Linked by Eugenia Loli on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 01:52 UTC
OpenBSD "Yesterday OpenBSD, the proactively secure Unix-like operating system, released version 3.8, featuring several improvements to networking, RAID management tools, and increased security. At openbsd.org you can download installation files or order the official three-disc CD set, which supports 16 processor architectures out of the box. I took this new release as an opportunity to perform my first ever OpenBSD install." Read more here.
Order by: Score:
Inconsistent
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 02:37 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"Graphical OS installation is pretty mundane too, and with the exception of monitor resolution testing, doesn't offer much beyond eye-candy."

"...A few years ago I knew all the .Xsession and .xinitrc secret handshakes, but I've gone soft. Today the Linux distros handle this for you, and I don't see any reason why OpenBSD couldn't..."

So, a graphical OS installer is considered "eye candy", but you want X to "just work" without editing the .xinitrc? That seems a bit incosistent. If you're going to take a haughty attitude towards graphical OS installers, you should be equally arrogant in your opinion about setting up X.

I mean, is echo "exec gnome-session" > ~/.xinitrc really *that* much harder than the OpenBSD installer? And what the hell is "secret handshaking" in X? I've heard of the 3 way handshake used in establishing a TCP connection.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Inconsistent
by Eugenia on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 02:45 UTC in reply to "Inconsistent"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Anonymous, you are being defensive.

The author has a point. Graphical installation or not, the point is, an installation DOES install and configures stuff for you at the end. But having to setup X manually, it is something that has to be done just that: manually. And this is what the author finds unacceptable in this day and age, and I personally agree with him. Server OS or not, this is 2005 and OpenBSD should go with the times. BSDs, Arch/Slackware and some other old stylers should do too. It is called care for your users.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Inconsistent
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 02:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Inconsistent"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I agree with you. This is 2005, things do not have to be so difficult.

My point was that if someone wants to put "graphical installer" in such a condescending tone, they shouldn't have any issue setting up X.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Inconsistent
by Soulbender on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 03:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Inconsistent"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"But having to setup X manually, it is something that has to be done just that: manually"

You dont have to set up anything manually for X. Autodetect works like a charm in the majority of cases.
Also, if you cant figure out how you configure X OpenBSD is not the desktop OS for you.

"Server OS or not, this is 2005 and OpenBSD should go with the times."

Nonsense. Servers dont need X and if the way OpenBSD do things doesnt suit you then it's simply not for you.
Alternatively, if you really want a graphical X config (or a "better" installer or whatever) write one yourself. Noone's going to do it for you.

"BSDs, Arch/Slackware and some other old stylers should do too. It is called care for your users."

More nonsense. Obviously the users and maintainers of these systems *likes* it this way. If you want the graphical eye candy and installers there are plenty of distros for you. If you dont there are also distros for you.
It's called choice.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Inconsistent
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 08:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Inconsistent"
Anonymous Member since:
---

True, a server does not _need_ X, but that's why you can deselect any X packages when installing OpenBSD. However, if you _do_ select X packages then you most likely want to use X (otherwise you're just being silly) and hence X should be automatically configured and setup. True 1337 hackers can manually edit the configs, 99% of the rest will have a much nicer user experience.

Yes, I like OpenBSD and think Theo and the gang are doing a great job. It just wouldn't hrt to make things easier. Remember that things don't have to be complicated to be powerful - such mentality is simply arrogant "1337-ness".

/Lennart Fridén

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Inconsistent
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 08:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Inconsistent"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Remember that things don't have to be complicated to be powerful - such mentality is simply arrogant "1337-ness"."

Things aren't designed to be needlessly complicated just so people can feel "1337" (as you put it) about themselves. (leetspeak is really childish by the way) I run OpenBSD on a headless, embedded computing system. The ultra light weight installation method makes OpenBSD the easiest OS I've ever installed on that device. I don't need or want a so-called "easy" installer. Not because I think I'm elite - but it's because on some systems, that type of installer IS simply the best AND easiest way to do it.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Inconsistent
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 11:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Inconsistent"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Agreed, but people that posts things such as

"Go with the times; majority of the desktops are windows based; those are the times. *nix based OS are 30 years old; going with the times means using windows or a mac.

