Slashdot Mirror
Taking MicroBSD for a Test Run
LiquidPC writes "In this article Jeremy Reed of BSDNewsletter.com talks about installing MicroBSD, what features make it special, troubles and successes I encountered, and the beauty of the BSD license."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
i just wanted to post here
BSD is dying you know
LAG this fucker off the net!
hppt://www.scoopser.net:81
The BSD license is pretty beautiful, if you are MS and you need a TCP/IP stack to steal.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
How about "NanoBSD":
printf("Welcome to NanoBSD.\n");
printf("You've reached the end! Have a nice day\n");
yet another article that proves slashdot needs an obituary section.
Well, this has been slashdotted. Poor poor server....
I don't understand why people ever think this type of operating system would ever be useful. The time you invest into "finding the IP address of your primary name server" and figuring out what "fstab, hostname.fxp0, hosts, myname, mygate, resolv.conf, sysctl.conf" mean will negate any postive effect this has on your development time/bank account. The only reason anyone would want to install an operating system like BSD or Linux would be to increase their geekness factor, and that can be easily accomplished by not showering for a week.
Why don't people just say; "Hey, I wrote this great article, post the link on Slashdot please." Instead of; " just wrote an interesting . I... um, THEY make some interesting points.
I don't see what is 'micro' about the distro. The default installation takes 160M. Back when I have my AT&T 3b1 running, the whole thing fit on a 10M disk with 3M left for my files. No tcp/ip tho, but does that really take 150M?
-dB
"It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
This is a Good Thing (tm).
(suggested moderation: +5, Insightful)
Its just too small too see so no one thinks it exists.
aren't usually very successful. Very often it's only hype and FUD. ...the list is virtually endless.
The failure of BSD is the best example.
Superior license (not blocking use for embedded devices), superior IP stack (why else is everyone ripping it off) with full functional IP6 support, superior kernel structure (that's why MAC OS X adopted it and not lunix), better file system, better performance
And where are we know ?
The OS world is ruled by bug-ridden Windows and hobbyist Linux with their very own design flaws (security, no microkernel etc.). And *BSD, this high quality, scientific system is obviously dead.
There is some support out there but these groups are all dying in the long term.
Sad but true.
Sometimes I think if this Darwin "survival of the fittest" stuff is nothing but a huge scam. At least Darwins theses would imply that *BSD would in fact dominate the OS market, right ?
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
Luckily this article is also on edinburgh news.com,
BSD is not dying ! Why is everyone saying that ?
BSD is the best OS in the world, anyone who doesn't use it is an utter moron.
Anyone who mods me down is using a toy OS.
succeed and thus helps sources be closed.
The *BSDs and Linux (and related OSes) all fail basic usability - by which I mean my Mom can't configure them to just run darnit. Sometimes the gentically inferior, but more brightly plumaged cock gets the chicks. When these OSes get better plumage the public may consider mating - er using - them.
So basically the author says that MicroBSD is a great developing OS which is basically FreeBSD and OpenBSD somewhat combined with a few patches and a search and replace performed to put MicroBSD all over the place.
What a waste of an OS and a waste of an article. Why was this even posted on Slashdot?
n/t
otherwise it will take tens of thousands of megabytes to install it - simple mathematics. pico --> micro we got around 100 times, so we can expect what would happen
if the trend is linear...
There's no record of Darwin ever saying or writing the phrase "survival of the fittest."
Any any rate, he would have been incorrect if he had.
Correct: Survival of the fit enough.
--Richard
Or it you are Linux 2.036 kernel writers and you REMOVE the FreeBSD copyright and put a GPL notice instead.
Or you are RedHat and didn't include the BSD notice in your ads before 1999.
Or you are Linux Kernel writer who took the FreeBSD ATA code.
Linux - the lo-rent Microsoft.
I hate to say it but BSD is going away due to it's insane licensing. The BSD license is not friendly at all to the developers producing code. It removes the developer from any claim he has to the code. I produce code and place it on the web and then Apple or any other hostile for that matters, takes my code and attempts to sell it back to me? Now I don't know about the rest of you but that sounds pretty damn stupid for me to pick a BSD license.
Behold the beauty of the GPL
Got Code?
It is official; Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying
I am damn willing to bet that your mother cannot configure windows properly either. My father is a generally a very smart and trainable guy but there is no way he is capable of administrating his own machine much less installing software and or drivers.
Got Code?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
From a quick look at the fdisk and fdisk manual, it was just the same OpenBSD unintelligent fdisk (where a calculator would be handy).
