This makes me happy
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| bigg May 01, 2008 5:43 AM EDT |
...that I don't use OpenBSD. Ah, the days of junior high. I hated those days. Now I remember why. |
| tuxchick May 01, 2008 7:41 AM EDT |
No kidding. RMS says "I won't recommend OpenBSD for foo reasons" and Theo goes off on an endless, unforgiving rant rampage. RMS should, at the very least, be flogged for his crime. I thought RMS' reasons were kind of dumb, but having a continual hissy over "I won't recommend.."? Sheesh. Theo needs a real job. |
| jdixon May 01, 2008 8:30 AM EDT |
> Theo needs a real job. It's really difficult to make Stallman look socially adept, but Theo manages. |
| tuxchick May 01, 2008 9:39 AM EDT |
haha jdixon, good one :D |
| Steven_Rosenber May 01, 2008 11:40 AM EDT |
Yeah, the songs are pretty dumb, but on the right hardware, OpenBSD is a pretty nice system. The whole OpenBSD argument with Stallman hinges on the fact that the non-free software isn't really "in" OpenBSD. Such software is only installable through Ports. There are no precompiled packages for these programs. The source code itself isn't even on the OpenBSD servers. Instead, via ports, the users runs a series of scripts that fetch the source code from the program's own, Web or FTP site and then compiles it, producing an installable package on the users own box, which is then installed. So it's like grabbing the source code yourself, compiling it and installing it, except that the process is automated. So for these non-free programs, OpenBSD gives you the tools to get them if you wish -- but it doesn't produce packages -- like in Debian, Ubuntu, etc. -- that live on any OpenBSD servers. So it's really up to the user. If they want the software, they can get it, and if they don't want it, then they don't have to install the port. OpenBSD does have precompiled packages -- nearly 5,000, I think, for i386, but this disputed software isn't part of the package collection that does live on the OpenBSD servers. So you can look it as an "enhanced" form of freedom. OpenBSD isn't barring its users from using these nonfree applications. It's the user's choice. That's the kind of freedom that OpenBSD is all about. It isn't about asking the user before installing a nonfree driver that's already precompiled and in the repositories (again, a la Debian and Ubuntu) but, again, giving the user the tools to fetch what he/she needs to prepare and use the app. I don't think it's 100 percent kosher, but it's no less kosher that what many Linux distros do. For me personally, I can't deal with the length of time it takes for ports to build, so I'm happy to stick with precompiled packages in OpenBSD and FreeBSD, especially because I use one of the systems that have a lot of packages prebuilt. For some of the more obscure architectures, you have to use ports for everything ... |
| jdixon May 01, 2008 1:23 PM EDT |
> I don't think it's 100 percent kosher, but it's no less kosher that what many Linux distros do. Exactly. Pot, meet kettle. Yet that's exactly the same position Stallman takes with Linux distributions, so the worst you can say about him is that he's being consistent. Theo is behaving like a spoiled brat. |
| Steven_Rosenber May 01, 2008 1:46 PM EDT |
OpenBSD is a not-all-that-benevolent dictatorship. It gives the project a certain focus. But all that is out on the table -- no surprises there. Basically, if it works for you, great. If not, try something else. I have one laptop that responds very well to OpenBSD, another not so much. The project focuses on what its developers want and need out of it. I think they like having people use their system, but they would rather that the system speak for itself. And it's saying "Love me. If you want to change me, start coding. Otherwise, shove off." |
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!