Sad to see you go.... bye bye...."

display said childish "leetness". I was primarily targetting that lot.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Inconsistent
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 07:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Inconsistent"
Anonymous Member since:
---

The author has a point. Graphical installation or not, the point is, an installation DOES install and configures stuff for you at the end. But having to setup X manually, it is something that has to be done just that: manually. And this is what the author finds unacceptable in this day and age, and I personally agree with him. Server OS or not, this is 2005 and OpenBSD should go with the times. BSDs, Arch/Slackware and some other old stylers should do too. It is called care for your users.

Get off your high horse...Why in gods name do you need
a GUI for a server? Firewall? Security appliance?

OpenBSD's goals are security and stability.
Bare that in mind the next time you open your mouth
or post something.

They have a choice not to use a GUI, its their project,
not yours. They don't cater for the GUI desktop user.
They cater for those who want security.

Like Arch and Slackware, they follow the traditions
of Unix...Their audience isn't the newbie/lazy like
you. If you want pretty GUIs, then go with Ubuntu,
Suse, etc.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Inconsistent
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 08:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Inconsistent"
Anonymous Member since:
---

..but Slackware DOES autoconfigure your stuff..whether you're lazy or newbie or not. I made my own OS too, but you're all too stupid to have it!

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Inconsistent
by dagw on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 14:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Inconsistent"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

Get off your high horse...Why in gods name do you need
a GUI for a server? Firewall? Security appliance?

OpenBSD's goals are security and stability.
Bare that in mind the next time you open your mouth
or post something.


Let me start by saying that I've used OpenBSD for years and think that, for non X systems, it is one of best installs around.

That being said, I agree with the poster you're replying to. X is included as an option in the base install and thus I feel that they should include options to configure it in the install. If they're not going to configure it, remove it as an install option, and let people who want it add it later through ports.

What I'd like to see would be an option where you get the standar OpenBSD installer if you don't select do install an X server, but if you select to install the X server it will kick into a full X installer which will let you set it up. Including X in the base installer and then not configuring it is not a valid solution in my mind

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Inconsistent
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 21:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Inconsistent"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"What I'd like to see would be an option where you get the standar OpenBSD installer if you don't select do install an X server, but if you select to install the X server it will kick into a full X installer which will let you set it up. Including X in the base installer and then not configuring it is not a valid solution in my mind"

Fit that on a single floppy. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Inconsistent
by CodeMonkey on Fri 4th Nov 2005 00:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Inconsistent"
CodeMonkey Member since:
2005-09-22

Not automatically launched upon the selection of X I don't think. First off, I don't think it's necessary for the graphical installer to be there, nor do I think it should be. But, if there were one, the options should be available to use the graphical installer or not, not to just automatically use it.

Many servers have X installed because they host applications that use X, but these are rarely run from a monnitor in front of the server. Heck I connect to servers all the time w/ ssh -X and run remote X based programs. Just because you choose to install X by no means implies you want a "pretty installer with buttons" . That said, I would also not be opposed to a curses-based installer like FreeBSD (yes I know it's on it's way out but I still like it). I personally have no problem with the installer, but I would say that it is not for the faint of heart.

The current setup for the installer gives it incredible universality (is that a word?).

Edited 2005-11-04 00:12

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Inconsistent
by Soulbender on Fri 4th Nov 2005 02:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Inconsistent"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"X is included as an option in the base install and thus I feel that they should include options to configure it in the install"

What part of "no configuration needed" is it you dont understand? Xorg runs just fine without any manual configuration at all. The only non-fringe case I can tihnk of is if you use a wheel mouse and then all you need to do is "Xorg -configure".
Hardly any part of the OpenBSD system is configured during installation and since autodetect works fine there's no need to provide X configuration during installation.

