# What is the difference between LibertyBSD and OpenBSD?



## Jorge Luis (Jun 23, 2016)

Sorry for this question:

What is the difference between LibertyBSD and OpenBSD?

I wonder what Oko would say about it. 

Thank you
Jorge Luis


----------



## tobik@ (Jun 23, 2016)

Is this the continuation of https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=145589638702932&w=2 ?


----------



## ShelLuser (Jun 23, 2016)

Why not check out the LibertyBSD website? It clearly explains the main difference and underlying motivation for setting it all up.


----------



## SirDice (Jun 23, 2016)

I'll also point out rule #7: FreeBSD Forums Rules.


----------



## Oko (Jun 23, 2016)

Jorge Luis said:


> Sorry for this question:
> 
> What is the difference between LibertyBSD and OpenBSD?
> 
> ...


There is no such thing as a LibertyBSD. Human lifespan is too short to bother with nonsense as LibertyBSD and whole that GNU communism ideology. If you are curios just go through the archives on
misc@openbsd. It boils down to the lack of elementary understanding of what binary blob is, what is a firmware, and what is the microcode.

If you are interested in OpenBSD forks look at the Bitrig.


----------



## kpa (Jun 23, 2016)

*Prepares some popcorn*

Seriously, these forks will go nowhere because anyone attempting to do so would be faced with the mammoth tasks of recreating the development infrastructure that is in place for OpenBSD, the developer connections, the trust that people know what they are talking about. No one in their right mind would trust a hodgepodge fork by some unknown hackers without any connections.

Calling this fork "LibertyBSD" is a sad attempt at humor at best.


----------



## wblock@ (Jun 23, 2016)

Similar comments were probably made about OpenBSD back when it started.  Really, if the complaint is about the inclusion of certain files, they can make what is essentially a distribution that just leaves out those files and otherwise tracks the upstream.  Maybe there will be a demand for it, maybe not, but let's wish them luck.


----------



## kpa (Jun 23, 2016)

wblock@ said:


> Similar comments were probably made about OpenBSD back when it started.  Really, if the complaint is about the inclusion of certain files, they can make what is essentially a distribution that just leaves out those files and otherwise tracks the upstream.  Maybe there will be a demand for it, maybe not, but let's wish them luck.



OpenBSD was created by then already very capable and knowledgeable NetBSD developer Theo DeRaadt whose name already had a lot of weight. It's no accident that OpenBSD proved itself very quickly and was taken seriously.


----------



## Murph (Jun 23, 2016)

Well, after a quick skim, it all smells a bit tinfoil-hat-ish to me.  They either don't want to trust the firmware & microcode from hardware vendors, or allow the OS to update it.  Well, good luck getting a modern system that runs with zero proprietary code at the hardware level, or fixing bugs in it.  I didn't figure out if they were against all proprietary firmware, or just updating it; and I stopped caring before figuring it out.  I don't think Theo et al have have anything much to worry about.

I hope they have checked that their development systems are free of NSA-super-spyware sneaked into their BIOSes while they were sleeping. 

Ken Thompson's beautiful invisible / no-source login backdoor via the compiler springs to mind. 

There might actually be a real issue to address, which I don't think they come close to addressing.  Better cryptographic authentication of the firmware and microcode updates might be a good thing.  E.g. validating microcode against an Intel/AMD public key, and not just the SHA256 stored in the ports distinfo.


----------



## wblock@ (Jun 23, 2016)

Remember that this is not a zero-sum game.  There is room for alternatives, they do not have to replace or even try to replace the original.  Actually, in the increasingly monoculture-oriented computer industry, one seemingly-minor offshoot might turn out to be really important some day.

Anyway, the point is that someone has taken an affirmative step to making something they wanted, and made that available for others.  I like that.


----------



## ShelLuser (Jun 23, 2016)

Would I use this myself? No way, there are strings attached, especially security wise.

