Slashdot Mirror
OpenBSD review at linux.com
nicedream writes "Linux.com is running a feature on BSD, and the latest installment profiles one guy's experience with OpenBSD. Haven't read a thorough review of OpenBSD ever, so it was nice to check this out.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
and have gone into details like file descriptor leaks (ever head of those ;-). And so on.
*YAWN*. OpenBSD isn't the only place with thinking people, you know. Poke through linux-kernel some time and you'll be pleasantly surprised to see such mentioned from time to time.
amen Scott Freeman
amen
Scott Freeman
amen.
Scott Freeman
... and don't give OpenBSD to a person who doesn't have experience. So simple.
/dev/null; my whole office is running mostly on RH, while few machines are HP-UX/OpenBSD/FreeBSD). It's just the matter of WHAT you need it for.
:), it really give you a feeling of 'having control over everything', while "make menuconfig" is nice, but one still keep wondering "Will the config file really be ok after I save it?" ;)
For me, OpenBSD installation is way easier than any Linux distro (flames ->
OpenBSD is indeed more secure 'out of the box', and it is easy to STRIP it down even more. If you need IDS system, go after OpenBSD. If you are making Workstation, go after Linux. But don't let IDS expert configure Linux workstation with Gnome, and don't let Gnome user maintain IDS system running on OpenBSD.
So simple. And yes... kernel config on OpenBSD is LOVELY. Although it's just text file editing (well, don't we all love it?!
Do you make a policy of posting all your flamebait as an AC?
Uhh... maybe we should subsitute "Red Hat Linux" for "Linux". Something I really like about Debian is the consistency of the config files -- all of them are in /etc. No debian binarys are installed into /usr/local/bin either, that is left for locally installed binarys. Although it might not be as close to your ideal as you would like, I recomend that you checkout the layout of a Debian system. Its really clean and well thought out.
Get the patch for the pcvt-driver, if you want to use BitchX on OpenBSD. It enables the traditional PC colors again.
It has such limited application support. Netscape must be run in binary emulation mode, and a lot our favorite linux apps are very slow in making their way over. (gqmpeg?) I run OpenBSD 2.5 on a P-100 and use it as a "dumb" X server. Applications run from my linux box and get displayed on OpenBSD. For these purposes it is great. I would venture to say it is by far more stable than linux, I think they squash just about every bug in the system when they check for security holes. Some other notes about OpenBSD: It has a better NFS implementation (It supports tcp and UDP). The IP Masquerading does not have the plethora of protocol specific enhancements that the linux kernel does. Trying to get MySql and the perl DB drivers set up on it is a nightmare. Setting up https is SUPER easy. This message was sponsored by the letter A.
that exactly what you're asking for exists in the 2.5 distro right now. The installation is do-able for someone who has used Linux for six months. I'm using OBSD as a NAT at home with NT, '95, Linux and os/2 boxen.
Get a clue. Red Hat is just as much a stickler for putting configs in /etc, bins in bin directories, nothing in /usr/local, etc.
I've been using RedHat for quite some time now, exclusively (except for that one 68k Mac with Debian on it), and as I've become more familiar with the system (and also gotten some Solaris and IRIX experience), I've wanted to leave the GUI tools behind, do more things myself at lower levels, etc. Someone in my local LUG uses the following method for setting up servers: Install as little of Debian as you possibly can, give it the latest kernel, and compile everything else you need from source. I tried this and I love it. There is absolutely nothing "extra" on the system, no weird web of dependencies thanks to GUI setup tools, etc. Plus, since you compile everything but the absolute basic system utils, you have total control. Compiling from source is usually not hard at all. Mind you, I wouldn't want to use this on a workstation, where X, sound, etc. are desired, because I feel that with my current level of experience, setting some things up from scratch would take more time than it is worth.
At least linux.com doesn't have tons of comments from arrogant whiners
> I wonder why someone would like to download a 650 Mbyte file while all the required files for a
:)
> given platform are only about 200 MByte.
ISO images are only as large as the total size of the files on the CD-ROM. They are not 650 megs no matter what as you seem to have guessed
Tom,
:)
I think the reason why the author of the article recommends Linux over OpenBSD as a workstation is due to the increased availability of software. It's easier to install a Linux CD-ROM and have everything possible built and installed, rather than install OpenBSD and have to compile it all yourself.
The type of servers that these people are describing are fixed-purpose machines like http servers, where you only _need_ a few programs running, and anything else is unnecessary. Thus, as long as you can run the web server of your choice, availability of other software does not enter into a comparison between different OSes.
I don't think that Linux is getting sloppy due to 'single user' considerations (in some cases security work for single user has benefitted multi user as well), but of course this is an important consideration for future development.
> Just as you want a solid, sane, robust system for a computer that provides services for an
> entire department, so too do you wish the same coherence and correctness on my very own computer
> that you are the principle user of.
s/principle/principal/
Just wanted to say these new colors r0ck they remind me of a hot dog stand!!
One of the main reasons I choose FreeBSD over Linux is because everything on FreeBSD seems so much easier.
To compile a kernel on Linux took me ages. Not knowing if the kernel file should be gzip-ed or bzip-ed didn't help. And Linux documentation seemend to clash with eachother.
Now with FreeBSD I was able to compile the kernel within days of installation.
And as far as setting up PPP goes, I won't even go into detail of how trivial that is under FreeBSD as opposed to Linux
If you want to be crazy Linux is for you. If you want to get work done FreeBSD has power to serve you.
I've installed OpenBSD twice and although the first install was tricky, once you get the hang of it there's nothing to it. This isnt windoze, i expected some difficulty. The os has been great it is a shame that article was posted.
RedHat puts nothing in /usr/local either
I am sorry. But i find it MUCH easier to re-configure my FreeBSD kernel. If i know what i to add in my kernel i just pico add the damned line , and recompile. I don't see why i have to go through a tcl front end or a script that will *WASTE* my time to add for example "options IPFILTER" to the kernel. It all comes down to what you are "used" to. I find the freeBSD way much easier, others might find it hard. All a matter of opinion
yeah for real. im stupid, but i found the openbsd install really easy. it was only after i installed it i heard all these people complaing about "how hard it is to install". like, if you can't install openbsd, just go.. away
I don't think so. If anything, the *BSDs are benifiting from the rising tide of Linux.
On a practical level, if you know Linux, you can take a stab at *BSD. If you don't know any Unix-variant, the first one is a bear.
I'm glad I was setting up procmail and tweaking config files on a Solaris box a couple years before installing Linux on my own systems. (My only regret is that I didn't dump OS/2 earlier; OS/2 is great, but Linux is much nicer on balence.)
