Please insert clue to continue.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| majorproblem Nov 08, 2007 12:31 AM EDT |
It's painful to see people even failing to get the simplest facts.
OpenBSD comes with three window manager: cwm, fvwm (default) and twm.
It also provides packages so you don't need to build your applications from source (with a few exceptions with restrictive licenses that deny distribution of binary packages). Why, oh why, is it so hard to get a clue before posting an article like that? My - also uneducated - guess is, that the author is just biased. |
| jdixon Nov 08, 2007 8:59 AM EDT |
> Why, oh why, is it so hard to get a clue before posting an article like that? Uhm, because the person in question has never used OpenBSD before, and knows very little about it? > My - also uneducated - guess is, that the author is just biased. Yeah. He went out of his way to try out all of the BSD's, and when he finally got one that would install, he described the pros and cons as he saw them. That's really some bias he's got going there. |
| Steven_Rosenber Nov 08, 2007 9:24 AM EDT |
The fact that OpenBSD would boot at all on my test machine -- something NetBSD, FreeBSD and all of the latter's derivatives (DesktopBSD and PC-BSD) wouldn't do -- is an achievement in itself. And as far as the X environment goes ... so THAT's fvwm ... never used it before. Looked like bare ol' X to me. I don't write from the viewpoint of the seasoned Unix geek, because I am not one. The learning process is part of what -- and why -- I write. It's about the journey from newbie to ... slightly more knowledgeable newbie. There's room enough for all levels of people to both use these operating systems and applications as well as write about them. How many OpenBSD reviews do you see in a week (month or year, for that matter)? Not too many. And most don't go into any depth. They usually just go over the features and sign off. When I started the install, I had no idea how it would go. I imagined that it would be somewhat like FreeBSD. Nope. And I haven't heard anybody else say that -- to call it out, as it were. I'm just trying to impart how installing OpenBSD differs from other systems by orders of degree. With 10 being extremely easy, 1 being extremely difficult, I'll put Ubuntu at 10, Debian at 9, Slackware at 7, FreeBSD at 5, and OpenBSD at 2. In other words, Slackware and Debian -- famed for being "difficult," are nothing of the soft. But OpenBSD is really, truly difficult. I was able to get the base system installed, and I might try again. But I was shocked at how hard it was to just get the standard install done. If OpenSolaris is producing a desktop-ready live CD and users of FreeBSD care enough to a)_have a credible desktop install part of the main distro and b) produce two offshoots (DesktopBSD and PC-BSD), OpenBSD, with its installer, really says, "experts only -- and experts with a whole lot of time on their hands." And I'm not saying that I won't try OpenBSD again. While the install was difficult, the whole thing did work. I probably need to spend a great deal of time with a couple of BSD books. Yes, I know the difference between precompiled packages and ports. Not that I've been able to do much with ports. If I had a Gentoo-type step-by-step how-to, I could get further with OpenBSD. Otherwise, I just don't know enough. Would it be worth it? I'm not sure. The security component of OpenBSD is key. I guess I wish somebody would make it easier to run OpenBSD on the desktop, either though the OpenBSD installer itself or via a DesktopBSD-type offshoot. But as it stands, OpenBSD -- for my purposes, anyway -- just doesn't compare with FreeBSD or the many Linux distros out there. It's nice to build up a system from scratch, if that's the way you want to do it. But it's also nice to have some, most or all of the dirty work done for you. I've said many times, I want to like BSD. I want it to be a credible competitor to Linux. But in my experience, the pudding's not quite set. |
| bigg Nov 08, 2007 9:43 AM EDT |
From the little that I've played with it, BSD seems to be what Linux was c. 2000. The users say it is something magical that will solve all your problems, but it is a LOT of work. I see no reason to even waste time on BSD because I don't see a lot of advantages over Linux. Maybe if I worked with it for six months my experiences would be different, but I tend to see RTFM as the standard answer in BSD circles, and thus it is not worth my time. I have no desire to look through a fifty page chapter that has a vague reference to my problem hidden in a footnote. majorproblem's post certainly hasn't changed my opinion. "It's painful to see people even failing to get the simplest facts." That statement says a lot about the attitude towards new users. Again, this may be wrong, but I have never been impressed with BSD. |
| jdixon Nov 08, 2007 9:45 AM EDT |
> That statement says a lot about the attitude towards new users. In my experience, the BSD folks sometimes make the Slackware fora seem mild mannered and kind by comparison. And since the Slackware fora are nothing of the kind... > but I have never been impressed with BSD. I'm actually very impressed with the BSD's, especially OpenBSD. The users and developers on the other hand... There are undoubtedly uses for which the BSD's work better than Linux. Desktop use is not one of them. |
