The documentation is awesome, you can actually get things working by reading the manual pages, the code follows style guidelines, [...]

And, in related news, WPA is now part of OpenBSD -current (so it will be in 4.4 scheduled for release later this year). Many, but not all chipsets are supported, including Atheros and Intel, and more are coming.

I have tested it on my Thinkpad x40 and it works great. WPA is one thing I really wanted OpenBSD to have and now it's here.

Does OpenBSD support any kind of virtualization for server consolidation? It seems all the current options are available only for Linux - be it for server or desktop. Currently testing NetBSD/Xen but would like to see something along the lines of KVM for Linux.

But to cut a long story short, I don't see OpenBSD supporting virtualization at all.

I can't remember now, so what again are the exact reasons why OpenBSD still uses the old UFS as its file system? Why no support for UFS2?

I wonder if there are plans to implement better support for more advanced file systems too (something like ZFS and journaled "Linux" file systems, etc.)?

Because WPA _is_ low security.

VPN with some sort of strong software encryption such as Blowfish, AES, is preferred in the OpenBSD circles to secure any kinds of network connections, including WiFi... which usually secures the IP packets at layer 3... which means, you can effectively transmit data securely over an unsecure WiFi data link (layer 2)... therefore, it was not a priority for OpenBSD dev to secure layer 2 such as WPA.

Last time Theo written about WPA in misc was that WPA has become an accessibility problem rather than security. People use OpenBSD on their laptop would like to be able to access a WPA AP at a coffee shop.

It is supported, just not enabled by default: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=120560624005291&...

Why? Journaling isn't anything better than e.g. softupdates

ZFS is nonsense, it's a resource-hog.

Great. Anyway (and sorry for my ignorance), but does that mean that OpenBSD can also be installed using UFS2 instead of of the older UFS now?

You may be quite right with that. But I was also just talking about read-only (and maybe edit) support too. If, for example, you had both Linux and OpenBSD installed on the same PC, you would like to have read support for your Linux home folder, that would probably use some journalled file system like ext3 or 4, Reiser etc.). What is the state of that kind of file system support in OpenBSD?

I can't remember now, so what again are the exact reasons why OpenBSD still uses the old UFS as its file system? Why no support for UFS2?

Also support for other file systems is relatively limited (ext2, FAT, ISO 9660, NFS, NTFSb4 (read only), AFS, others?) in OpenBSD when compared to other BSDs too. See, for example, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_BSD_operating_systems#Te...

I wonder if there are plans to implement better support for more advanced file systems too (something like ZFS and journaled "Linux" file systems, etc.)?

Recommending the use of IPsec was only a workaround for your own network and it is not realistic to recommend the use of IPsec for everyone trying to connect to your AP anyway.

"Last time Theo written about WPA in misc was that WPA has become an accessibility problem rather than security. People use OpenBSD on their laptop would like to be able to access a WPA AP at a coffee shop.

Huh? I don't see why not. I personally use OpenVPN on my AP and I had guest coming in with Win/Mac/Lin/BSD laptops and it all works fine.

Well that just proves the point, people want WPA support so that they can connect to WPA Access Points.

IPsec != OpenVPN.

I don't want to setup VPNs of any kind to workaround the real problem. Now that it has been resolved everyone is happy.

And what is your point? You're not stating anything that is new.