>I wonder why people still use the console too.
Why use fancy graphics on a server? Neither of my BSD machines have X installed.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the problem I had getting the NIC to work on my 10BaseT network.
:)
I was hoping someone would be able to explain why I needed to set it to 10baseT in the installation and 10Base2 after installation. Is this something I should report as a bug or am I just clueless here?
The more you know, the less you understand.
having installed it several times now, its always
been good in the install. never failed to detect
and use both nics (every machine i installed on had two nics, including a notebook with a pair of
pcmcia ones) never had to do anything beyond just
letting the default media type do its thing.
ftp is great, when your network is configured, it
goes out on the net and gets a list of ftp sites
for you. (unless you tell it not to) i dont know
of any linux dist that does this. IMO, getting
the CD is really more for supporting the cause
than actually installing the OS. if you split
up the architectures, all the install packages
for a given one fit on a (100meg) zip disk.
(about 70megs for x86)
The Daemon has been the emblem of BSD for a long time. The one you associate with FreeBSD appeared long ago on the "Design and Implementation of 4.3 BSD" cover. He is copyrighted by Marshal Kirk McKusick. Please have a look at Kirk McKusick's site if you are still confused. How you came to your assumptions is beyond me.
Adam
Funny. I've been hacking around with an OpenBSD box for the past few days, and now two stories about it appear on Linux Today.
Anyway, my install experience was slightly different from the one recounted here. Yes, the disk partitioning tool is horrid, but it's not much different from early Linux fdisk. I had to start over a couple times until I got it right, but I could do it again easily now. The documentation was well written and helpful, too, something that I have found is the general case with OBSD.
Once past that stage, and a problem I had with a bad hard drive, things went very smoothly. I had made an iso image myself, but I forgot to add the -r flag to cdrecord, so the file names got truncated. I ended up simply copying the CD to my Linux desktop box and serving the images back to the install, but it still worked fine. No extra reboots, just some time and a nicely set up system.
Interestingly, the thing that most impressed me, aside from the thorogh documentation, is that which the author had bad trouble with: network setup. I had a cheap ne2k ISA plug-and-pray clone in this box which is hell to get working with Linux. OpenBSD detected, configured, and activated it automagically, and the configuration persisted, and worked as soon as I booted my new system.
And, did I mention, the documentation is very nice?
I more or less agree with the summary here: I wouldn't recommend it for a desktop, but for a server system, so far, I would give a very strong recommendation.
When you're talking about Unix, the line tends to be blurred a lot. My machine for example does it all, server tasks, workstation tasks, everything I need it to do...and it can, it's Linux
But I think one of the main reasons people advocate Linux for workstations is its wide support of hardware and quick support of hardware. I would switch to FreeBSD in a second if only I could use my IDE cdburner...but I can't, so its Linux for me. Just one example that illustrates the bigger point.
Another reason for this (IMHO) is that you will get super-deluxe security w/ OpenBSD, You can run NetBSD on more platforms, and FreeBSD has the highest level of stability (on i386). I think these characteristics are much less important for workstations, where periodic reboots are ok, everything runs on intel chips, and no server processes are running.
When it comes down to it, you just have to know what you need, and what each OS can provide. The server/workstation "rule" is more of a rule of thumb, just a guideline.
Unfortunatly, my experience with trying to get help in #freebsd has been pretty bad in general, and I'd like to think I'm not asking very dumb questions. Generally, it's a bad place to go for help; in fact, I'd say it's the wrong place to go for help since the topic is often "This isn't a help channel! http://freebsd.org or RTFM".
There is #freebsdhelp, which is much more 'user friendly' but unfortunately doesn't have as many people in it (when someone in #freebsd does decide to answer your question you usually know immediately, whereas #freebsdhelp is much 'slower').
I really love FreeBSD, and I *personally* find it much easier to work with than RedHat (the only Linux I've ever tried). I just wish the online support was a little better.
dB!
Please note, the individuals who own the copyright on the image prefer that you not call him Chuck.
One of the first things you have to overcome when installing a unix system for the first time is the belief that your former system rather it be dos or windows was somehow better. There is an established standard (FSSTND) that dictates where files should be placed but more importantly dictates where files can be found which is critical for any system administrator; Instead of wading through "/programs" you can be reasonably assured that if it's a userlevel binary it's somewhere in /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin (there are exceptions to the rule where categories are made such as /usr/X11R6/.) This also makes it much easier to migrate from different versions of unix since the structure is generally the same.
/usr and /usr/local and why can't i just link /usr/local to /usr?
/usr you can mount a /usr/local with binaries relevent to only the local machine). I find however that it serves a more useful purpose in separating out the files that came with my distribution/or the files i installed as packages from the files i've compiled on the system. If i ever have to clean up my system all i have to do is wade through abit of /usr/local.
what's the difference between
Well technically there's nothing wrong with that, (/usr/local/ is meant for if you have a nfs
So in answer to your post there is a predictable placement to where the files are located it jsut takes abit of getting used to.
Filesystem Hierarchy Standard
- MbM
- MbM
I thought this was a pretty fair review - I had a similar experience installing OpenBSD, though most of my install hassles were related to getting X working.
As a mainly Linux user who's used Unix a lot in the past, I found OpenBSD very interesting, and I am planning to use it as the basis for a firewall, where its relatively small ports collection is a feature not a problem. My theory is that script kiddies & others will be less likely to have exploits for OpenBSD, due to its smaller user base and more stringent auditing.
This has already been done to some extent - Definite Linux is a Red Hat 6 derivative that includes crypto, while there are a number of secure Linux distro initiatives that will eventually come out with more robust and secure versions of Linux. There is also at least one security auditing project for Linux.
However, unless someone takes a snapshot of Linux and then spends a long time auditing it, I can't see that Linux will end up as well audited as OpenBSD.
it's an ongoing series. there was an article last week, where he just gave a basic overview of what he was planning on doing. there should be an article next week giving his overview on freebsd, and then one following that comparing the two bsd's and linux.
besides, he's only had it installed for a week...i've had linux installed for close to a year now, and don't know all the in's and out's. sheesh...
"The things we wizards have to put up with."--Jethro Bodine
The Cheapbytes CD comes with a very clear, step by step guide regarding a sample install of OpenBSD. Also, their "FAQ" ( which is more like a small user's manual ) is excellent. However, I agree that the disklabel is cryptic.
