OpenBSD Journal

OpenBSD Article In SysAdmin Magazine

Contributed by Dengue on from the another-trip-to-the-book-store dept.

Jeffrey Flowers writes : "I just picked up the Jan 2001 issue of SysAdmin magazine . Inside, on page 28, is a two page article "Installing OpenBSD On Small Drives". In this, a solid state device. "

Unfortunately, it is not available online, you'll have to visit your favorite corporate mega-bookstore near you. -ed

(Comments are closed)

  1. By el duderino () on

    just b/c they didn't put it online, doesn't mean someone with access to a scanner can't post it. Something can be done. I don't think there is any place around here that sells that magazine anyway.

    1. By Alex C. de Haas () on


      I don't think that's a legal way to distribute
      that article (-: You could try to contact the
      author and ask for permission to publish it
      somewhere online, though.

      -- Alex

      1. By Anonymous Coward () on

        Email sysadmin, they usually post some of thier stories online. If they get enough email they may post that one online.

        1. By BluNereid () on

          There we go! Now that's a good idea.

    2. By webmaster () on file:/dev/null

      Scanning and posting the article will violate sysadmin magazines copyright, and result in a hassle far greater than I would ever willingly deal with.

    3. By ark^baby () on

      and we live in an ideal legal world

  2. By Law () on

    It wouldn't be illegal because the content of the scanned data is not modified in any way, and your not making any profits with it, also your advertising it with their logo and name, so nothing would happen.

    1. By morals () on

      Just because something isn't illegal, doesn't make it not wrong. This is the same argument given by most people of the warez clan.

      1. By pff. () on

        ooooh and just what makes something 'wrong' or 'right'

        is selling a book for 120$ right?

        1. By proof () proof AT on

          Depends. Perhaps you only sell a few hundered every year and you make your living as an author. Or perhaps the cost of production and publishing the books is really expensive. Or perhaps the author himself, spent the dought to publish the books.

          I think that 'morals' is probably right. By scanning and publishing something on the web, it's like we're borrowing someone else's time and effort without asking first. What if you wrote a paper that took you 40 hours to make, and someone borrowed it without your permision and published it on the web? Not exactlly the same situation, but I think it's analgulous to what we'd be doing.

          This relativist morals stuff makes me sick.

          1. By Anonymous Coward () on


            I'm not an English speaker myself but, do you mean analogous (not sure about the right spelling though)?

            And btw, I agree with you. Sick with all that gnu/free/cheap stuff. That kind of people should never be paid for their work, and see how they feel about it!!!

          2. By Anonymous Coward () on

            Yeah but they didn't make you agree to an NDA before opening the magazine, so hey...

    2. By Wes Peters () on

      Yes, it would be illegal. Let's review the word copyright . You, as the copyright holder are allowed to dictate under what circumstances others are allowed to make copies . Some uses are allowed under the fair use doctrine , but making copies of a copyrighted work and publishing (i.e. on a web page) is not fair use.

    3. By Marc Espie () on

      Wow, you're seriously confused, man.

      Just because you don't make profit out of it doesn't mean you can repost COPYRIGHTED material.

      The only thing you could possibly do is post some excerpts of that article. There ARE some fairly drastic limitations in size, even then, but knowing what nice things they say about OpenBSD (or not so nice things) would be good

      (this would fall under the `fair use for review'

  3. By Alex C. de Haas () on


    Most magazines and books are protected by
    copyright law. You often read that without
    written permission from the author you can't
    redistribute/publish/whatever it in any way.
    Whether you agree on this or not, it is
    illegal by law if you didn't get the author's

    Here in The Netherlands, every written word
    is implicitly protected by law. So if you skip
    the legal stuff in your paper, book, article,
    etc, people still need your permission. I think
    this applies to American law too, as far as I

    If you just rip a scan from an SysAdmin article,
    it means less sales for SysAdmin and perhaps
    less money for the author.

    If people provide information for sale, they
    are in their right. If you don't approve, don't
    buy it and retrieve it from a different source.
    You can't tell someone how to live. (though, I
    do that right now:)

    -- Alex

  4. By Jan J () on

    ... a magazine that actually seem to know what they are talking about? I have subscribe for some months now and it has thought me alot, not stuff that I use every day but things that might come in handy in the future.

    And they have written about OpenBSD before. So, subscribe and send them an email "I see you write about OpenBSD and have just bought a one year subscribtion because of that." They write more about OpenBSD, we get more sites that want OpenBSD, that push in money and that need support, our support, and the money will get back to you.

    In the best of worlds atleast.

  5. By Fisherman () tkyle at-schmat inlink dot com on mailto:tkyle at-schmat inlink dot com

    A few of my coworkers get the magazine, so I glanced through the article. It was pretty skimpy, and the author even stated in his intro that, like most other Unices, OpenBSD had a lot of services enabled by default (!!!).

    I beg to differ. Last time I checked, OpenBSD had fingerd and identd (through inetd), sshd, and sendmail (-q30m only) enabled. I don't know of any other system that comes with as few services enabled immediately after installation.

    So I wouldn't be too upset about not having it available online. ;)

    1. By Alex C. de Haas () on


      I installed the i386 port of NetBSD 1.5. Wow,
      that was heavy. All lines in /etc/inetd.conf
      were prepended with a neat little `#', no SSH
      daemon was running and I think not even sendmail
      was chewing cpu cycles by default. But I'm not
      completely sure of the latter one.

      My point: there is an Unix that comes with less
      services enabled by default than OpenBSD.

      I honestly hope the OpenBSD project won't get
      all jealous and ships OpenBSD 2.9 with no CPU
      support enabled by default.. or something like
      that (-:

      -- Alex

      1. By Anonymous Coward () on

        So, they almost learned the lesson.

        Almost as it is not about closing absolutely everything ... it's about closing everything that may put security at risk.

        1. By Anonymous Coward () on

          People are never happy.

          1. By Anonymous Coward () on

            Only happy person is a dead person. Because they at least can't state they are unhappy.=)

            1. By Anonymous Coward () on

              you're assuming that the base state is one of happiness. 'happy by default'

              I like that.

              1. By wysoft () on

                Oh jesus that's a good one! Thanks for the good laugh. :)

                1. By Anonymous Coward () on

         prob, do you think maybe we could have some 'Happy by Default' Blowfish stickers for 2.9?


      2. By Anonymous Coward () on

        Useless by default?


Copyright © - 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 as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original 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.]