| Sander_Marechal Nov 08, 2007 1:40 PM EDT |
My foray into non-MS operating systems actually started with FreeBSD, not Linux. At the time I was hugely impressed with it, especially with the ports system. Back when I was on Win32 I developed software in C++. Compiling someone else's source code was always a hit-or-miss operation. Usually a miss. The first time I saw FreeBSD compile hundreds of packages in succession without a single error to build the OS was nothing short of magic to me. |
| majorproblem Nov 08, 2007 10:59 PM EDT |
As usual i'm just upset by false assumptions, regardless _why_ they're wrong. My attitude towards new users is: don't be biased, and, RTFM of course (where's the superior documentation mentioned that comes with OpenBSD?)! The article compares things a _new_ user clearly is not able to judge, so either you say it's an article from someone who hasn't seen anything else before and thus can't compare, or it's from a person with prior knowledge and thus shouldn't write an article with that kind of inaccurate information in it. |
| jdixon Nov 09, 2007 7:09 AM EDT |
> As usual i'm just upset by false assumptions, regardless _why_ they're wrong. So you've always been a jerk then, not just when it comes to BSD. Thanks for telling us that. Explaining that false assumptions are false is one thing. Being upset about them is another. > ...so either you say it's an article from someone who hasn't seen anything else before and thus can't compare... What part of the first paragraph did you fail to understand? It's quite clear from that paragraph that this is his first successful attempt at installing one of the BSD's. |
| Steven_Rosenber Nov 09, 2007 9:30 AM EDT |
I spent quite a bit of time about a month ago with PC-BSD and DesktopBSD. I found both to be pretty well-done, except for issues I had with packages and ports. In PC-BSD, the quality of the pre-done PBI packages wasn't consistent enough. Some apps worked, others didn't, and other were a bit too old. DesktopBSD is OK, too. when I tried to install software from ports, I also had problems -- nothing seemed to work. Not as foolproof as Debian and Slackware. Still, I think ports are a great idea, and I am committed to trying again. I would've kept one of the BSDs on my laptop, but I had power-management issues. I'm sure if I was way better at hacking the config files, I could've at least managed the fan with a cron job, but I'm not quite there yet. And since Debian, Ubuntu and CentOS have support for my particular ACPI setup, I've stuck with those for the time being. Certainly it would behoove me to do some substantial reading on how to modify the Linux kernel and, in turn, the BSD kernel. But as one commenter said, BSD is where LInux was in 2000. It's harder, but I keep asking myself if it's worth it. And I still don't know. |
| tuxchick Nov 09, 2007 9:52 AM EDT |
It doesn't take much experience with Linux to realize how far advanced it is beyond other operating systems in flexibility and ease-of-use. Smart Unix admins install as many of the utilities we take for granted as they can just to bring a bit of light into their dark, cold lives. Linux may fall a bit short in stability (compared to unixes, anyway, not That Big Icky Monopolistic One, which is a joke on wheels), but that's a small tradeoff for its phenomenal speed of development, adaptability, and usability. Anyone who claims that the Big Icky Monopolistic One is more usable or in any way better is ignorant or insane. Macs are touted for their "usability", but I never did warm up to the Mac way of doing things, even though my very first computer ever was a Mac. It felt restrictive and galling and bizarre. The BSDs all have their strengths, and if I were running big super-important Web servers I might go with FreeBSD. But overall, I think Linux comes out ahead in nearly every category. |
| bigg Nov 09, 2007 10:07 AM EDT |
> Anyone who claims that the Big Icky Monopolistic One is more usable or in any way better is ignorant or insane. The phrase "Windows just works" might well cause me to explode someday. It's quite an insult because it implies I'm not smart enough to do what anyone else can do, because it doesn't just work for me. As for BSD, my only gripe is that they don't clearly state the reasons you would be interested in BSD. In particular, a user fed up with Windows might try BSD and judge all alternative OSes by that standard. I tried it probably a year ago after reading about how wonderful it is as a desktop OS. |
| Steven_Rosenber Nov 09, 2007 10:12 AM EDT |
When it comes to Mac OS X, I'm surprised at what you can do with it in terms of its Unix underpinnings. I have this book -- http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/macxtigerunix/ -- which assumes you have some Unix experience. I had no idea that there's a utility called fink that works like apt, and that you can throw X11 on a Mac and run KDE, GNOME or what have you. Mind you, I don't quite see the point, but the fact that you can do it is pretty amazing. While it's not in the realm of "amazing," it's a cool thing to open a terminal window in OS X and run top or the pico or vi editors. And if you really like punishment, you can use mutt to read your mail. O'Reilly has another book that is aimed at the Mac user who has no Unix experience: http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/ltigerunix/ But since I have more fun running Linux on throwaway PCs, the point escapes me somewhat. |