OpenBSD is an excellent choice as a solid server OS for low end hardware. However, compared to FreeBSD, it's not really ready for the desktop yet ( FreeBSD has a much larger ports and packages collection. Also, OpenBSD's filesystem, while rock solid is also sloooowwwww ). The nice thing about OpenBSD is you can fire it up and forget about it. You don't need to worry about the "patch of the week" like you do with linux.
Cheapbytes give you the option of donating. One of the things I like aboutr Cheapbytes is that they seem genuinely concerned about free software. The reason I purchased from there is because I visit the site a lot. I'll probably get OpenBSD 2.6 from openbsd.org though.
Security, reliability, availability of server apps, an OOTB config that is secure, reliable and has the right server apps. Performance is sometimes important, but sometimes ( ie a small server ) it's close to irrelevant.
What features are desirable in a "workstation"?
Desktop applications, desktop applications, and desktop applications. Performance. Of course, security, stability and reliability are still important, but not as critical. The machine is quite possibly behind a firewall which makes security less critical. The machine is not running critical services which makes reliability less critical. Stability is less important than supporting the latest hardware.
Does optimizing for one of these environments pessimize-- or at least compromise--the other situation?
yes, sometimes it can. For example, OpenBSD's default file system is IMO unacceptably slow for a workstation. However, on a critical server, it's reliability could be an advantage. On a workstation, I'd rather use a filesystem with write caching. Another example: if the developers pay more attention to putting in as much software as possible into a distribution, rather than fixing the software that they already have, the result is a nice desktop system that is possibly full of security holes.
Of course, a workstation OS can benefit from enhanced security and reliability all other things being equal. However, in practice, there is often some kind of tradeoff.
Just as you want a solid, sane, robust system for a computer that provides services for an entire department, so too do you wish the same coherence and correctness on my very own computer that you are the principle user of.
All the "correctness" in the world will not help if you can't run the applications that you need to use. For example, OpenBSD's "correctness" isn't much help to java developers.
Certainly, at this point, OpenBSD suffers as a workstation OS for two simple reasons: the fact that the availability of apps is small ( the ports collection is tiny compared to FreeBSD ) and the hardware support is relatively small. On the other hand, while linux leads the way in terms of apps, it lacks OpenBSD's security features.
Not true. It is the other way around. There is nothing stopping you releasing BSD code under the GPL ( AFAIK ). The GPL is the more restrictive license, and it is bringing GPL'd software into a BSD that proves difficult.
The main difficulty with adding OpenBSD's features to linux is that most distributors have their hands tied by export regulations. So all of OpenBSDs built in cryptography cannot be built in to any distribution that is developed in the USA.
I use it in the simplest sense: to mean an application that a desktop user would use. This includes anything from Pine to Word Perfect to LaTeX. Linux has the advantage that the applications that come with it are all very much up to date. It also has some applications that are unavailable on OpenBSD. Whether or not this is an issue depends on which applications you need/want to use.
As far as desktop environments are concerned, I prefer KDE ( or more to the point, my users do ). Fortunately, there are OpenBSD binaries for KDE now.
The ports collection is definitely better on FreeBSD, though I don't know what the exact number is. I'll fess up and admit that OpenBSD is the only BSD I have root access to.
It seems to me that it's more important for a machine that has many users to be fast
That depends on the number of concurrent users, as well as what those users are doing. If they are all compiling and running emacs, you have a point. However, if the machine is a webserver getting 10000 hits a day or less, then it doesn't need to be very fast. Moreover, there are several applications for which OpenBSD's file system will perform just fine.
As for file system speed, what do you mean?
I guess I can only compare OpenBSD to linux. OpenBSD doesn't cache directory writes, which makes it very slow for recursive operations that require directory writes ( tar xvzf , cp -a , rm -rf ) Unfortunately, I can't do a fair benchmark now because my OpenBSD box ( which used to run linux ) is a Pentium 133 and my linux box is a Pentium II. But I'd suggest you should be able to verify this. I urge you to try benchmarking any or all of tar xvzf, cp -a and rm -rf on a directory containing several files ( thousands ). I bet you a nickel that ext2 wins (-;
Cheers,
I guess thourough depends on the reader. Personally I didn't think it was thourough either, but someone who has never used OpenBSD before may have felt it was a great resource. There are not a lot of web resources available for OpenBSD, something I hope to change.
.02
I try to keep an ongoing on-line diary of my experiences installing and using and experimenting with OpenBSD. It available here. Four years ago, you would have been hard pressed to find mention of Linux anywhere, much less a thorough review. Now OpenBSD is getting some attention.
Personally I think Matt should be credited with at least being curious enough about OpenBSD to give it a try , and willing to share it with the community. That's what it's all about right?
My
Go figure.
I'm not suggesting that Linux adopt OpenBSD's development model. I'm suggesting that Linux pick up some of the attitude. Namely, a driving belief in correctness, and an attention to details that might impact security.
You can ignore these sorts of issues only at your peril--if you take security for granted, and assume it will all come out in the wash, you'll find a few things in your wash that aren't pleasant.
Then again perhaps Linux is moving toward being a desktop OS. The emphasis lately seems to have been on support for any and all hardware, plus easier configuration, plus more support for userland applications.
Perhaps Linux is destined to be the desktop Unix, whereas the *BSDs will wind up being servers.
In the short term that's unlikely to be the way it goes--Linux will make more and more inroads into servers. But in the end, you either deal with security in a comprehensive and systematic way, or you get out of the server business.
Linux should take a long hard look at OpenBSD and learn. The OpenBSD people have done a fantastic job of dealing with security, and have settled a lot of important issues through hard work and careful thought.
Going forward, it's going to be important for Linux to adopt many of these ideas, but especially this kind of attitude.
Personally, I agree. However, a lot of people seem to want this so it is available in OpenBSD 2.6. Of course, you can turn it off if it offends you ;-)
In btw: Why is the icon featuring Chuck. Chuck is the FreeBSD mascot. The OpenBSD one does not wear running shoes...
It's currently the only BSD icon on Slashdot, and yes, it's more suited to FreeBSD than NetBSD or OpenBSD. If anyone wants to
(a) Draw up icon sized logos for NetBSD and OpenBSD
(b) Run them past the appropriate people on both groups
(c) E-mail me a URL where I can download them from
then I'll be more than happy to use them in the future.
N
This review was anything but thourough!
Interesting point. As the poster, the text you're seeing in the story is pretty much what was submitted. I've got a choice of either using that text as is, and keeping the submitters words, or changing it completely. and starting with something like "Nicedream sent in this link to..." instead. Wherever possible I try and retain the submitter's text, since that's the core of Slashdot after all.
