Nice article about OpenBSD on EWeek.

Contributed by jose on 2002-11-06 from the mixed-reviews dept.

Han writes:

" OpenBSD 3.2 Is Back on Track:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,666887,00.asp
Well lets call it a rave, this is a serious magazine and a very good report about OpenBSD."

Well, the article is pretty mixed, and really stresses OpenBSD in your network infrastructure (and not on the desktop, where I am currently using it). Still a generally positive review. Oh, and the "back on track" refers to the security vulnerabilities found this summer.

(Comments are closed)

Comments

By Anonymous Coward () on 2002-11-06 19:45

how did it only earn a fair on performance when the same site gives redhat 8 a good? I like redhat and think it definitely has a place in our world, but to say redhat is faster than obsd without having any data to back up his statement is rediculous. obsd runs wonderfully on systems that redhat would never be able to run well on.

nice to see obsd getting press but i dont think the article had much merit. It wasn't intended to be a technical document, but i found teh conclusions to be biased and lacking
By Anonymous Coward () on 2002-11-06 20:50

in regard to patching,

"This can take 12 hours or more and is extremely disruptive to the system."

what are they doing .. recompiling the whole install? i can't recall anything taking 12 hours ...
By Pascal Lalonde () plalonde@overnet.qc.ca on 2002-11-06 21:00 mailto:plalonde@overnet.qc.ca

I think it is a good article. Something good about it is that it points strengths as well as *weaknesses*. Yes, I think it is unrealistic to think OpenBSD, or any other OS, is perfect. An article thats omits to mention weaknesses misses a part. This one doesn't.

One thing that people often seem to overlook though: binary patches can easily be produced. A previous article here on deadly was focused on that. The URL was:

http://www.openbsd.org.mx/~santana/binpatch.html

It is quite simple to use. Ever since I started using it, I never had to update my source tree to -stable and rebuild all, and I compile only once.
By Smoke Detector () on 2002-11-07 03:02

I wonder what eWeek thought of pf, and it would be great to see what the rule set contained that they used. That would make a great series - how we logged a bazillion hack attempts without going crazy.

Latest Articles

Wed, Apr 24
- 04:35 Game of Trees 0.98 released (0)
Tue, Apr 23
- 05:25 pfctl(8) and systat(8) to display fragment reassembly statistics (0)
Thu, Apr 18
- 05:05 Coming soon to a -current system near you: parallel raw IP input (0)
Wed, Apr 17
- 05:33 In -current, default write format for tar(1) changed to "pax" (12)
Wed, Apr 10
- 18:50 OpenSMTPD 7.5.0p0 Released (2)
Tue, Apr 09
- 04:49 20 years since "and we're just starting": undeadly.org turns 20 (2024-04-09) (13)
Fri, Apr 05
- 06:16 OpenBSD 7.5 released (3)
Thu, Mar 28
- 18:18 LibreSSL 3.8.4 and 3.9.1 released (0)
Tue, Mar 12
- 06:53 OpenSSH 9.7/9.7p1 released! (0)

Credits

Copyright © 2004-2008 Daniel Hartmeier. All rights reserved. Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors, submission implies license to publish on this web site. Contents of the archive prior to April 2nd 2004 as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original deadly.org with Jose's and Jim's kind permission. This journal runs as CGI with httpd(8) on OpenBSD, the source code is BSD licensed. undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]