"If they're not going to configure it, remove it as an install option, and let people who want it add it later through ports."

Nonsense, it works just fine as it is now.

"What I'd like to see would be an option where you get the standar OpenBSD installer if you don't select do install an X server, but if you select to install the X server it will kick into a full X installer which will let you set it up."

I would hate to see that.

"Including X in the base installer and then not configuring it is not a valid solution in my mind"

Again, it will work without any manual configuration so it's actually already "configured". Complex X customizations has no place in the installer.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Inconsistent
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 19:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Inconsistent"
Anonymous Member since:
---

You tell 'em! What kind of ignorant pustule would dare slather such ill-informed nonsense on the beloved portal we know as OSNews?

I mean, you would have to really be some kind of infected prostrate or a festering bubo to think that Theo and his clan should write a configuration script for X to hold the hands of the wannabe elite out there, striving to enhance their digital egos by running OpenBSD. The acrimony of it all is unbearable!

Imagine strolling around OSNews like that, with intelligence only slightly less sharp than a fetid lump of fecal horror! Can you imagine it? Can you?

I have to congratulate you on your stalwart ability and efforts to put this rube, this simpleton in his/her place. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

In case you couldn't tell. I was being sarcastic.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Inconsistent
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 11:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Inconsistent"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I don't agree.

OpenBSD is not intended to run as a desktop system.
I run OpenBSD for my server systems and I never install X and I think that goes for most of the people that use it.

You want X? Fine but you have to configure it yourself.
If you are diehard enough to run OpenBSD I'm sure it's no problem for you to manually configure the X-Server.

If you want everything to work out of the box go for Mandrake or Ubuntu.

Reply Score: 0

Re: Inconsistent
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 03:04 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I you want a GUI to be auto config'd for you then choose another distro or another os. There are a few desktop *BSD that are doing that already.

"Server OS or not, this is 2005 and OpenBSD should go with the times. BSDs, Arch/Slackware and some other old stylers should do too. It is called care for your users."

1) Servers do not use GUI's. Why should you go through a graphical installer to get to a command prompt? That will take up more space on the CD, which could be used to hold more admin tools.

2) Why run a GUI on a server if its just going to sit there taking up resources.

Go with the times; majority of the desktops are windows based; those are the times. *nix based OS are 30 years old; going with the times means using windows or a mac.

Sad to see you go.... bye bye....

Reply Score: 1

Good Points
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 03:54 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I also thought that OpenBSD should get with the times and setup X automatically, but it's only going to take up resources on a server as someone posted above. But, I still would like GUI interface, so I'll keep looking for the right distro. :-)

Reply Score: 0

RE: Good Points
by Soulbender on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 04:22 UTC in reply to "Good Points"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"I also thought that OpenBSD should get with the times and setup X automatically"

Again, you dont have to. Either use autodetect, ie you run without a configuration file, or just generate a configuration file.
Free tip of the day:
$ man Xorg
$ Xorg -configure

Reply Score: 1

bravo for an OS with a mission
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 04:10 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

as to the comments asking why openbsd does not have a desktop installer on par with other available linux distros etc...simple, the openbsd team dedicates its resources to making a server OS that is obsessive about security. i would rather see them puruse that goal than wasting their time trying to be xandros.

Reply Score: 2

Doing my first install also
by TaterSalad on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 04:53 UTC
TaterSalad
Member since:
2005-07-06

Except my luck wasn't as good as the author's. For the life of me I couldn't figure out why I couldn't install, then realized openbsd was only seeing a 68M drive. Then I realized how dumb I was and had to reset the drive geometry in the bios, now it sees the full drive and is doing something or other (formatting?) as I post this.

Reply Score: 1

cool theme songs.
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 07:02 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

do any other os' have cool theme songs? I just chuckled for 10 min. Thanks.

Reply Score: 0

OpenBSD Desktop
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 07:10 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I would like an OpenBSD desktop because I want a desktop and I want all the security stuff.

It would be nice if there was a distro based upon OpenBSD but with the desktop in mind.