What I don't want to do is start reviewing or commenting on the links in the summary -- some of the stuff that gets posted will have that, but it will be from the "Read more" link if at all. In fact, there's a good example of that coming up in about 4 hours time.
N
No suitable URL's unfortunately but reading the mailing list archives may help. There you can note that the folks at OpenBSD have been through fixing all of our favorite YAREs (YetAnotherRootExploit) and have gone into details like file descriptor leaks (ever head of those ;-). And so on.
;-). And there are many other small peeks and pokes here and there that make it much more bulletproof even at factory defaults compared to RedHat for example.
And I love their attitude (to Paul Vixie software especially). Running named chrooted and as a non-root user
That is besides support for every sensible auth method/technique under the sun (one time passwords, encryption everywhere, cypherchained blowfish for storing passwords, etc).
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
In btw: Why is the icon featuring Chuck. Chuck is the FreeBSD mascot. The OpenBSD one does not wear running shoes...
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
| I wonder why people still use the console too.
Because the XDM way of logging into systems is in a fundamental violation of the Unix way of initializing your environment, and it shows. XDM discards the entire concept of your login shell, and with it the entire concept that you can initialize your environment once and use it thereafter. (You should see the hacks that some vendors, like SGI, use to try to weasel their way around this failing (for SGI, scope out the userenv manpage sometime).)
You can kludge around this. But all the approaches are kludges, with all that implies: they are not general, and they are not necessarily supported in the latest fancy magic thing to come along. And you will go to extra work if you want to have things work seamlessly on non-XDM logins too. There is nothing with the simple and straightforward elegance of the login shell concept.
screen is your friend, It saves your ssh sessions even when the net connection fails for a moment.
This review was anything but thourough! How does the uninformed user decide to use this rather than Linux. There's a lot of hype about OpenBSD being hypersecure by default. But what does this mean? How does this apply to some yahoo who wants to build a webserver or a firewall?
I like OpenBSD, I like Linux, I like Macs, I use what ever is best for job.
I wish these people would start to do objective comparisons of the feature sets of each OS.
I'm just pointing out a trend I've noticed on a lot of these "tech" sites. No depth.
It's great that any monkey with a net connection can install Linux or *BSD, but no one seems to be talking about how to use the system once it is installed. No one talks about the strengths or weaknesses of their chosen *nix.
It's all just "Linux only take 15 minutes to install!!" Bullshit, there's more to installing software than swapping disks and clicking on the right buttons.
No, but I thought that if I wasn't careful how I phrased the question I might lose all my hard won karma points.... ;-P
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
This is not meant to be Flamebait [hence I've not posted anonymously], but a serious question.
...) appear to be about to be taken over by Linux.
With the rapid advance of Linux over the last year or two, are the *BSDs "fading" into the background ? My impression is that even the niche markets which the various BSDs are directed (security/ network
Maybe some *BSD expert can enlighten me...
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
I recently installed OpenBSD on my home machine, and after spending about three weeks trying to get various things to work, I decided I'd be better off with Linux.
Before I began, I made a list of programs/functionality that I needed, both for the server tasks (FTP, Telnet, WWW, SSH, IP Masquerading, etc.) and as a workstation (running WordPerfect, Netscape, playing MP3s, etc). And as I got things to work, I crossed them off my list.
The good news was that a lot of things worked right out of the box (or straight from the ports tree). Getting bash, trn, X, ssh, NAT, and basic networking was a piece of cake. Unlike the experience of the author of the article, the install handled my NIC and cable-modem-dhcp setup automatically (unlike Linux where I had to use a non-standard dhcp program and another program to "login" to my Road Runner accoutn).
But after the initial install and setup, there were several things that didn't work for me, and I didn't really get them working satisfactorily:
One thing I'll say though, it gives me a newfound appreciation for the smooth Linux installs. It took me a few times though to get the OpenBSD install to take. Mostly because the whole disklabel thing was new to me, and I figured out that the a slice was root, and that the c slice was the whole disk. But I didn't get that the b slice was swap, so my /usr didn't work until I figured that out.
Also, it reminded me that Linux on the desktop does work, if you've got a certain ammount of technical knowledge. My Netscape doesn't crash. I can play MP3's and use a word processor and spreadsheet (Gnumeric). The network configuration and IP masquerading isn't as cool as OpenBSD's, but it does work.
--
-Esme
http://gort.ucsd.edu/escowles/
That's a feature.
- Libraries - possibly under binaries?
- Headers - under source?
- Data - OK this sounds silly but while we're at it why don't we specify places for data to go and not to go.
I also think your config files need (in many cases) two 'versions'. The system standard and a user's. So you may need config files in a user's directories too. I do like this idea of seperating things into places that are clear what goes where. You probably could go and build a linux distro that has this (although it'd probably be a pain). I'd also agree that I like the version of things inYou can run NetBSD on more platforms.
...
In terms of modern hardware, Linux supports at _least_ as much as openbsd if not more. UltraSparcs and SGI Indy are examples of Linux, and not-*BSD, supported platforms.
However if you got something _very_ old, like SUN 3 or VAX or old decstation (they are so slow that they all belong in a garbage collector imho) then you can run NetBSD on them
--
I've been running OpenBSD since the 2.1 release. I started out with it because it was the only thing I could get on an old MacIIci, NetBSD notwithstanding. All the nifty bells and whistles rolled into the *nux distros I've used are pretty nice, however, for a clean, well-laid out file system, with no extra cruft, one can't beat OpenBSD. Yes the ports thing is pretty nice too.
Now have two intranet webservers running OBSD i386, one running OBSD Mac68k, one running OBSD Alpha, all in a WinNT shop...using Samba to allow users "drag-and-drop through NT Explorer" for their webpages.
OBSD is still running my firewall at home for the DSL connection, and I've got it on my IBM 560e.
It rocks!!! Please buy the CDs and contribute to the cause, the stickers that come with the discs are well worth it.
-- one tequila, two tequila, three tequila, four, five tequila, six tequila, seven tequila, floor...
Rather than buying from cheapbytes, why not buy a bootable cd from OpenBSD's website and support the project?
\w0zz - OpenBSD - A Better Solution
Also, while I'm here. Rather than use tcp wrappers, why not check out IPF? Its a much better way to tighten down your box than tcp wrappers. man ipf should get you started.
\w0zz - OpenBSD - A Better Solution
I'm not "busting" on anyone. If you want OpenBSD to survive, and thrive as the wonderful thing that it is, you need to support it. OpenBSD's support comes almost entirely from CD and T shirt sales. Feel free to download whatever you want, all I'm suggesting is that if you like it, support it. Besides, you can't download the cool stickers!