But I really don't get the mockery and disdain here. The BSD licenses, in contraire to the GPL, was set up with sharing and freedom in mind. _True_ freedom. The BSD license doesn't tell you "_you can take this code, but only as long as you keep on using me_" but it allows the other parties to do whatever they want, as long as the original author(s) are acknowledged (there's a little more, but I'm ignoring those bits here).

Yet whenever a party actually uses that freedom then there are always some people who think they need to mock the other people's efforts. I don't get that, especially not if you really value BSD and what it stands for.

Just my 2 cents obviously.


----------



## Murph (Jun 23, 2016)

wblock@ said:


> Remember that this is not a zero-sum game.  There is room for alternatives, they do not have to replace or even try to replace the original.  Actually, in the increasingly monoculture-oriented computer industry, one seemingly-minor offshoot might turn out to be really important some day.
> 
> Anyway, the point is that someone has taken an affirmative step to making something they wanted, and made that available for others.  I like that.



Yup, I have to agree with your points, and cite Monoculture Considered Harmful.  BSD has thrived in the long term with competing forks, and natural selection deals with forks that don't need to exist.

I'm still sceptical, as it feels like "OpenBSD without any binary bits, but with more broken / dysfunctional hardware".  To me, they need to address the fundamental issue of how they will address a critical or severe firmware / microcode bug; without addressing that side of things it is difficult to see how it can be a credible contender.  The downsides can go as far as data loss or corruption, with firmware on the storage side of things.


----------



## Oko (Jun 23, 2016)

Murph said:


> Well, good luck getting a modern system that runs with zero proprietary code at the hardware level, or fixing bugs in it.


That basically sums up LibertyBSD "fork" of OpenBSD. As I said earlier if people want to see a real fork of OpenBSD they should look at Bitrig.


----------



## Maxnix (Jun 23, 2016)

wblock@ said:


> if the complaint is about the inclusion of certain files, they can make what is essentially a distribution that just leaves out those files and otherwise tracks the upstream.



Effectively, this seems the aim of the project. But, wanting to adhere to the FSF guidelines, they will have a lot of work to do, rewriting/modifying all of the man pages.



wblock@ said:


> Anyway, the point is that someone has taken an affirmative step to making something they wanted, and made that available for others. I like that.



I agree to the fact that is admirable that they worked to realize what they wanted and shared it, however, personally, I wonder if creating an OpenBSD fork just to have a FSF-approved BSD system is worth the efforts (at least practically).



wblock@ said:


> Maybe there will be a demand for it, maybe not, but let's wish them luck.



Of course. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that you had to fight it. This is a sign of civility and the spirit of the whole opensource community, after all.

P.S.(Who knows if this would not attract more attention to OpenBSD as well?  )


----------



## Oko (Jun 27, 2016)

Little more obvious troll on the same topic on BSD Daemon forums

http://daemonforums.org/showthread.php?t=9872

probably started by the same Jorge Luis who started this troll and who "forked"
OpenBSD in this thread.

https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=145589638702932&w=2

The only reason I am bringing to your attention here is that somebody actually bother to give a technical explanation to the troll. Please check third post from the top written by *slowtechstef*. Also little *ibara* who is former OpenBSD developer actually bother to give line by line response to that FSF troll few posts below. Also *jggimi* who is an OpenBSD porter.


I also can't resist to notice the difference in the culture between Open and Free guys. While Open guys tried to refute troll using logical arguments wblock@ who is not just a forum administrator but also FreeBSD developer actively encourage the troll in one of his post in this thread. Sorry wblock@ I just have to call the shit. Fell free to suspend my account indefinitely. This is my last post here.


----------



## wblock@ (Jun 27, 2016)

I have defended more than a few people who were called trolls because others disagreed with them.  Including you, as I recall.  I don't read OpenBSD mailing lists because I don't use OpenBSD.  That seems fair.
Really, we probably should just close OpenBSD threads as off-topic, but I'd hoped we could get something useful from it.

Thread closed.


----------