Sigh, OpenBSD install procedure is annoying, there's little or no documentation available throughout the installer. Hopefully MicroBSD will move on from this archaic and elitist installer used by OpenBSD.
scott
...the number of open source projects that have "gone away" because of licensing that allows companies to use the code in proprietary closed systems can be counted on no fingers. Earth to Codepunk. Earth to Codepunk. Please return to base to pick up your clue. BSD's been around for how long without "dying?" Ever use X11? TeX? Perl? Vi? All things with licenses that allow commercial versions. (And in my book it's a good thing the licenses for all those original programs that drive the Internet, from the BSD IP stack to Bind, allowed commercial versions, or the Internet today would be very much like the Internet of 1990 and you and I would be using NetWare at work.)
The sad thing is that I agree that the GPL is a more "developer-friendly" license, a position I have a great deal of difficulty getting anti-GPL zealots to understand. (You'd think the idea of "I should have the right to prevent others from profiting from the work I did without giving me recompense" would not be difficult to get across to capitalists, but it is.) This kind of nonsense thinking from pro-GPL zealots surely doesn't help.
[ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]
When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two [2] years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.
Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.
FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.
It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.
So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.
Discussion
I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.
From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.
There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.
Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.
Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?
Shouts
To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.
To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. It's when you get distracted by the politickers that they sideline you. The tireless work that you perform keeping the system clean and building is what provides the platform for the obsessives and the prima donnas to have their moments in the sun. In the end, we need you all; in order to go forwards we must first avoid going backwards.
To the paranoid conspiracy theorists - yes, I work for Apple too. No, my resignation wasn't on Steve's direct orders, or in any way related to work I'm doing, may do, may not do, or indeed what was in the tea I had at lunchtime today. It's about real problems that the project faces, real problems that the project has brought upon itself. You can't escape them by inventing excuses about outside influence, the problem stems from within.
To the politically obsessed - give it a break, if you can. No, the project isn't a lemonade stand anymore, but it's not a world-spanning corporate juggernaut either and some of the more grandiose visions going around are in need of a solid dose of reality. Keep it simple, stupid.
To the grandstanders, the prima donnas, and anyone that thinks that they can hold the project to ransom for their own agenda - give it a break, if you can. When the current core were elected, we took a conscious stand against vigorous sanctions, and some of you have exploited that. A new core is going to have to decide whether to repeat this mistake or get tough. I hope they learn from our errors.
Future
I started work on FreeBSD because it was fun. If I'm going to continue, it has to be fun again. There are things I still feel obligated to do, and with any luck I'll find the time to meet those obligations.
However I don't feel an obligation to get involved in the political mess the project is in right now. I tried, I burnt out. I don't feel that my efforts were worthwhile. So I won't be standing for election, I won't be shouting from the sidelines, and I probably won't vote in the next round of ballots.
You could say I'm packing up my toys. I'm not going home just yet, but I'm not going to play unless you can work out how to make the project somewhere fun to be again.
= Mike
--
The IPv4 and IPv6 stacks were both written from the ground up, in house.
that MS uses BSD's TCP/IP stack; we have enough security problems with Outlook. Can you imagine if every MS computer on the net had a TCP/IP stack designed by MS? *shudder*
Yes, BSD-licensed code may end up in commercial products. But that often beats the alternative. I'd much rather see Microsoft use a piece of software with a BSD license than have them hack their own--I already know that whatever they come up with themselves is going to be less compatible with the rest of the world and usually technically worse.
Most companies who use BSD code and try to keep it closed sooner or later realize the futility of their endeavor and publish it--there is just no point on keeping software closed when other people have very similar software already for free.
The GPL relies on a contractual obligation to ensure source availability. BSD relies on something much simpler: laziness.
The LGPL and GPL both are very useful, and I use them for my software too. But BSD isn't "insane"--it's a valid license and a good approach to open source software. And sometimes, giving commercial users more than they "deserve" is a good idea because it helps get the APIs and architecture of free software systems into commercial and proprietary products.
So, here is how I see good licensing choices that promote free software:
For software like kernels and command line tools, the GPL/LGPL often isn't very strong anyway because most commercial uses would not involve linking with the code. Note again that the GPL (or some even more restrictive license) isn't always the best choice for promoting free software. Imagine where Linux and free software would be today if the Linux kernel only allowed the execution of free software applications, or if the X11 window system only allowed the display of GPL'ed GUI apps.
So, in short, all of the *GPL and BSD licenses have their purpose. Which one is best for the promotion of free software depends on the software and the potential users.
Mod this one up!!! This guy, unlike the gentleman to whom he is replying, has it together.
Karma: Non-existant. Due mostly to the fact that you smell funny and nobody likes you.