\w0zz - OpenBSD - A Better Solution
I dunno, I'm on misc@openbsd.org and I'd say that both "helpful" and "obnoxious" are well-represented. Every week I see people being helpful without being obnoxious, obnoxious without being helpful, and helpful and obnoxious in the same message. This may come from the top -- Theo is arguably the most helpful and the most obnoxious of the lot. Then again, that also describes the traditional composition of nearly all of Usenet, so you be the judge.
% rpm -qi `rpm -qf /bin/grep`
/. does not eat the quotes and slashes in this message...
Name : grep Relocations: (not relocateable)
Version : 2.3 Vendor: Red Hat Software
Release : 2 Build Date: Sun Mar 21 18:06:18 1999Install date: Thu Oct 14 01:56:04 1999 Build Host: porky.devel.redhat.com
Group : Applications/Text Source RPM: grep-2.3-2.src.rpm
Size : 294290 License: GPL
Packager : Red Hat Software
Summary : The GNU versions of grep pattern matching utilities.
Description :
The GNU versions of commonly used grep utilities. Grep searches one or
more input files for lines which contain a match to a specified pattern
and then prints the matching lines. GNU's grep utilities include grep,
egrep and fgrep.
Add -l to the first rpm, and you get all files in this package. Might want to pipe the results through $PAGER though, these lists can get lengthy...
If you don't know where grep (or any other command) lives, but want to see the package info nontheless, or if you are just to lazy to type pathnames, try rpm -qi `rpm -qf \`which grep\``
I hope
--frank[at]unternet.org
I wonder why someone would like to download a 650 Mbyte file while all the required files for a given platform are only about 200 MByte.
And there is everything on the FTP site needed to burn your own bootable CDs...
I wonder why people still use the console too. All my machines have xdm, it's almost the 21th century guys (ans gals :-))
A NAT/Firewall distro, something with reasonably easy installation that would put and install all the neat packages to make a routeur/firewall for cable/adsl owners. OpenBSD seems ready to do it but the installation doesn't look pretty.
I can understand why you ask this, given all the news/hype over Linux lately. But just because there isn't a relative proportion of news/hype over *BSDs, this doesn't mean that the software is any less valuable.
I am using OpenBSD for security solutions for my clients and I am very impressed and satisfied with it. Also, because it is less crufty than a similar Linux configuration, it is ideal for dedicated Internet devices. The next decade will see an explosion of these.
"Classic UFO's
You know, there's a reason why binaries are spread out so much on your distribution. /bin and /sbin are for *required* binaries, stuff that *has* to be there during bootup, like fsck and sh. /usr/bin and /usr/sbin are for optional binaries, while /usr/local/bin and /usr/local/sbin are for local, machine-specific programs (and, sometimes, for non-packaged binaries). You might find a /opt, too, but that's somewhat nonstandard. I first saw that on a SPARCstation at college a number of years ago - mostly, they dumped optional software, like bash and other GNU utils, in there.
/usr read-only some time. It might save your system.
Why do you need all those directories? Try mounting / as read-write and
I hate doing things the same way that they've always been done as much as the next guy, but there are, in general, reasons why we do things in a certain way when it comes to the long history of UNIX. Chances are, it's one of the better ways of doing it. You need to research the reasons why things are done this way before you start questioning it. After you understand the reasoning, that's when you should question it.
I'm not saying that it's a bad idea to move everything into one directory (actually, I think that's a horrid idea); rather, I ask that you research the reason why things are the way they are on your Linux system before your propose change. You might find out that you like the current way of doing things better once you understand it.
I don't understand why all these comments saying "hey, it wasn't that bad for a newbie's overview!" are getting moderated up. I mean, once was good enough. We get the point. The moderators want us to say it was a good article.
Personally, I thought it was about as interesting as a 5th grade book report.
"This was a difficult to read book. It was a good book, though. I had to actually read the first chapter before I could wade into the book. The list of contents was very good. Everyone told me this was a good book, and I agree that it is a good book, because it was very interesting. After I got past the first chapter, I realized the chapters were pretty minimalistic and not that hard to figure out after all. The plot was about a hero who had to face a conflict. He beat the conflict at the end. In conclusion, I thought this was a good book."
I don't see the problem with the Linux documentation that so many people seem to be complaining about. Yes, there's a great deal of information out there. But, you managed to find your way to Slashdot, didn't you? There are millions, perhaps billions, of web sites out there, yet you somehow found a web site that answers your questions, reports on news you care about, and hosts essays written by people you admire.
If you can find Slashdot, you can find the proper man page or howto document.
Geez.
Rather than offering it for free, why not make it a commercial product with source available?
Gimme a break. Don't bust on people for downloading or saving money on a product that's offered as a gift.
That was one of the worse articles I've ever read. They had some guy that seemed pretty clueless and stumbling through an install giving his impression of it. OpenBSD is very simple to install. I hate these people that are laerning Linux and think that's UNIX. It's close but not quite, it just gives you a taste of how things work, though not properly. I'm all for people learning Linux and getting into the UNIX way of things, but they should have some experience under their belt before they start doing reviews on Linux.com, come on! It's a shame it was shown is such a bad light, it really is a great OS.
Uh.
/usr/share/doc as well. Now, there isn't as much info on how to get going as linux -- but there is a lot of info for FreeBSD out there (I can't say the same thing for other *BSD's unfortunately). On a side note, 2.2.7 is as BSDish as you can get.
FreeBSD Handbook
Mailing list, Handbook and FAQ searches(Years and years worth of mailing list archives)
"FreeBSD for the lazy and Hopeless"
A comprehensive guide to FreeBSD(sort of dated but still applicable)
FreeBSD Tutorials
If you already have hte system installed -- there is probably a bunch of information in
----------
I did recompile my FreeBSD kernel on numerous occcasions, but always had that ``did I do it properly'' feeling that I've never encountered with Linux.
/usr/src/sys/$arch/conf /usr/sbin/config MYKERNEL ../../compile/MYKERNEL
:).
I don't see why it's hard.
cd
cp GENERIC MYKERNEL
ee/pico/vi MYKERNEL
(possibly open up another term to look at LINT in the same directory)
after done;
cd
make depend
make
make install
reboot
-- in the rare case where your kernel doesn't work, you can just boot kernel.old or kernel.generic and try again. Remember to read error messages when compiling the kernel (just like when compiling linux kernels !)
It's almost exactly the same on all BSD based systems including BSDi. I think it's just inexperience with the type of system. I felt the same way when I first tried linux after using BSD and SunOS for years.
