OSNews

My audigy 2 works great in pc-bsd. There is a .pbi for it. Even without the .pbi there is basic sound support for it. I presume audigy 2 support in vanilla freebsd would be there, an additional driver might be needed for emu10k support. fwiw

You're making the same mistake that I did and now I'm in the world of audio-pain Audigy SE doesn't use EMU10k1 chipset, it's CA0106 and according to ALSA docs: "Digital/Analog input does not work yet. Needs more development work."

I've always had great luck with BSD's audio support. I've never had to do anything to get it running. Always "just works".

I'm sure there is some ways to extend for "more support" like the guy above me said

Sorry, I din't find it in the changelog. I was searching for something along the lines of sata_via or 8237a, there was no mention of it. I'm glad that it's there, thanks. Too bad 2.6.18 won't make it into Edgy Eft :/

The driver issue with Linux nowadays seems to be WiFi support and form what I've read BSD are far ahead.

So far OpenBSD has been the subject at hand, perhaps we should stick to it? Besides, OpenBSD has greater support for wireless cards than the Linux kernel does, and they're even open source instead of Binary HALs and daemons to play monkey in the middle with the hardware and operating system.

The Linux kernel supports more architectures and drivers that any other operating system in the world according to http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html

Yeah. <irony>You just have to find out what patchset, or third party kernel branch, and find some userland that works properly with it.</irony> I have nothing against Linux, but Linux portability is nothing like portability of NetBSD or OpenBSD. E.g. in NetBSD one can build the system (kernel + userlands) for arbitrary platforms with a single command, from a single source tree.

"E.g. in NetBSD one can build the system (kernel + userlands) for arbitrary platforms with a single command, from a single source tree."

And I second that!

It's based on the cost of shipping, you give them the credit card number and they take whatever it costs them - which means it is entirely dependent on what you're buying and where you are.

The wonders of computers can usually work this stuff out based on the number of items. Most sites I've bought online provide at the very least a guide to what it should cost, without leaving you in the leech.

I will email them and ask them, charging back whatever it costs isn't good enough because the cost could far outway the cost of the product which I have seen in some cases.

E.g buy a t-shirt on thinkgeek costs $25USD for delivery which isn't worth it for international orders.

It's never much. Six or seven bucks for U.S. The bad part is that you don't know the exact price upfront, which means instead of filling out a P.O. and getting someone to order it, I have to wait until later to be able to expense it back.

Oh come on, stop modding this down. Have you people no sense of humor?

> Oh come on, stop modding this down. Have you people no sense of humor?

They don't. They are über-geeks and think everybody else is supid.

Maybe it isn't about hype, but a good os? They adhere to the Unix KISS principle. If the first impression is a "buzz phrase" or a "nice looking Web2.0 page", I wouldn't stop by. OpenBSD isn't some candy os, it's an os for real Unix geeks :-)

That sounds like a bad excuse. There is no need for a microsoft.com or even web 2.0. Just make it look a little bit more proffesional. It wont hurt, it will only make life easier for users as the corporate world might take OpenBSD more seriously.

It's almost like your afraid of having a non-geekish professional looking site.

If it really bothers you just browse the site in links.

"It's almost like your afraid of having a non-geekish professional looking site."

Maybe they *want* it to look just they way it does?

The site is simple to make sure it works for as many clients as possible. And it's simple enough to easily find things. Finding a link to the CVS/subversion web accessible repository on the ubuntu site is difficult...

Edited 2006-09-21 01:13

A good looking site doesn't have to be complicated, and making look and feel improvements doesn't have to mean that it won't work in other browsers.

You just have to know what you're doing.

Send them patches.

I know this isn't exactly what you asked, but I think it's a good answer:

8.23 - Why do the OpenBSD web pages not conform to HTML4/XHTML?

The present web pages have been carefully crafted to work on a wide variety of actual browsers going back to browser versions 4.0 and later. We do not want to make these older pages conform to HTML4 or XHTML until we're sure that they will also work with older browsers; it's just not a priority. <em>We welcome new contributors, but suggest you work on writing code, or on documenting new aspects of the system, not on tweaking the existing web pages to conform to newer standards.</em>

Not to be a smart-ass, but if it bothers you so much, why don't you volunteer to "spruce-up" the OpenBSD website for them? They take volunteers of all kinds, and I'm sure the main participants are way too busy working on OpenBSD to worry much about the looks of their site.

Besides, the people that are going to use OpenBSD will use it irregardless of the looks of the site.

(P.S. I pre-ordered my 4.0 copy! I'm trying to help support open source as best I can, and right now, purchasing the CD versions of the operating systems I use is the best I can do with my work schedule)

Ah yes, the "Last Resort" argument: "If you don't like it, fix it yourself".

I remember this was once acurately compared to receiving bad food at a restaurant and the chef replying "If you don't like the food, come in and cook it yourself."

Edited 2006-09-25 07:27

Try: http://ports.openbsd.nu/

And for the driver: http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=wpi&apropos=0&sektion=...

"However, iptables is able to handle this by reading the PORT command (this is in the FTP protocol) and determining which port is going to be used for the data port. "

On a workstation I don't see why this matters in any way.
On a firewall you'd use ftp-proxy for this. Well, you could probably use ftp-proxy on a workstation too but why bother?

--- On a workstation I don't see why this matters in any way. ---
Despite how it's just a workstation, doesn't mean I'm going to want it much less secure than that of a server. I would prefer to have one outgoing port open for FTP rather than 20,000.

--- On a firewall you'd use ftp-proxy for this. Well, you could probably use ftp-proxy on a workstation too but why bother? ---
I know ftp-proxy would be used for a firewall, to allow machines behind the firewall to use FTP properly; however, ftp-proxy doesn't allow the actual machine with PF (be that a firewall machine, or a workstation with PF) to access FTP properly.

I tried redirecting packets from 127.0.0.1 port 21 to 127.0.0.1 port 8021 (the port on which ftp-proxy listens) but this never worked.

I know it's not much of a problem, I'd just prefer to only have the neccessary ports open.

As to why I'm running PF on a workstation, I'm going to uni in a week and they only allow one computer connected to their network, meaning no firewall machine... and since I need a firewall, it must be on the workstation.

if your university only allows 1 machine connected, just set up a local lan and mask it properly from your univ's network? i can't imagine your univ's admin checking each dorm room and counting all the appliances that can be networked.

if you insist on having a single workstation doing everything, and insist on having a 'secure' way of doing ftp, you're indeed bound to use the ftp-proxy locally (i never tried this, but i'm very sure it's perfectly possible to do)

I have considered using two machines and masking it, but I'd rather not risk it.

I have tried running ftp-proxy locally but this doesn't seem to work (at least the method I tried):
rdr proto tcp from 127.0.0.1 port ftp -> 127.0.0.1 port 8201 (IIRC)

If you have idea how it could work locally, I'd be grateful if you told me, either through OSNews or replying to my post on misc (though it doesn't seem to have gone through yet).

I haven't tried it, but instead of 127.0.0.1 try your external IP address.

I think you can download some floppies, I think they are three, and install from floppies or you can burn a cd40.iso to a CD (it should be a very small size).

Start the installation and then choose ``u":

(I)nstall, (U)pgrade or (S)hell?

that should do it.

That's what I remember.

Remember to check the docs with 4.0, such as the file INSTALL.i386 ...