I'm reading a Computer Networks textbook right now. The author frequently points out that the success of the TCP/IP stack can be largely attributed to the BSD license because companies had access to a well-engineered network staff for free. Otherwise, OSI protocols might have been chosen as they were the "hot" research/development topic of the 80's.
I'm speaking, of course, of Microsoft's usurping of Kerberos. There's no incentive in breaking TCP/IP, as an accepted standard, but there was incentive in breaking Kerberos, which most users were just in the process of adopting.
After a standard is popularized, GPL producers should 'open' their license to BSD. I'm curious to see whether anyone will 'break' Ogg and Vorbis now that they're BSDed, but those luck out because the killer app- Napster-type sharing- relies on interoperability, and there's enough of an installed base that it's 'safe' to be BSD- people can easily tell the difference between a 'real' interoperable
I thought it said "Taking Microsoft BSOD for a Test Run". :)
From their Web Site
:
/bsd: signal 11 received by (qmail-smtpd:13657) UID(1006) EUID(1006), parent (tcpserver:11016) UID(1006) EUID(1006)
/. us this morning which is okay. Though those of you now reading this 0.5 is in two different ISOs the full ISO, and the miniISO. As they say 160megs installed on the Full ISO for 0.5, it is less then 64Megs for 0.6 which is due out soon. Also note that 0.6 contains all the cleanups and additions, fixes for 0.5 and actually is alot more usable. Looks like everyone is going to be about 7 days to early. Wait for 0.6 and then take a look if you really want to see what we are doing. The differences between 0.5 and 0.6 are too large to list but size, configurability and features are the largest points.
We are going to give you all a little preview of exactly where we are with the 0.6 release and whats been going on here. Right now our tree is current as on 9/06/2002 and all code/updates/patches have been applied, and our modifications integrated. These include fixing up of some erroneous errors in the documentation, up to date Network Port ACL code, File Systems ACL code provided as of 9/6/2002. This also includes the stripping of all uneeded system binaries, the framework of integration of packages installed during the installation process as you desire. The base system is now below 25 Megs installed so we can now fit nicely on a 32Meg CompactFlash with room to spare. The first packages in the server installs will be IPSec, PPP, PPTP, IDS, MySQL, HTTP, DHCP, and Sendmail with other additions to follow. We are also testing now an AutoUpdate/Binary Upgrade process to centralize this for users. More will show up on that later. Our Downloads will be alot smaller for the full and mini versions of the ISOs. We may even drop the mini and create a combined for those that wish to install a compiler. This release does include the previously mentioned major code updates and functionality like TCP/IP mods, further privacy protection, the non-exec stack modifications and systrace functionality updates, GCC compiler mods of Stack Smashing protection, restarting of the TCP/IP counter at 0 for each new connection. plus fixes for the reported problems with file system ACL binaries. We are moving forward with this build and are looking for testers to pound out the bugs before the release.
We have gotten further additions for the 0.6 release integrated into the system along with the previously mentioned fixes and updates. If you are interested in joining the testing phase email us @ dingo@microbsd.net
FTPD Security Hardening
This makes ftpd run 99% non-root, while remaining 100% functional. Root privileges are dropped immediately after a successful authentication, and never regained later.
Human-time Resource Limitations
Traditional Unix semantics defines inheritable per-process resources limitations : memory usage, CPU time usage, stack size, file size, descriptors, max subprocesses and core dump size. It lacks something that can be really useful : human-time, ie. the real (not CPU) number of seconds a process is allowed to run. So even if the process is waiting forever without taking CPU time (dead lock, something waiting for data that nobody sends, etc), it can be automatically killed after a maximal time.
Signal Logging
With this the kernel will log important uncatched signals sent to processes. It will help to track down hardware and software bugs, processes that mysteriously crashed, and possible attacks.
Output in the log files looks like
Sep 5 20:26:46 mserver
Seems someone decided to
This is a Size preview for the full Release for 0.6, other additional packages will include IDS, PostFix, MySQL, and a couple of others. Base install less then 64 Megs, and a heavily modified installation system.
641 Sep 2 15:33 CKSUM
36654 Sep 2 15:33 INSTALL.ata
37658 Sep 2 15:33 INSTALL.chs
21797 Sep 2 15:33 INSTALL.dbr
125042 Sep 2 15:33 INSTALL.i386
24017 Sep 2 15:33 INSTALL.linux
12465 Sep 2 15:33 INSTALL.mbr
22558 Sep 2 15:33 INSTALL.os2br
14522 Sep 2 15:33 INSTALL.pt
1155 Sep 2 15:33 MD5
9376463 Sep 2 15:49 base06.tgz
4432422 Sep 2 15:33 bsd
4252465 Sep 2 15:33 bsd.rd
2949120 Sep 2 15:33 cdrom06.fs
184670 Sep 2 15:49 dhcp06.tgz
128796 Sep 2 15:49 etc06.tgz
1474560 Sep 2 15:33 floppy06.fs
1474560 Sep 2 15:33 floppyB06.fs
1474560 Sep 2 15:33 floppyC06.fs
558766 Sep 2 15:49 ipsec06.tgz
440998 Sep 2 15:49 ppp06.tgz
37500 Sep 2 15:49 pptp06.tgz
424264 Sep 2 15:49 sendmail06.tgz
XFree >= 4.0 in fact does cleartype.