Reply Score: 0

RE: OpenBSD Desktop
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 10:51 UTC in reply to "OpenBSD Desktop"
Anonymous Member since:
---

This is senseless. You want to use OpenBSD as a desktop? And you are unable to configure the X server? Sorry, you'll be unable to mantain the OS too. That's not because it is written somewhere that OpenBSD is uber secure that it makes it a good choice to put in your desktop.

Reply Score: 0

v troll
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 07:34 UTC
RE: troll
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 10:22 UTC in reply to "troll"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Well, since OpenBSD is 100% free, marketing is out of the question. Based on the fact that there hasn't been a root exploit going on 9 years now means that it is extremely secure. How much more secure it is over linux really depends on which aspect and which distro.

Reply Score: 1

Setting up a OpenBSD router/firewall
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 09:21 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Anyone know any good, straight-forward and well explained guides to setting up a router/firewall with OpenBSD?

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Have you tried OpenBSD's web site itself? Their documentation is very good with lots of examples.

Reply Score: 0

CodeMonkey Member since:
2005-09-22

"PF: The OpenBSD Packet Filter"
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/index.html

It describes in fairly good detail all about the packet filter, what it can do, how it works, etc. It discusses what's required to set up NAT, gateway, firewalling, etc. Then at the very end that show you a good exmple of a Home or Office firewall and router.

Reply Score: 1

Looking up hardware specs..?
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 10:21 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

X --configure always has done the trick for me in OpenBSD... I guess reading manual pages is a little difficult when doing reviews?

Reply Score: 1

lero
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 10:23 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

http://www.openbsd.org
it's all there.
and you can google to, have some good ones

Reply Score: 0

No problem
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 10:44 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

No problem of GUI in openbsd. i like it.. i have to ask for admin that what about MAC address control in PF.. MAC address doesnt support in PF.. WHY?? WHY?? WHY??

Reply Score: 0

OpenBSD Desktop
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 11:30 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

It's not that difficult to run OpenBSD as desktop.I installed windowmaker yesterday on top of OpenBSD_3_8 on a AMD64.While this OS is certainly not for everyone (why should it,there're plenty of other desktop alternatives) it's for a seasoned linux adept a piece of cake to get everything working.

Amazingly OpenBSD came on my ASUS K8N (socket 754) mobo with sound out of the box, i didn't even have to set some mixer settings and could go straight to the instalation of mplayer.Even streamripper and beep-madia-player worked as they should.Big plus.

Configuring the pf firewall for a workstation was easy.
my config is:
----------------------------------------------------
# Macros: define common values, so they can be referenced and changed easily.
ext_if="xl0" # replace with actual external interface name i.e., dc0
#int_if="int0" # replace with actual internal interface name i.e., dc1
#internal_net="10.1.1.1/8"
external_addr="192.168.1.1"
tcp_services="{domain,www,auth,ftp,cvsup,6667}"
udp_services="{domain}"


##OPTIONS
#set timeout { frag 15, interval 5 }
#set limit { frags 2500, states 5000 }
#set optimization aggressive
set block-policy drop
set loginterface $ext_if

##NORMALISATION:
scrub on $ext_if all

# Filtering: Default is to block everything:
antispoof for $ext_if #anti spoofing measure
block all

Oder etwas ausfueriger:

#--------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
# Defaults
# block and log everything
block out log on $Ext all
block in log on $Ext all
block return-rst out log on $Ext proto tcp all
block return-rst in log on $Ext proto tcp all
block return-icmp out log on $Ext proto udp all
block return-icmp in log on $Ext proto udp all

block in quick inet6 all
block out quick inet6 all
#--------------------------------------------------------------------- -------
#Immediate blocks:
#fuzz any 'nmap' attempt:
block in log quick on $ext_if inet proto tcp from any to any flags FUP/FUP
block in log quick on $ext_if inet proto tcp from any to any flags SF/SFRA
block in log quick on $ext_if inet proto tcp from any to any flags /SFRA

