Home > OpenBSD > OpenBSD 3.6 Announcement Posted OpenBSD 3.6 Announcement Posted Submitted by smeg lister 2004-08-27 OpenBSD 19 Comments The OpenBSD 3.6 announcement is available here. It will be released on November, you get an early look of what’s new. About The Author Eugenia Loli Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker. Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli 19 Comments 2004-08-27 2:54 am Anonymous They always announce pre-orders when I’m broke. Definitely ordering mine on payday. Privilege separation is one of the features I’m most excited about. Glad to see it’s being integrated into everything possible. 2004-08-27 4:03 am Anonymous Looks like XFree86 is still in the mix. I don’t see why they don’t just include X.Org. 2004-08-27 4:09 am Anonymous Because there were essentially no changes to x.org when the X tree was frozen. So the little changes that would have been necessary would have gone in late, and they would be a little uncomfortable with it. There seems to be a “wait and see” type of attitude towards it. Maybe by 3.7, maybe not. 2004-08-27 4:13 am Anonymous Its an older version of XFree86 with in-house patches. As the page says unencumbered. The in-house patches is not a new approach; they’ve done that since the beginning. So they’re not supporting David Dawes his cause. Perhaps they’ll (some day) switch to X.Org… Impressive new changes btw. SMP, new DHCP and NTP implementations. Plus much more, ofcourse. 2004-08-27 5:04 am Anonymous I believe I know why. X.org seems to be focused heavily on Linux as the website mentions nothing of other platforms or a policy to keep the source code portable. XFree86 on the other hand supports many platforms (the BSDs, Linux, Solaris. etc). I see no reason why the OpenBSD should invest many hours work in porting X.org to their OS when it differs very little (at this point) from XFree86. 2004-08-27 9:00 am Anonymous I believe I know why. X.org seems to be focused heavily on Linux as the website mentions nothing of other platforms or a policy to keep the source code portable. Holy, what kind of FUD is this? If some OpenBSD people would have tested X.Org and submitted their results at http://www.freedesktop.org/XOrg/XorgReleaseStatus then it would have been included as supported, most likely. Doing so costs some time though. …but that doesn’t have seem to be happened. Feel free to do as the page suggests and feel free to proof the code ain’t portable but the above URL proofs they aim for portability. Also, quote from http://www.freedesktop.org/XOrg/XorgReleasePlan “Success Criteria See XorgReleaseStatus for the current status of this release. 1. Build tested on target platforms 2. Install tested on target platforms 3. Run tested on target platforms […] # Need list of target platforms: This will probably be a large matrix of OS’s, platforms and drivers, and might be best split up along certain OS lines # Need list of volunteers for building and testing certain platforms” “when it differs very little (at this point) from XFree86.” More misinformation… see the changelog of the upcomming (in a few days) X11R6.8. See the article of FD.o at OSnews just a few articles under this one. 2004-08-27 1:41 pm Anonymous I believe I know why. X.org seems to be focused heavily on Linux as the website mentions nothing of other platforms or a policy to keep the source code portable. XFree86 on the other hand supports many platforms (the BSDs, Linux, Solaris. etc). I see no reason why the OpenBSD should invest many hours work in porting X.org to their OS when it differs very little (at this point) from XFree86. I have X.org running on FreeBSD and it works very well. 2004-08-27 2:33 pm Anonymous Mutliplexing sessions? Passing environment vars to the server? Mmmmm. Tasty. I like the sound of the new tcpdrop command as well. Very nice guys. 2004-08-27 4:09 pm Anonymous Because you’ve tried it and like it better. If that’s not true, either try it or don’t use it. Simple, eh? 2004-08-27 8:21 pm Anonymous Read http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html and http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/nutshell…. and you’ll get a decent idea about the goals and basic ideas of each O/S. I actually do use OpenBSD for firewall/NAT purposes. I would consider FreeBSD more for use as an everyday desktop O/S. FreeBSD can do firewalling as well, but OpenBSD seems to have stronger security features, which is what I want in a firewall. I may use FreeBSD for an everyday desktop O/S, but I would definitely want an OpenBSD firewall in front of it. Remember that no O/S, not even OpenBSD, is 100% hackproof. OpenBSD just seems to get closer to this goal than any other freely available O/S. Obviously, this is just my opinion, it should not be taken as gospel, and anyone is free to disagree. 2004-08-27 11:04 pm Anonymous > I see no reason why the OpenBSD should invest many hours work in porting X.org to their OS when it differs very little (at this point) from XFree86. a) When it differs “very little” they don’t have to port it. In fact there’s an OpenBSD/amd64 and an OpenBSD/i386 tinderbox out there compiling and testing X.org happily. b) They don’t need to invest “many hours work” as it’s already working. 2004-08-28 12:24 am Anonymous They still need to test it extensively with all archs that currently run X. This includes all local changes they have already made to XFree86. Someone is probably working on it, but they can’t get it into the tree, even if it were ready, since a release is coming up. 2004-08-28 5:48 pm Anonymous How bad is the install how does it differ from FreeBSD? 2004-08-28 6:31 pm Anonymous How bad is the install how does it differ from FreeBSD? Well, the install has always gone well for me, and FreeBSD is an operating system, as opposed to an install, which is a process/procedure. 2004-08-28 6:45 pm Anonymous The install is quite easy. Not to mention that OpenBSD has some of the best documentation (in my extremely humble opinion of course). http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq4.html#Overview Is your friend . 2004-08-28 7:32 pm Anonymous I found the installation to be pretty simple. I mean “simple” in terms of lacking any bells or whistles. Although, that doesn’t mean that it’s all too dificult. I guess the hardest step is partitioning the drive. Otherwise, it’s not too bad at all. Of course, the best thing to do beforehand is to read the installation documentation. Read it at least once before installing so that things won’t come as a surprise to you when doing the actuall installation. 2004-08-28 7:45 pm Anonymous Cool is there a free iso download. I cant seem to find it. Can anyone help? 2004-08-28 7:53 pm Anonymous First hit on google: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq3.html#ISO And don’t bother downloading an unofficial ISO. They are all backdoored. Only fools download the most reliable OS from an unreliable source. 2004-08-30 8:50 am Anonymous Just fetch the floppy ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/3.5/i386/floppy35.fs boot it, and install over ftp. It’s really easy.