IMHO, OpenBSD isn't that hard
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| hkwint Nov 07, 2007 12:17 PM EDT |
My first non-Windows experiences were installing OpenBSD. From Windows, I knew the IP-settings to fill in (we didn't use DHCP), and I could vaguely remember partitioning. After doing it a few times, I was able to install OpenBSD in less than a quarter - with a working X server. Comparing that to Windows XP or Suse 10.1 that's really short, and the result is less bloated or 'barer' depending on what you want. I tried to do the same for FreeBSD (or Linux with an ncurses installer, probably Slackware caused this bad remembrances), but failed because I always get lost in the nCurses menus, and you have to figure out the order in which to do things yourself. I remember asking myself, when installing FreeBSD, 'Did I already configure this part or not?". Not with OpenBSD, you just fill out what comes by. I also installed Gentoo multiple times (using it right now), and I can tell you I found it much harder than installing OpenBSD, mainly because the lots of text someone has to read when installing Gentoo. Let alone finding out which USE-flags to use or choosing between sysloggers and cron-deamons I didn't even know. For OpenBSD, they are already working after the default install. Till this day, there is no single one OS that I find as fast and easy to install as OpenBSD. Okay, OpenBSD standard setup is rather basic. I can remember we didn't even had a working text-editor apart from ed (should have used Vi of course), and that made it hard to make configurations. Also, OpenBSD didn't come with a pre-configured mirror list. However, keep the folllowing in mind: -OpenBSD came with a working sendmail server, so sudo wasn't complaining not finding it; -OpenBSD sound worked out of the box, while at the same time Linux sound didn't! Yes, that's right, back then I remember they told me sound in OpenBSD was a nightmare, but it just worked out of the box without me installing anything. Not in Linux. In Linux, I spent pretty long getting it to work I remember. Only after trying NetBSD one is able to appreciate the OpenBSD standard install probably, because with NetBSD the default-apps are even less. Also, in NetBSD I had to change geometry - parameters to mount my Windows FAT-partition just to listen to my mp3's, and after changing that geometry parameters it didn't boot again. Interesting was, OpenBSD didn't have this problem. Making X work wasn't that hard either, we just pkg_added blackbox and all was set and done. Only changing the background was really really hard, I remember. On the other hand, one could as easily install KDE on OpenBSD. Back when I tried OpenBSD, I mainly stopped using it because the ports for Opera and OpenOffice didn't work (probably because - not knowing how ports were meant to be used, I didn't update my ports-system, and my ports-system pointed to Opera-tarballs which were already deleted), but as far as I know, there are packages for these know. Also, configuring a OpenBSD kernel is much easier than doing the same for a 2.6 kernel, since there's much less to configure in first place. Another thing that stood out, was the rc.conf file in BSD, which contained all sort of usefull settings. Comparing this to Linux, the rc.conf file of Linux is ' a mess'. So sure, OpenBSD is hard to use (I never succeeded to make my printer work I remember, and there were a lot more of that kind of headaches), but I can also remember I found Linux hard to use sometimes. It was mainly because of the knowledge of my friend (he got Gentoo up and working within a day, including Windowmaker, XMMS and Opera!) and because it was easy to intall the printer, I kept using it besides Windows XP. Nonetheless, if I had to install an OS with a working X server and internet within a quarter, I'd still go for OpenBSD. I have to note, until recently I never had installed Debian, but even Debian is harder to install in my opinion. The colors in the Debian-install are only distracting, and because the options are spread across the screen, you need to look at the whole screen when installing it. Yes, I'm picky here, but nonetheless, an installation-method in which the lowest rule of the monitor presents where you're at is really user-friendly, at least in my opinion. |
| Steven_Rosenber Nov 07, 2007 12:30 PM EDT |