Although some of the 'snobbery may be true, there are still people who are willing to help newbies -- just like linux. However, it IS annoying when a newbie asks a question that is readily available in the documentation/handbook/mailing list archives. Give a man a fish and he'll always come back for more -- but teach a man to fish...
Another thing I partially agree with is the partitioning scheme. Disk druid (or whatever) should be a little more intuitive. I once set up a system and downloaded all my distributions, then configured some menu options, then reboot. To my horror, it said that there was no bootable partition. Unfortunately you can't set up a bootable partition that goes beyond 1024 cylinders (tried making / 27 gigs). I had to totally re-install. Thank god I have a fast internet link and get 690k/s from the MIT mirror
Anyway, once the system is installed and you get aquainted with it, it's very nice to use. Some of the things you have to setup are possibly hard -- but I don't think they are much less intuitive than most linux distros. I think it's that you just have to get used to it. I myself experienced problems using slackware, then redhat (from which I had to sit there deleting crap I didnt want for 20 minutes and re-arrange the crappy rc files).
----------
Steeper learning curve? I doubt it, unless the you're comparing redhat to them. Debian and slack can be equally daunting to a user. Of course, anyone reading Linux.com is probably using redhat anyway...
----------
I have installed FreeBSD, and the learning curve was about the same as when I learned Linux. Despite everything you have heard, I find that Linux's network utilities are more intuitive than FreeBSD's, and I would rather use Linux than FreeBSD as a network tool.
/. for the blinkenlights. It's chrome, cruft, feeping creaturism, and I don't want it. I get that enough when I use Windows.
And yes, IMHO, FreeBSD felt like a stripped down version of*nix.
Drop the colors. I don't come to
"Don't mind me cutting myself on Occam's Razor"
Enough already! Already, many people have jumped up and said "I had problems installing" while others have said "I had no problems." This gets us nowhere and isn't real evidence anyways.
Just remember that most of us are "power users." We are willing to get through any problem assuming there is "a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel." On the other hand, most users aren't going to be as patient or driven to fix subtile problems. To say, "weak willed people shouldn't be using this" isn't a strength...it is a problem!
Both Linux and BSD have come a long way in making things eaiser to digest and figure out but there is room on both sides for improvement. Just because one person knows automatically where to find information on BSD drivers, doesn't mean my mom will. Just because I know how to setup an NAT in Linux doesn't mean my dad will figure it out right away either. Anything that facilitates novice user's understand is a good thing.
you mean kind of like http.non-us.debian.org?
I would beg to differ on this.
While I would agree there is a lot of stuff written on Linux, I'd question the value of most of it. The real issue is how much GOOD stuff is written on the subjects, and how much cr*p you have to dig through to find it.
I have been playing with Linux on-and-off since probably 1994 or 1995. I did my first OpenBSD and FreeBSD installs only a month or so ago. I felt more at home with OpenBSD and FreeBSD within minutes than I did with any version of Linux..ever.
Why? Simply because *BSD more closely matched the considerable Unix documentation that is out there. Linux is a changing target. By the time a release is properly documented, it is being replaced by a new release.
I also found the documentation available for *BSD to be more specific to the actual package I had than the Linux documentation. The Linux docs are considerable and some are excelent quality -- but the first challenge is trying to figure out what actually got installed and what is applicable and what isn't to the particular distribution that is loaded on the machine in front of me.
To me, it feels like Linux is a lot of pieces bolted together. Each piece is well documented, but how the pieces interact and work together is a challenge to figure out. OpenBSD seems to be a more coherent system.
I wanted to turn OpenBSD into a NAT system for my cable internet access. Within a relatively few hours of fiddling and fighting with wierd hardware, it was running and operating perfectly. I spent far more time figuring out the logic of the partitioning program (and cleaning up the mess after I discovered I was wrong...time after time! 8) and fighting with a SCSI controller supported by nothing in the world other than DOS and Windows 95 than I did getting NAT going.
Don't get me wrong... I respect Linux greatly, and I do not question that it is a much better desktop OS than *BSD is for a number of reasons. (One of which is the hype factor -- a perceived popular OS will have more software support, and this is important.) However, *BSD has a very significant place where stable, secure and reliable operation is more important than flash. OpenBSD has impressed the heck out of me very quickly. And, it sounds like the only "Internet" OS that really has security as something other than an afterthought.
Nick.
Hear Hear!!
I can't think of any OS in recent history where simply getting the system to boot should qualify as any kind of victory. Getting an OS to boot may be a milepost, but only the very first milepost in a very long trip.
I also agree the recent "tech" stuff is pathetic. Remember when Byte magazine used to have schematic diagrams? Remember Byte magazine?? So much now is so absurdly platform specific, and so many reviewers claiming to be experts on things they are they shouldn't, and condeming "competing" or differing products they show no real experience in or understanding of.
I'm also not impressed that this reviewer would even mention an attempt to do an install on unreliable hardware, or a dial-up FTP install. I've tried a few FTP installs through my cable internet access. OpenBSD is the only one that really went well! Now, I think I will credit this more to the site that I pulled it down from than the product itself, but I have to say OpenBSD's FTP install can work, and can work very well, at least if you don't bring an expectation that it is "just like Linux" (or DOS, or Windows or...) to the process.
Nick.
I've found it to be just the opposite: I've found excellent documentation to get me through FreeBSD kernel compiles (and excellent documentation overall). I've done it a few times to get just the right support for my (very) old 486 motherboard (no PnP, no PCI, just 1 IDE channel, etc...).
;^)
I've not found anything nearly so helpful to get me through a Linux kernel compile, though I'm getting ready to give it a try soon. I guess I'll have to actually read that chapter in my SuSE manual
Interesting that Matt Mitche choose to forego installation of XWin - not that I blame him. Based on my own experience as a wee U*IX groupie (several years ago; hasn't improved), configuring should only be attempted in the company of the extraordinarily patient, or the incredibly wise. Preferably both.
Obligatory Link: Neal Stephenson has made some insightful comments on the subject of GUI's in one of his latest Essay.
Unconfirmed Memory: There is some project in the works to solve a lot of the problems involved with XWin. If anyone has more info, pls post!
===
This is my sig. There are others like it, but this is mine.
$ dpkg -S /usr/bin/dselect /usr/bin/dselect
dpkg:
$ dpkg -s dpkg
Package: dpkg
Essential: yes
Status: install ok installed
Priority: required
Section: base
Installed-Size: 1017
Maintainer: Ian Jackson and others = 2.1), libncurses4 (>= 4.2-3.1), libstdc 2.10
Description: Package maintenance system for Debian
[etc]
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
This has the advantage that it's quick and easy to do upgrades, or install new packages, with no nasty side-effects if there are name-clashes, and a guarantee that if there -are- multiple versions, you know exactly where they are.
