I am a complete novice regarding OpenBSD. However...
I was going to ask for assistance as my new install of OBSD wouldn't

recognise the cdrom. However after much investigation I fixed it by changing

the "physical" position of the device from IDE slave on the secondary IDE

interface to master (in dmesg speak, from channel 1 drive 1 to channel 1

drive 0), as I noticed that it was configured as slave but there was no

master on this interface.
Windows98 and Debian Linux had no problem recognising the drive but OBSD

couldn't find it. Strangely I had no problem installing OBSD from the

official CD on this drive, it was just a problem when trying to mount the

cdrom after the installation was complete and rebooted.
So maybe there is a minor bug in how hardware is recognised. Does anyone

want a more detailed description with dmesg output? (before and after). I

have to admit not looking for any similar bug reports, but I will if the

folks here who know a thing or two want me to file a bug report, in which

case please give a few bried pointers as to where to do it.
Russell

Hello misc@,
I have a question :
If I want the last packages/ports, I use a -current system, with

-current ports tree. Last updates of softwares are in -current. On the

other hand, they're developpement versions,
If I want a *very* stable system (in production for example), I use

-release or -stable system. On the other hand, packages and ports are

not updated even it's necessary (for example, the last mozilla-firefox

is in 2.0.0.6 in ports tree -release and 2.0.0.10 in -current port tree).
If I use openbsd, it's for security and stability. Or, I must do a

choice between :

 * stability (-stable, -release) with no security updates of packages/ports,

 * security (-current) with a less stability.
Why does OpenBSD team not make a -stable branch of the port tree ? It's

necessary to security.

What method does recommend to have updated applications in -stable or

-release ?
Thanks for your informations.
Nicolas

Hi Nicolas,
please also read the FAQ on www.openbsd.org.
No, mostly wrong.

The ports in the -current ports tree are usually ports of stable

upstream releases.  That's actually an established policy.
There are some exceptions where upstream development versions

get built by the ports tree, for example given any of the following

conditions:
 - lack of any stable upstream distribution

 - stable upstream distribution hopelessly outdated

   and upstream development distribution reasonably solid

 - vastly different upstream stable and dev distributions
You can also use -current snapshots.

It requires a bit more experience (ability to act when it's needed,

and ability to realize when action is needed), and a bit more work

(slightly more frequent upgrades, say half a doven or a dozen times
If you build a specialized server running two or three daemons,

watch the relevant commits, understand them and backport them

yourself when needed.  In many cases, the task of backporting

one single ports security fix to -stable is manageable.

In case you fail, pay someone for doing that particular job for

you (in case you know any IT consultant with sufficient

programming skills).
If you build a desktop system requiring 327639245120 packages,

personally, IN THE CURRENT EXCEPTIONAL SITUATION, i would suggest

to just run a -current snapshot.  Should the -stable ports tree

ever get resurrected (which could hopefully happen), i shall
No, you never run -release.  That's not secure.
That's a frequently answered question, read the archives and take

care not to get yourself flamed.
In a nutshell:  OpenBSD is a system maintained by a bunch of people

for their own enjoyment and use.  For those people, the developers,

there is no choice between security and stability, they just run

-current, so they get BOTH security and stability - or else, in case

they break the CVS, they will be gently shot down by Theo.  ;-) 
Popularity is not among the OpenBSD project goals.

That it's an excellen...
[ message continues ]

That may be what you do, but you are generally wrong if that is your goal.
The goal is that the BEST version of OpenBSD is -current.

This goal is usually met.
The people who usually experience trouble with -current often can't

run -release/-stable at all, so no big loss.  IF there is a bug in

-current and you don't find it, it may very well exist in the next

-release.  The sooner bugs are found, the happier everyone is.
*The name -stable refers to the API and functionality, not to the

robustness of the system.*  If you create a binary today, it will always

run on the same version of -stable.  If you are used to one way

something works, it will continue to work that way on -stable
If you are worried about your system's security or possibility of doing

something bad, run -current.  Really.
The name -stable was really an unfortunate choice, giving people the idea

that anything other than the APIs and functionality of -current was

"unstable".  Other projects have done a lot to reinforce this idea, but

the fact that other projects use the "I screw it, maybe you can fix it"

development model does not mean OpenBSD does.
Again, the most robust, best supported, most secure version of OpenBSD

is -current.
and in a few days, it will probably be 2.0.0.11.  Don't fool yourself

into thinking that running the newest version means you are "secure".  In

that case in particular, it just means you are running a version where

they reacted to a few more bugs.  "Better than IE" is the Mozilla goal,

not "good".  If you are doing things that expose yourself to Firefox

vulnerabilities, you probably aren't going to save yourself by running

the "lease insecure" version on a secure OS.
There are some apps where the lack of a -stable version is an issue, but
same reason you aren't.  Because no one stepped up to do it.
Besides, the people best qualified to maintain a -stable are generally

working on -current, and thus, the next release.  Given finite time and

finite people, that's where...
[ message continues ]

At home, I use -current version for 6 months.

However, I'm in my society, and I must set up 10 development machines,

and I would like to install OpenBSD on these machines.
You recommend me to install OpenBSD -current on these machines?
My actual boss want a **secure** system, and he believed that a Debian

Linux is better than a OpenBSD. I believe it's not true. I use and I

I don't think that firefox 2.0.0.11 is very secured. I think that

I want a plan of updating machines.

2 solutions:

* install -current OpenBSD and follow -current

* install -stable every 6 months and follow -stable
I want too "secured" ports. So, I must install -current and follow -current? 
If today I install -current, and 01 may I upgrade to 4.3-stable, I'll

have "non upgraded packages/ports" until 01 november 2008.
So, I install -current?
Nicolas

...

The only caveat I would offer here is that *sometimes* -current packages

are not in sync with base snapshots, so be aware.
-Steve S.

Search the archives.
Basically you are not paying the team enough.
Best

   Martin