| hkwint Nov 11, 2007 7:00 AM EDT |
Quoting:Certainly it would behoove me to do some substantial reading on how to modify the Linux kernel and, in turn, the BSD kernel. But as one commenter said, BSD is where LInux was in 2000. That has its merits. Back in 2003 (not even long ago!) it took me half an hour to configure a Linux 2.4 kernel, and then I went through every menu. It took me the same amount of time to do it in OpenBSD, though it had less options, but I used the aXe editor to configure the kernel. Right now, customizing a Linux 2.6.23 kernel and going through almost all menus is a real nightmare, if you want to understand what you're turning on and of (you have to read the explanations); it takes multiple hours to do it right. Also, once I had "mc" running on BSD it wasn't that hard either, since I had used the derived 'Windows Commander' before (the Windows derivate is graphical while mc isn't, but nonetheless I understood how it worked). Also, I heard configuring a firewall in OpenBSD is much easier than in Linux (OpenBSD uses packet-filter instead of iptables), and when it comes to manuals, *BSD also provides the better because they use examples (look at 'man sudo' in your Linux-box and you'll see how a BSD man-page looks). When it comes to quality of code and pro-active security audits, I guess Linux is years behind of OpenBSD. In my opinion, there's also a more clear vision and lead in the *BSD projects; it's less 'organic but Linus rules'. However, I have to agree for most people this isn't an issue, and I also agree most computer-users are better of using Linux than the old *BSD's (it's what I do!) I applaud Stevens brave attempt to try OpenBSD, since there are not much Linux-users saying 'Linux is better or simpler' who also really tried OpenBSD, and most of them don't know how 'locked in' to Linux-ways of getting things done they really are. If one however did really try OpenBSD, then I have no problem with them saying it lacks. My own opinion is, apart from the installation process, once the basic configuration is done OpenBSD is not much more difficult than Debian (and I really missed the examples in the man-pages when I started using Linux! I also hate the info-pages, but that's just my unwillingness to learn and actually remember info-commandos). Indeed, there isn't any help for newbies when it comes to using OpenBSD as your desktop distribution; I should write something about this within the next few weeks. However, when it comes to OpenBSD, the big 'secret' is one has to look at the NetBSD help / documentation. I wish I had some more time, then I could write a nice 'OpenBSD on the desktop' article with nice VMWare screenshots. Sadly, the next few weeks I will be drafting mechanical stuff behind my Windows computer, because that's the only OS Autodesk products run on. Still four months of work left, and only Nov. and Dec. to finish it, so you'll understand my intentions to write stuff for LXer are in the freezer at this moment. |
| Steven_Rosenber Nov 12, 2007 9:51 AM EDT |
I do not give up. Right now I'm running the FreeSBIE 2.0.1 live CD (http://www.freesbie.org/) -- based on FreeBSD. I figured out how to set my static IP from the command line (it's ever so slightly different from Linux -- and yes, I will write about it soon), and I'm working on the cron job to manage my laptop's noisy fan. I've written about FreeSBIE rather negatively before -- it's nowhere near the level of most Linux live CDs, but now that I know some of its quirks (and have a whole lot more experience at figuring out my way around them), I'm ready to fight another day. And just as with Linux, I like to experiment with a live CD before committing to a full hard-drive install. By the way, I've tried out a few Debian Live CDs (http://debian-live.alioth.debian.org/) and will report on those soon, too. Talk about a project that doesn't get a lot of publicity but is quite worthwhile ... |
| hkwint Nov 13, 2007 2:27 PM EDT |
That's good, but don't get into *BSD to much, because soon you will have difficulties working with Linux! Just joking, but on the other hand I can remember my confusion when 'ifconfig' in Gentoo didn't do what I thought it to do, because Linux 'ifconfig' needs more arguments than *BSD's one. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask me, maybe I can help (but probably the answer is out there in the 900 page FreeBSD manual you mentioned). Good to hear you're writing about Debian, I'm quite interested in that distro - since I never used it apart from a game-server or for testing its install, and these days Debian reviews are hard to find. |
| Steven_Rosenber Nov 13, 2007 4:17 PM EDT |
I ran into that exact problem in Linux, it's # route add default gw 192.9.200,266 but in BSD, it's #route add default 192.9.200.266 (no gw) |
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!