For sure, I had less problems installing the basic OpenBSD system than I have had with any other BSD variant. But once I had my base system and X, it seemed like quite the uphill climb to the next level, be it Web or file server, not to mention desktop system with window manager and a full slate of applications. I do like the extra attention to security that OpenBSD has. And I, too, needed to set up a static IP, and it worked. I just wish the OpenBSD team, or somebody else, would make it easier to use without totally geeking out. Even Debian lets you check off a box to set up a server. Except for the bug with disk space, FreeBSD (which doesn't tell you that you don't have enough ... it just dies midway) seems way more usable ... on my boxes that will actually boot it. Gotta try that one again on my Gateway Laptop. |
| hkwint Nov 07, 2007 12:46 PM EDT |
Quoting:I just wish the OpenBSD team, or somebody else, would make it easier to use without totally geeking out. Even Debian lets you check off a box to set up a server. I feel your pain and I agree, and there are many of those 'small things' they could have done; setting up the mirrors wouldn't be that hard either? Sadly, the OpenBSD doesn't commit to making OpenBSD easy, since the team consists of people who find the stuff you and I deem advanced 'trivial'. Since OpenBSD doesn't attract newbies, it also lacks 'veteran-newbies', which usually help out the 'new-newbies' in a normal OS-ecosystem. Probably, if I had to made a server, I'd still chose FreeBSD because the support - both hardware support and the forums - is broader (not necessarily better). Coming to a real conclusion is difficult for me: For some things, I find OpenBSD the best choice, its simplicity of the installer, and I heard it is far easier to make a firewall using OpenBSD than using Linux, it is secure, but they didn't put any effort in tools to help out the new user. So you have to put a great amount of time in it and learn a lot of new stuff, or ditch it and switch to user-friendly BSD. That's sad indeed. |
| hkwint Nov 07, 2007 1:03 PM EDT |
Thinking about it, I remember there are a few things that can help you after the first boot; First there is $ man afterboot it's also on the web; [url=http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=afterboot&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=OpenBSD Current&arch=i386&format=html]http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=afterboot&aprop...[/url] Then, I read the NetBSD guide and skipped the chapters I didn't need / that didn't apply to my system: http://netbsd.org/docs/guide/en/netbsd.html It's an HOWTO of all the stuff one normally does after installing the base system. It's for NetBSD, but over 95% is applicable for OpenBSD too, and it's the doc that was the most helpful to me. Info how to install the window-manager, for example, is here: http://netbsd.org/docs/guide/en/netbsd.html#chap-x-other-win... Info for a mail server, for example is here http://netbsd.org/docs/guide/en/netbsd.html#chap-mail With those two sources, the man-pages and AltaVista (that'd be Google now), I was able to find almost everything about system administration for OpenBSD. That didn't mean I understood all of it, but I got pretty far for a Windows user. |
| Steven_Rosenber Nov 07, 2007 5:01 PM EDT |
The FreeBSD handbook (http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ -- follow the tortured path of links to their FTP server to find compressed versions of the entire 900+page PDF), in my opinion, is one of the strongest things the distro has going for itself. It's quite an achievement. Not that I've ever actually tried to use it to run the OS for which it's meant, but I find the Gentoo documentation to be of similarly high quality. I've been able to get help there for Debian, Slackware and other distros just by happenstance (or not, since Linux is Linux, pretty much). I'm still pretty much stunned that OpenBSD just leaves you with X and expects that you'll figure out the rest from there. Even if one was an uber-user, who has the time to add all those packages/ports if they want to put a server or desktop together. Remember that article on Distrowatch (http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20070924#sitenews) on how Ladislav had to configure a new server? He was using FreeBSD but had to get it going in somewhat of a hurry. He used Debian instead. He gave up some speed due to not compiling everything, but in the real world, it's hard to build it up from scratch. Still, it's a very good thing that we have so many choices in what we can run. |
| hkwint Nov 13, 2007 2:15 PM EDT |
Quoting:I'm still pretty much stunned that OpenBSD just leaves you with X and expects that you'll figure out the rest from there. AFAIK that's because they're rather paranoid; and believe everything that's more than fwvm (or how are these bare-windowmanagers called?) is a security risk. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!