It also has the disadvantage that it becomes VERY difficult to see what's installed, after a while. The filenames get horribly long, and the directory becomes impossibly cluttered. It also makes it more complex to do audits of what's changed, as you can't just go into the /usr/bin directory and look. You have to go through a multitude of directories to get that information.
IMHO, there is no "perfect" scheme. Everything is a trade-off. The more you split the binaries up, the easier maintenance becomes (especially automatic maintenance), and the easier it is to list what packages you have, even if you don't have a package manager.
OTOH, splitting everything into /, /usr, /usr/X11 and /usr/local keeps the heirarchy uncluttered at the expense of the directories themselves. It's harder to see which program comes from which version of which package, but you -can- be sure where the master copy of a given file is.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
According to the X11-toolkits page in the FreeBSD ports collection, the current version in the collection is 1.2.6. and, according to the GTK web site and the GTK mirror FTP site I tried, at least, the current version is 1.2.6. (The main site was being too slow; maybe 1.2.7 just came out, but....)
FreeBSD works pretty well for me as a workstation OS; it appeared to be less of a pain to get my plug-and-play ISA sound card to work on it than it would be on Debian 2.1 (the 2.0[.x] kernel patch didn't work out of the box, and I didn't particularly want to spend a lot of time doing kernel debugging; I guess I could've tried the isapnptools stuff, but, at that point, I already had a free OS that handled the sound card, so...).
Your mileage may vary - others may find some particular Linux distribution (or some particular non-free OS, or even some particular non-UNIX-flavored OS) better as a workstation OS, or, for that matter, as a server OS, for their purpose than one of the BSDs, and others might find one of the BSDs better, and so on.
Linux suffers from security-related flaws, but IMHO the most serious ones relate to misconfigurations implemented by the CKI (Chair to Keyboard Interface)..
(And why not use and promote multiple OSes? Two mottos come to mind here.. 'The right tool for the job', and of course, 'There's More Than One Way To Do It!'
Your Working Boy,
Reading this guys experience of installing OpenBSD reminded me of the first time I installed NetBSD. The bewildering lack of documentation, and the archaic partitioning scheme that comes up as the default. Once installed though, I felt the same as this guy in that it was a bare bones Unix, with no cruft.
My only criticism of NetBSD (and I assume this applies to OpenBSD as well), is that the kernel co nfiguration is horrible. *BSD snobs always poke fun at the user friendly kernel configuration tools that come with the Linux source, but this is really unjustified. I never got round to compiling my own NetBSD kernel because of the paucity of documentation and the crap configuration file.
I did recompile my FreeBSD kernel on numerous occcasions, but always had that ``did I do it properly'' feeling that I've never encountered with Linux.
So all in all this OpenBSD review is accurate and fair.
Chris Wareham
What more do you want from a couple of hundred words written by someone installing OpenBSD for the first time. Remember that this article is published on a Linux-centric site, and that most people use Linux as a desktop OS. As the author correctly points out, OpenBSD's raison d'etre is as a potentially secure server OS. Note that I say it is *potentially* secure - it's still up to the end user to configure it correctly. OpenBSD simply gives you an audited set of software that gives you a fighting chance of setting up an almost uncrackable server.
So don't knock this review without noting its context. I feel that he highlights the real differences between Linux and the free BSD flavours - the latters constency, economy of features and steeper learning curve.
Chris Wareham
You are of course completely correct in that flaws are bad both in servers and workstations. Things that are flaws on one role are pretty much always flaws on the other. The point you overlook however is that in different roles different flaws have different importances.
For example, lack of applications could be considered a flaw, as could crashing. Lets say (I don't nececcarly agree, but conventional wisdom which we are analysing has it that) Linux crashes more but has more apps and BSD has less apps but crashes less. In a workstation role, apps are critical. The benfit of more apps outweights the benefits of stability. It is not that crashing is any more "acceptable" in a single-user role, it is just that there are more important concerns. It doesnt matter how little it crashes if it doesnt do what you want!
So, we see that the "Conventional Wisdom" as you put does not say it is OK to crash a little in single-user roles, but just that there are higher priorities.
Of course, then you come to the base assumption of said wisdom which runs along the lines of: Linux has more apps, more drivers, nicer interfaces, and faster paced development but at the cost of stability and 'correctness.'
In my personal experice this is true. I use a Linux workstation every day but when I had to nuke my server (after several years of faithful Linux service) I decided to try FreeBSD. It took me a while to install it, the installation was harder (a priority I consider low on a server, higher on a workstation). But once I finished, I found much the same thing as the reviewer: everything fit together perfectly. make buildworld is an amazing thing to watch. Everything has a place and the documentation is superb. I was very pleased.
Conversely, when it came time to nuke my workstation I didn't even think of BSD. Why? Because its a shitty home-build mutt that has been upgraded over a period of 3 years. FreeBSD did not have all the drivers I needed. In addition, getting apps on FreeBSD is harder. You don't usually need gtk+ on a server, but I sure as hell ain't living without it on my desktop! (I know, gtk is in the ports tree, but it is never up to date).
In summary: you are right. Given infinite development time, there need not be a difference between server OS's and workstation OS's. But, given that there are different priorities in different roles, and given that there are limited developer-hours, having different OS's focus on different roles makes perfect sense.
--Nick
You could get the package manager to keep track of the associated source, docs, etc for each binary. For example:
% rpm --tell-me-aboutGNU grep 9.99, compiled by me@somewhere on 1998-05-14 (it could give more details, eg compiler flags, what the configure script detected)
Source is in grep-9.99.srpm (or in
Manual page is grep(1)
Docs are in
etc...
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
I decided some time back that it would be fun to experiment with OpenBSD. I was drawn primarily by it's crypto software. I was installing it on a machine that I tend to use more as a server than anything else. So desktop friendliness was not a major issue.
So first came the install. I ordered my $2- Cheapbytes CD, which came with an installation walk-through. This walk through made it pretty easy. I had a hiccup with my large disk drive ( due to bad bios configuration ) but a post to comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc fixed that pretty quickly. The partitioning procedure using the cryptic disklabel tool would have been hell without the walkthrough. However, i just did ( more or less ) what the walk through said, and it went OK.