# silently drop broadcasts (cable modem noise)
block in quick on $ext_if from any to 255.255.255.255

# loopback packets left unmolested
#pass out quick on lo0 all
#pass in quick on lo0 all
#--------------------------------------------------------------------- ------
#PASS RULES:
#pass out quick on $ext_if inet proto icmp all icmp-type 8 code 0 keep state (ping)
#pass in log quick on $ext_if inet proto icmp all icmp-type 8 code 0 keep state (ping)
:
#change inet in inet6 for only covering ipv6,default is ipv4 and ipv6
pass out inet proto tcp from any to any port $tcp_services keep state
pass inet proto udp to any port $udp_services keep state
-----------------------------------------------------

For anyone who wants to run a secure server or has light desktop preferances OpenBSD is a very serious contender.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

Not BSD users, OpenBSD or otherwise. This type of, if you want a graphical installer go elsewhere you're not good enough behavior is not why I chose to you BSD's over Linux.

Besides in my opinion of being a superior opertaing, the communities I have been to for helpe have been overwhelmingly nice and intelligent. I not only choose to use FreeBSD and OpenBSD because of the OS, but I thought the communities were more mature and a lot less elitist. So the guy wants a graphical installer and a gui...so refer him to PC-BSD or DesktopBSD instead of flaming him.

With that being said, I have tried PC-BSD and say I like it, and you will find most of the security tools you find in OpenBSD there is you use the FreeBSD ports collection. Give it a whirl...

Reply Score: 0

system control
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 13:29 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"One of the first differences I noticed on my OpenBSD system was how little was configured for me on installation. In OpenBSD you use the command-line program pkg_add to install packages. When configured correctly, it performs automatic dependency-checking and downloads the necessities from the official OpenBSD FTP servers or your mirror of choice. OpenBSD no built-in list of available packages, and updates are not automatic or even schedulable."

This in my opinion makes it better. I have total control over the system. I don't wnat installers configuring things and adding things to the OS I don't need. An install of OpenBSD gives me a clear, concise, and secure base install that I can chooseto take in any direction from file/webserver to firewall, to IDS, to desktop without any erroneous crap I don't need being there taking up space and opening holes into my OS....

If only other OSes would follow suit.

Reply Score: 0

RE: system control
by jziegler on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 14:29 UTC in reply to "system control"
jziegler Member since:
2005-07-14

If only other OSes would follow suit.

If OpenBSD suits you well, why do you ask the others to do the same? You already have an OS that fits you. ;)

I don't see anything wrong with an installer doing some things automatically, if you know what it is doing. I don't mind if e.g. LaTeX sets itself up correctly during install and I don't have to type all its configuration files. I also don't mind, if packages add their own entries into /etc/logrotate.d/. If I have logrotate installed, I can reasonably expect that logfiles for all daemons will be handled.

And there _are_ other OS (will not name them, in order not to start a flame) which have "base-install" option. If you know the OS, you know what you will get (not even "vim" and "less" ;) . Then you can take it any direction you want.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous
Member since:
---

I not only choose to use FreeBSD and OpenBSD because of the OS, but I thought the communities were more mature and a lot less elitist.

Well,personally i go solely for the OS,if i wanted to socialize i would most likely not sit behind a computer.


Nice false sentiments.

Reply Score: 1

Oh please...
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 20:49 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

just put a sock in it, you g*d*wf*l bunch of whiners..

OpenBSD is a general-purpose unix-like operating system. It is not solely for servers. It runs perfect as a desktop system.

As long as you don't need DRI for 3D games, or a fancy GUI to configure your settings system-wide, it will have everything you need (including eyecandy). If you can truly administer any unix, you can use OpenBSD without problems.

But don't expect that applications will configure themselves for you, once installed; Don't expect the latest elite-tool-whatever.rpm to work automagicly; Don't expect a system that makes all the choiches for you; Don't expect to find a helpful mailinglist if you're too lazy to read manual pages or FAQ's.

Reply Score: 0