/etc/X11/XftConfig:
You (or (preferably) your distributor), have to put the following line to
match edit rgba=rgb;
and then you will have sub-pixel font rendering.
anything else that windows can do but Linux/*BSD can`t ?
Another more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying
Thats a great idea. I have been thinking along the same lines of using the BSD or MIT license for codecs as a way of spreading the codec to the largest market with perfect interoperability but the hijacking ala divX of the codec before it is complete and before large penetration irked me. This idea of making it gpl while it is being completed and after completion turning it into bsd for consumer penetration is a great idea. Prhaps slighly modified bsd to make sure it is mentioned in the documentation to make it easy for people check for compliance to the standard.
The GPL is the most anti-business license out there. Right now the last thing our economy needs in more destruction of the computer industry. Every time a person releases software under the GPL a programmer is put out of work. Keep that in mind the next time you sit down at the dinner table. Every time you release something under the GPL you are causing a programmer somewhere to lose his job. No license is more destructive to the computer industry than the GPL.
I didn't have ANY trouble installing it.
I just had the age old network card compatibility problem. Why the HELL can't these damn companies agree on a standard!? I'd like to see a series of OSS rom images that companies can use in their products to garuntee compatibility.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Hopefully this stupid survey conducted by Ipsos-Reid will not cast doubt on the importance I see of a strong and supportive partnership with our brothers to the south.
...
Quoting, Seven in ten (69%) Canadians think that the United States, because of its policies and actions in the Middle East and other parts of the world, bear some of the responsibility for the terrorist attacks on them, while 15% indicate that they believe that the U.S. bears all of the responsibility.
The question is overly broad and thus meaningless, additionally the timing is both inconsidered and just a cheap way of creating news by bashing Americans. Supporting a soverign nation (Israel) in its struggle for acceptance and a right to exist, and deploying military forces in Saudi Arabia when asked, does not constitute a justification for the cowardly act of September 11th.
For more information, here is an article, but more importantly, I think we should all Ipsos-Reid what we think of their "make news bullshit by bashing Americans" at
John Wright
Senior Vice-President
Ipsos-Reid Public Affairs
(416) 324-2900
To my American brothers, I am sorry for this type of survey, see to it that Ipsos-Reid doesn't do it again... Take the time, even if it is just a two-word email!
Tournament Management Online &
running Gentoo Linux.
And they love it.
I used NetBSd for 5 years and FreeBSD(like it better).
But I must tell you that IMHO BSD has a long way before it can be as fast as Gentoo Linux on the desktop.
I like FreeBSD
but
I LOVE my Gentoo Box.
www.gentoo.org
There can be only 1 !
That doesn't follow. You're saying that the GPL violates your freedom to steal someone else's code. Well yes, it does, in the same way that the law violates your freedom to murder people and steal their stuff. I'm glad the GPL exists, to protect us from people such as you.
It agree on all three counts. OpenBSD could be easier for first time users, but is simple and fast the second and nth time around. FreeBSD and its menus can be confusing. You need the Handbook right in front of you. Even then I seem to install something a little different each time. Haven't used NetBSD recently. I had trouble with the installer, but that was a while ago I hope things have changed.
:-) The installer is not friendly to the first time user. My first install was wiped in about 3 minutes as I started my second install. My second install worked well. My third and nth installs are great. The install is very quick. The defaults are sane and not a lot of questions are asked. There are only a handfull of packages that I install from precompiled instead of ports. When I need a *nix I install OpenBSD.
OpenBSD is my favorite *nix. It is perfect. It is a simple clean install that comes with everything that should be in a default unix install. (Except BASH!
OpenBSD may be for a more advanced user. Anyone willing to learn, read a little, make some mistakes, should have no trouble working with OpenBSD. I encourage any *nix admin to make some time and learn OpenBSD. Call it professional development. I am sure that you won't turn around and install OpenBSD everywhere. However I am confident that you will find uses for OpenBSD where its quick and simple install will save you time and stress.
I 'stole' a slurpee from 7-11 for $1.29 too!