I am writing this message to you using SyncTERM which I compiled on my
new OpenBSD laptop. I have been messing with OpenBSD for work on
very light
weight compared to my desktop running Ubuntu 20.04 with 3322 packages installed
What are your thoughts about OpenBSD? Have you used it? Would you use
it? Should you use it? Should I use it?
Would love to see what you all think about this (brave/stupid) project I have started.
What are your thoughts about OpenBSD? Have you used it? Would you use it? Should you use it? Should I use it?
Would love to see what you all think about this (brave/stupid) project I hav started.
I just checked my Debian Buster installation -- lots of packages there, too 803 of them -- despite the fact that it's a non-workstation installation...
MeaTLoTioN wrote to All <=-
What are your thoughts about OpenBSD? Have you used it? Would you use
it? Should you use it? Should I use it?
I don't think comparing package numbers applies. Debian has a tendency
to split everything in subpackages. Lots of things in Debian come with
the docmentation in one package, the development components in a
separate package, and the core utility yet in another package.
Meanwhile in OpenBSD you have package flavors, so things tend to come in different versions with different things included, and you just install the one which includes the things you want. This means a single OpenBSD package may be equivalent to 2 or 3 Debian packages.
Also a lot of OpenBSD utilities are not distributed as packages. Linux distributions are made of packages, while OpenBSD is made of sets on
which you may install packages later. This means the OpenBSD kernel +
the coreutils equivalents + core libraries won't show up in package counts.
Since we've all been working from home, I've been exposed to people's
home systems as I assist them. I was surprised at the number of people using OpenBSD at home - mostly our engineers who grew up in a
non-package environment where you build from source and end up with a
much leaner system than the current state of affairs.
Since we've all been working from home, I've been exposed to people's
home systems as I assist them. I was surprised at the number of people using OpenBSD at home - mostly our engineers who grew up in a
non-package environment where you build from source and end up with a
much leaner system than the current state of affairs.
interesting. i have not successfully installed OpenBSD. i am interested
in tnkering with it, as the people who created OpenBSD was "Cult of the Dead Cow".
What are your thoughts about OpenBSD? Have you used it? Would you use
it? Should you use it? Should I use it?
Would love to see what you all think about this (brave/stupid) project
I have started.
My biggest problems are...
...package management: I'm really into aptitude (not the commandline, but the ncurses part of it) which in my opinion is the best way to manage packages. It shows the package groups and for each package shows depencencies, "reverse dependencies" (which other package depends on this one) etc. pp. And all of this without having to know commands with various parameters, just with a handful of keys and a menu.
I used to like apt-styled package management. If you are doing nothing
fancy with your system and only use official software sources it is the
most comfortable and trouble free way of managing a _Linux_
distribution.
The problem comes when you need to install an external piece of
software that generates conflicts with the stuff in your repositories,
which is way more common than people pretends it to be.
Source code and port based distributions have the advantage of letting
you recompile the bugged package with a patch or of upgrading the
package to a newer version without having to recompile the whole world.
Ah so the likes of Gentoo and similar? I have always been fascinated
with Gentoo, but not so much as I have a need to install and use it lol, we have/had
some gentoo machines at work, and I never got to use them but they were there.
I wanted to try BSD, specifically OpenBSD, instead of what I'm used to, i.e. Linux. So far, for what I have been using it for, everything is working out sweet. I'm sure there will come a time where I will try and
do something and find I can't (easily), at which point I will
re-evaluate my decision for trying
I'm going to try to make this as "no politics" as possible, but there
was a politician who ran in a primary, and the fact that he was a member of Cult of the Dead Cow in his youth was a _huge_ plus in considering
his candidacy.
He wasn't one of the coders, though, so I doubt he could take any of the credit for OpenBSD.
(and, again, trying to make it "no politics". Let's all ignore his opinions and the opinions of any and all politicians. But it'd be nice
if more politicians were in techie groups.)
I regularly think about switching to other systems like Gentoo or
FreeBSD, but I always return to Devuan/Debian/KDE Neon (=Ubuntu).
My biggest problems are...
...package management: I'm really into aptitude (not the commandline,
but the ncurses part of it) which in my opinion is the best way to
manage packages. It shows the package groups and for each package shows depencencies, "reverse dependencies" (which other package depends on
this one) etc. pp. And all of this without having to know commands with various parameters, just with a handful of keys and a menu.
I've used Gentoo for quite a while as a workstation OS at work (some
years ago) and I regularly fell into dependency hell (usually around KDE and Qt packages), so I stopped using it.
...hardware support: This isn't such a big problem with Linux but more with *BSD: Especially when using notebook hardware, often some parts of the hardware (sound, LAN, WiFi, Bluetooth, Suspend-to-RAM ...) won't
work. Thus the system is not that usable on-the-go and/or the battery won't last that long.
The only option here seems to be to search for very specific hardware which is supported well.
To your questions:
"Should you use it?" - I shouldn't, because it's my decision :)
"Should I use it?" - That's totally your decision :)
"brave/stupid" - neither, if this system is working for you and you can
do everything with it that you like, it's perfect for you.
