Linked by Bob Sacamano on Tue 12th Jun 2012 22:31 UTC
OpenBSD Bitrig, a fork of OpenBSD, has surfaced. It aims to be less conservative than OpenBSD by being less loose with new features and only supporting modern architectures. Bitrig has also converted over to using LLVM's clang rather than GNU gcc for it's toolchain/compiler. A roadmap for Bitrig is also available.
Thread beginning with comment 521882
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
reez
Member since:
2006-06-28

Very interesting to see this!
Sounds like a promising project, so it'll be great to see what they come up with. PC-BSD has done some great things using FreeBSD as a base, so maybe this will eventually become somewhat similar (but for OpenBSD).

You are comparing derivates (forks) with distributions. From what I see this project appears to be an independent operating system which usually is frowned upon by BSD people, unless there is a good reason - else it's just a waste of man power.

Well, it's these people's life, so they should do what they consider right, but supporting fewer platforms and else just wanting to enhance the system doesn't really sound like a good reason for forking. See DragonFly for example. They actually headed in a different direction and the main developer's commit bit has unfairly been removed. That's a good reason.

I know, OpenBSD has Theo, who is like a feature and a curse sometimes, because he has very strong opinion. This made OpenBSD conservative, which usually is something that OpenBSD users know/expect/love. If not then there still are projects like NetBSD (OpenBSD is a fork of NetBSD, in case someone here doesn't know), which actually would love new developers and have very similar goals, except not supporting fewer hardware, which again really isn't something I'd consider a feature. The maintenance "problem" has been fixed by the NetBSD project with recent developments and they have some great new features, no other OS has oh and by a more sane measurement (actual number of vulnerabilities instead of that default install thingy) they have fewer vulnerabilities in base. Also they don't have a ports/package tree with tons of outdated, vulnerable packages.

Sorry, if that sounds too negative. OpenBSD is great. I have it running on a PA-RISC where the only alternatives are HP-UX, which I don't really like and Linux, which doesn't really support it. OpenBSD has a security hype and is a lot into politics. I like that they are true to their philosophy in regard to being open (more open in fact than pretty much any Linux distribution, since they are strictly against blobs and don't enforce the whole GPL upon you, but use the simple short, easily understandable ISC license).

Again, I think it's great that people are doing these things, but were they really unable to get their stuff into OpenBSD and why didn't they join MirOS? What's their target group? Why not use another BSD?

I think answering these questions more precisely than they do now would be a good idea if they want to get both users and developers.

Edited 2012-06-13 14:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

tails92 Member since:
2007-10-07

My thoughts exactly. I don't really know what's and who's behind the fork, but yes, their goals are hardly a valid reason to make a fork. Removing support for legacy platform is hardly modernization and the switch to Clang/LLVM is hardly going to bring any advantage to the end user... it is mostly done due to the license and the ones who would gain the most from the switch are companies.

However, there is a lot wrong with OpenBSD when it doesn't come to security (first and foremost, unsustainable release and updating scheme and very poor backward/forward compatibility).

By the way I am a NetBSD user. The last stable RELEASE really doesn't do justice to NetBSD, because 6.0-BETA and CURRENT have a lot of nice and useful features that are just missing in 5.1.2. I like NetBSD and DragonFly because they don't force you to follow them in everything. FreeBSD and OpenBSD on the other hand are obsessed that the end user has to follow them, and often do things that have no advantage but are just BSD-licensed rewrites.

Reply Parent Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

more open in fact than pretty much any Linux distribution, since they are strictly against blobs and don't enforce the whole GPL upon you

How is limiting of options (say, blobs) more open, and how does Linux enforce the whole GPL upon me? (I do whatever I want with it...)

Yes, their stance on specs and drivers is great (as are some other things, like OpenSSL or PF), but...
BTW, thanks for that info about NetBSD (also vs OpenBSD & vulnerabilities), from the outside it sometimes seems stagnating (though OTOH, NetBSD - not ~OSX - powering Apple AirPort Extreme and Time Capsule is pure win ;p )

Reply Parent Score: 2