Which raises another point -- I was surprised to find that the help on Usenet for OpenBSD is on par with usenet linux support. Far from being a bunch of obnoxious RTFM'ers, the OpenBSD crowd are by and large very helpful. I felt honoured that Theo De Raadt himself responded to one of my posts. Regarding support, the "OpenBSD FAQ" is also excellent. It is really more like a users manual than an FAQ. I highly recommend that anyone planning on installing openBSD get a copy of this prior to installation.
Once I had finished the install, I had my openBSD system up and running. I discovered a few things:
First, I was somewhat surprised that the inetd services don't go via TCP wrappers by default. I had to edit inetd.conf to make them do this. I was awfully confused for a little while regarding the fact that my hosts.deny settings ( ALL:ALL ) were not honoured. So I fixed inetd.
What is nice about the default setup is that software such as sudo, skey and kerberos is installed by default. They will be shipping ssh with it in the near future ( 2.6 ), see http://www.openbsd.org/crypto.html#ssh. Until recently, they've had obstructions to shipping this, such as patents. They are actively hacking ssh to remove these obstacles. Crypto is "integrated" into the system. For example, crypt() has built in blowfish encryption ( which is used to encrypt passwords ) See http://www.openbsd.org/crypto.html for more info.
The system also uses shadow passwords out of the box. The ports collection makes it easy to install any other secure software you might want, such as cops, ssh, rsaref, among other things. Just CD to the right directory and type "make install" and openBSD automatically installs the package, *and* looks after any dependencies -- so "make install" always works, even if you don't have some of the required packages to begin with. The ports collection is lean in terms of desktop applications, but contains a good collection of server apps.
However, it's not ideal as a desktop system. The file system is slow ( though very stable ), and the ports collection is somewhat limited compared to FreeBSD and NetBSD. It also trails FreeBSD in hardware support.
Overall, I'd highly recommend it for a user familiar with linux ( in particular, someone not scared of command lines ) who wants to set up a secure server on low end hardware.
I'm serious, and I'm not trying to be obtuse. I'm a Unix programmer, not a starry-eyed neophyte in search of eye-candy. I have mailers, newsreaders, web browsers, web servers, editors, admin tools, a complete development environment, etc.
The only bloatware I've got installed on the openbsd systems is netscape. It's also the only non-source program here. I've tried mozilla, but it crashes all the time. I also offer users amaya and lynx.
As far as bloatware goes, I also installed enlightenment and gimp, mostly as a test to see whether I could. And yes, there was no problem. I've a friend who's an Apple user, so put gimp up for them. And enlightenment was semi-interesting, but I've gone back to tvtwm, which suffices for my purposes. I don't know whether these are what you call "desktop applications" or not.
As for /usr/ports, I get this
Although I admit I haven't done an mcs get lately. My only FreeBSD account doesn't haveIt seems to me that it's more important for a machine that has many users to be fast (what kids these days call a "server") than it is for a machine that serves the needs a lone user (what kids seem to call "clients" or "workstations" or "desktops") to be fast. After all, slowness in a shared resource hurts everyone who's sharing it.
As for file system speed, what do you mean? Are you saying that FreeBSD isn't using FFS, or that OpenBSD isn't? If they're both using the regular FFS, why is there a difference? Have you benchmarked this? Are there published numbers? My only experience is comparing OpenBSD and Redhat for ftw stuff, and the former came out way ahead on a hugely bushy file system.
Like the author of this review, OpenBSD was also my first. I had a Boeing-surplus Sun station I was running on a shoestring budget for an college organization I was in, and when the hard drive blew up before I could procure a back-up device and I didn't have any installation media (I know, I know... playing with fire), I found myself in the un-enviable position of having to find a replacement OS to put on the replacement hard drive. And yet, I was on a shoestring (and spit and chewing gum) budget... so I did some checking around. Wanting to try the OS before dedicating my precious collegiate hours to the installation process, I found that OpenBSD would run on both Sun and Intel platforms, and that there was really good Sun binary compatibility. Actually, I was tossing coins between NetBSD and OpenBSD, but the security audit was a good selling feature.
So I proceeded to install OpenBSD on my 4 year old 486 from floppy images. (I didn't have the funds to buy the CD, either, but I did have some old AOL promo disks.) After a day and some of fiddling, I had the system up and running, although I had many of the same troubles as the author of the review, but without the prior Linux experience to draw upon. I installed X11 and a few other necessary programs, and ba-da-bing, it ran fine.
About a year later, after I was no longer in charge of that organization's computer woes, I transitioned to FreeBSD, since it had better focus on the Intel platform and in particular supported the odd arrangement I was resorting to to drive my CDROM. Still, for a first foray into the wild, wild world of installing and running UNIX from scratch, OpenBSD was pretty good!
OpenBSD has a huge advantage in security, being
from Canada, and not the US of A, it can ship
with heavy encryption enabled, with out
being harrassed.
Someone overseas should take note of the business
model, and make a linux distribution based on
the same ideas.
Right on! That was one of the hardest things I encountered when getting used to Linux. Binaries in /bin, /sbin, /usr/local/bin, etc. In thinking of a better way to set up an OS (yeah, like I'm gonna invent an OS) I figured most binaries will need:
- Source (of course) for available hacking/patching
- Docs/manpages
- configuration files/scripts
- the binary itself
- other stuff
There's two ways to organize this, either every binary has it's own location (in one distinct repository) under which all of the above is included, or the above categories are divided into several locations, such asPrecisely what features are desirable in a "server"? What features are desirable in a "workstation"? What even is the difference between a "server" and a "workstation"? Does optimizing for one of these environments pessimize-- or at least compromise--the other situation? Is there some technical feature that you really want to have in a multi-user situation that you don't care about in a single-user one? What about the other way around?
Here's my conjecture: there is no difference here. You want the same in both, because a soi-disant single-user Unix workstation is still a complete multi-user environment with all the attendant issues thereof.
A system's inadequacies appear more acceptable in a single-user system only because they can thereby annoy only one person at a time. In a multi-user situation, such problems are less tolerable because the pain is multiplied by the number of individuals affected. But inadequacies they remain.
Just as you want a solid, sane, robust system for a computer that provides services for an entire department, so too do you wish the same coherence and correctness on my very own computer that you are the principle user of. For example, you don't expect to reboot a server just because you install some new software, and neither do you expect to do the same on my own machine. Granted, Unix isn't stupid here, the way the Evil Empire is. But by allowing sloppiness in a "single-user" environment that would never be tolerated in a "multi-user" one, we risk relegating ourselves to a plane of Hell not so far removed from the one currently inhabited by gibbering victims of the Horror Out of Redmond.