It might be a little brave to use a more "exotic" OS; it's totally NOT stupid. :)
Regards,
Anna
I used to like apt-styled package management. If you are doing nothing fancy with your system and only use official software sources it is the most comfortable and trouble free way of managing a _Linux_ distribution.
The problem comes when you need to install an external piece of software that generates conflicts with the stuff in your repositories, which is
way more common than people pretends it to be. Say, if you want to
upgrade a certain package because it has a deal-breaking bug of deadly data loss, it may require to upgrade a certain library in your system,
and upgrading that library in your system may pull other components with it until you find out you need a full distribution upgrade to fix a misserable bug. Source code and port based distributions have the advantage of letting you recompile the bugged package with a patch or of upgrading the package to a newer version without having to recompile the whole world. You can compile your own fixed package on Debian, ofc, but making a clean, compliant package is a headache when compared to using a simpler package format (Slackware) or an automated package builder (Gentoo, OpenBSD).
I learnt all this on Debian Lenny trying to fix a massive data-loss bug involving PCManFM.
Ah so the likes of Gentoo and similar? I have always been fascinated with Gentoo, but not so much as I have a need to install and use it lol we have/had
some gentoo machines at work, and I never got to use them but they were there.
I wanted to try BSD, specifically OpenBSD, instead of what I'm used to, i.e. Linux. So far, for what I have been using it for, everything is working out sweet. I'm sure there will come a time where I will try and do something and find I can't (easily), at which point I will re-evaluate my decision for trying
there is also NetBSD as well. that distro has to most arch ports. i have heard of people actually installing the OS on toasters. which i guess would officially make them Cylons.
Thanks
- Gamecube Buddy
telnet --<{bbs.hive32.com:23333}>--
if i had to design an OS from the ground up. i think i would probably give the BSD kernel a look, as the arch of their kernel makes a distinction between root space / and user space. if a kernel module is interfacing with process a user is running say like sound cards or something, the module runs in the user space. at least from what i have read. i may have it wrong... anyways i would then create directorys this way
Arelor wrote to gcubebuddy <=-
I personally think the Open/NetBSD approach to filesystem hierarchies
is close to perfection already. Linux used to be as clean as those BSD
but now they have polluted everythign by mounting filesystems under
/run and placing required-for-boot items in directories whose purpose
was specifically to hold non-essentials. Such a bummer.
interesting. i have not successfully installed OpenBSD. i am interested
in tnkering with it, as the people who created OpenBSD was "Cult of the Dead Cow".
there is also NetBSD as well. that distro has to most arch ports. i have heard of people actually installing the OS on toasters. which i guess would officially make them Cylons.
Modern NetBSD still runs on PDP-11s I think.
What are your thoughts about OpenBSD? Have you used it? Would you use
it? Should you use it? Should I use it?
What are your thoughts about OpenBSD? Have you used it? Would you use
it? Should you use it? Should I use it?
I am writing this message to you using SyncTERM which I compiled on my
new OpenBSD laptop. I have been messing with OpenBSD for work on
What are your thoughts about OpenBSD? Have you used it? Would you use
it? Should you use it? Should I use it?
On 16 Jul 2021 at 07:22p, Arelor pondered and said...
Modern NetBSD still runs on PDP-11s I think.
That's _definitely_ not true. Probably the closest
is the VAX. The list of supported CPU architectures
is here: https://www.netbsd.org/ports/ (scroll down
to the bottom of the page). Note that they
differentiate between e.g., big- and little-endian
versions of a CPU as different architectures, even
though those presumably share the same ISA. They
also differentiate between the 68k and 68010, which
is a little wonky, but the exception handling is a
bit different so I can see giving it a pass.
Basically, "modern" Unix is almost impossible to squeeze
onto a PDP-11. The closest is probably 2.11BSD.
Interesting.
I remember finding a reference of NetBSD running on early PDP hardware
but I cannot find it anymore. Gunkies lists BSD 2.11 as the most recent BSD you can reliably run on it.
On 20 Jul 2021 at 03:59a, Arelor pondered and said...
Interesting.
I remember finding a reference of NetBSD running on early PDP hardware but I cannot find it anymore. Gunkies lists BSD 2.11 as the most recent BSD you can reliably run on it.
There was an abortive effort at one point to port it
to the PDP-10, which is a very different architecture
than the PDP-11 (word-oriented, 36-bit architecture, etc).
I don't think it ever got very far; there's still a
web page on a NetBSD UK mirror, but no updates since
2002, and it's no longer listed on the main NetBSD
site: http://www.uk.netbsd.org/ports/pdp10/
I know of the PDP-10 effort, but I was not thinking about that one. I
have this idea that I read somewhere that NetBSD was working on PDP-11 specifically.
Sysop: | echicken |
---|---|
Location: | Toronto, Ontario |
Users: | 2,224 |
Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
Uptime: | 15:28:40 |
Calls: | 14,143 |
Files: | 295 |
Messages: | 551,312 |