along with them), I was just curious what motivated them

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: kamper
I think I get it. Is the answer just that they use cvs and want OpenCVS for their own use?

I don't have any problem with them branching cvs (if they even took any code along with them), I was just curious what motivated them

Isn't Gnu CVS under the GPL? This is OpenBSD licensed, so they probably didn't take anything with them.

Subversion is big, it's different, and it doesn't have the history that CVS has. There is no real reason to move a LARGE system and a decent amount of developers to a new system when the old one (the system, not necessarily the software) is working well.

OpenCVS is supposed to be 100% CVS compatible, SVN isn't. OpenCVS is sanely licensed, SVN isn't. There are plenty of CVS clients for plenty of platforms. I'm not sure about SVN clients...

CVS is mature...

Plenty of reasons to create something new over using subversion. Plus, they'll possibly get to fix some of the short comings of cvs without breaking compatibility.

 

[kamper]

Well explained, thank you. The licensing issue is definitely an important one and I think providing a bsd licensed cvs as an alternative to the gpl one is great. :thumbsup:

Off the top of your head, what is svn's licensing deal? I guess I could go look it up but...

Edit: I did go look it up and then I went and read the license (Apache for those who are interested). I'm not a lawyer and I'm not familiar with any issues surrounding the license but it looked fine to me. I didn't see any potential for viral licensing infection so what is it that makes svn "insanely licensed"?

 

[kamper]

On a completely different note, I was perusing the 3.7 release notes and noticed that there are daemons for ospf and bgp. I don't know much about these areas but these protocols are used on non-trivial infrastructure routers right? (bgp in particular). I didn't know bsd ran on such machines. Would you run this on conventional hardware or does someone make a port to run on some router specific platform?

Also, does linux have comparable daemons or are ports of those ones actively maintained and used on linux at all?

 

[drag]

routers are just computers. Like your PC, except that they are a bit more specialized.

They use flash ram instead of disks, specially configured for high output low latency network interface to network interface, specialized OS for stuff. That sort of thing. Use embedded style cpus usually. Although Cisco and a few other companies do use hacked up versions of Linux on a few products.

For Linux for more advanced routing you have Quagga. Supports a few different routing protocols; different RIP, OSPF, OSPFv6, BGP, among others.
http://www.quagga.net/docs.php

In the kernel itself you have firewall rules and you can setup bridges and routers with static rules and NAT style stuff. I have a simple wifi bridge (wireless access point) I use from a old junk PC.

Wide veriaty of VPN's and all that fun stuff.

I imagine you can do the same with OpenBSD. I don't know which had this stuff first. Probably Linux in some things, OBSD in others.

The exceptional networking capabilities of Linux is what attracted me to the OS in the first place. Ditto with most any other free Unix-like OS.

You can setup some pretty hardcore things, very high end if you want. But of course if you have a real demanding setup Cisco-type routers are definately worth it. Although as far as security goes I'd trust OpenBSD much more then any Cisco/whoever product.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: kamper
On a completely different note, I was perusing the 3.7 release notes and noticed that there are daemons for ospf and bgp. I don't know much about these areas but these protocols are used on non-trivial infrastructure routers right? (bgp in particular). I didn't know bsd ran on such machines. Would you run this on conventional hardware or does someone make a port to run on some router specific platform?

Either. Juniper uses a modified FreeBSD, supposedly. The PC infrastructure isn't fast enough (bus wise) to handle some things that routers and stuff need. Ask Spidey07, he likes to point that out. But apparently some big people are using OpenBSD's bgpd, and I know OpenBSD is used as at least a firewall in plenty of places.

Also, does linux have comparable daemons or are ports of those ones actively maintained and used on linux at all?

Here is a recent presentation about bgpd by one of the main authors: henning@. He is also responsible for openntpd, some major PF improvements early on (the webhosting company he worked for adopted PF quickly), and an advocate for shoeless beer drinkers everywhere.

Alternatives are mentioned in the presentation.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Oh, and the third clause of the subversion license is icky. That's why OpenBSD is still using apache 1.3 with their own versions of recent patches.

 

[kamper]

Hmmm. I thought the 3rd clause looked like a good thing. Is it because they don't like the idea of patent litigation at all? (I'm guessing that the last sentence is the stickler...)

For reference:

3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: kamper
Hmmm. I thought the 3rd clause looked like a good thing. Is it because they don't like the idea of patent litigation at all? (I'm guessing that the last sentence is the stickler...)

For reference:

3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.

The OpenBSD folks don't want their license to say anything more than "Do whatever you want with this code, just leave the copyright notice intact".
In short anyway

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: kamper
Hmmm. I thought the 3rd clause looked like a good thing. Is it because they don't like the idea of patent litigation at all? (I'm guessing that the last sentence is the stickler...)

For reference:

3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.

I'm not sure where you get that, but it isn't part of the subversion license listed on their license page.

Clause 3:

* 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if
* any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes
* software developed by CollabNet (http://www.Collab.Net/)."
* Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, if
* and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear.

But patents and copyright are different animals and patent information does not belong in a copyright license.

It's also not-free. I'm not a lawyer, but this looks restrictive:

If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.

It's also too hard to understand. A copyright license should be easy to read and understand by humans (as opposed to lawyers).

 

[kamper]

Now I'm confused. I went to subversion.tigris.org and the only thing I saw about licensing was this:

This license is the same as the Apache Software Foundation license, but with CollabNet given as the copyright holder.

(http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/LicenseDetails?licenseID=9, linked straight off the main page) So the clause 3 that I posted is from the apache2.0 license. I figured that made sense since you mentioned httpd 1.3 and I assumed that it was still governed by the old apache license which may not have been as restrictive...

At least the patent stuff made a little bit of sense though. I see absolutely nothing icky about the clause 3 that you posted.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: kamper
Now I'm confused. I went to subversion.tigris.org and the only thing I saw about licensing was this:

This license is the same as the Apache Software Foundation license, but with CollabNet given as the copyright holder.

(http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/LicenseDetails?licenseID=9, linked straight off the main page) So the clause 3 that I posted is from the apache2.0 license. I figured that made sense since you mentioned httpd 1.3 and I assumed that it was still governed by the old apache license which may not have been as restrictive...

Yeah, I saw that too, but since it didn't include a license there I checked out the other page. The apache 1.3 license changed, so that's why OpenBSD doesn't use updates from Apache, they roll their own.

At least the patent stuff made a little bit of sense though. I see absolutely nothing icky about the clause 3 that you posted.

It's similar to the original BSD license with advertise clause. It's annoying and icky. The original Apache license didn't have it, this one does. It's more restrictive than it had been previously. The patent stuff is just ridiculously insane.