- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
OpenBSD: The proverbial thrill of victory ... and the agony of defeat
This article originally posted on Click So giddy was I that the OpenBSD CD agreed to boot on my converted Maxspeed Maxterm thin client (with a VIA C3 Samuel processor that wouldn't allow the install of FreeBSD, NetBSD, DesktopBSD or PC-BSD) that I immediately launched into an install today.
Whoa. I did OK. I even got my network configuration right. The option to dual-boot (with Windows, anyway) is covered, but I wiped out my CentOS 3.9 drive just to make things easier. On something so foreign, I didn't want any more complication than necessary. Once the installation got under way, I realized why DesktopBSD and PC-BSD exist. Even FreeBSD offers more than OpenBSD in its raw install. I selected every package offered on the CD, and I ended up with:
The base system That's it. No window manager -- not even Fluxbox. No apps to speak of. I had xterm and xclock -- the docs said that the text-based Lynx browser was part of the base install, so I opened up an xterm window, typed lynx at the prompt ... and got lynx. I entered a Web address, and the site came up in all its text-only glory. So next I figured that I would get the ports tree. It's lucky I know what a ports tree is from my experience in DesktopBSD, during which adding ports didn't really work ... but I learned enough, at least. So I've got a base system and rudimentary X -- and if I want a traditional desktop install, I'm gonna have to build it piece by piece from PORTS? Oy. I followed the instructions for awhile. I got the ports tree from the FTP site. I even installed fluxbox. Not that it would run afterward. Let's see ... I had a window manager, albeit one I couldn't load; now it was only a couple hundred pkg_add commands before I had something I could work with. ... You need a good book with specific instructions on building a desktop system opened right in front of you. If such a thing exists. ("The OpenBSD 4.1 Crash Course," from O'Reilly has a chapter on desktop use ... but I'm not holding my breath.) If you're a completely formed Unix geek, want to go beyond the traditional Linux distribution, know exactly what you want, package by package (or port by port), have wrung all you can out of Slackware, Gentoo, Debian and Red Hat, are an absolute fanatic about security and want a locked-down server, OpenBSD might be for you. And if you're that sort of person, you don't need me to tell you ... anything. You know way more than I do -- by orders of magnitude. I'm not worthy, just as OpenBSD is not worthy of functioning on the desktop for all but the most ardent, skilled users who like to start from scratch and build exactly what they want from the command line. The question that remains: Why would you want to? Honestly, getting Debian and Slackware up and running is about 100 times easier than this. Even Gentoo, with its step-by-step process for building a system from the ground up, seems more doable. And when it does load, FreeBSD was quite a bit easier to deal with. Of course, PC-BSD and DesktopBSD have way better installers, but my luck didn't hold after the systems were up and running. Thus far, on my Gateway laptop (which, unlike the VIA box, will boot and install all BSDs), I've had PC-BSD load up pretty well, even though many of the easy-to-install PBI apps were either out of date or didn't work all that well. I've seen my DesktopBSD system die when the ports I installed didn't work, and the promise of FreeBSD was unfulfilled when I didn't allocate enough disk space (surely the installer could've told me this BEFORE I was 4/5ths of the way through the install). None (except PC-BSD 1.3, not 1.4) managed my Gateway's fan. I really don't want to be in the position of slamming BSD, but to mention it in the same league as Linux -- it's just not ready. All the talk of adults being in charge, a less-chaotic development system and any other supposed stability fades quickly in the face of actual BSD use. The BSDs may be good in the server room (I say may because I'm not a sysadmin), but Linux -- in its hundreds of distributions catering to every kind of user -- has the kind of momentum on the desktop that BSD is nowhere near tapping for itself. |
|
|
Comments (22)
IMHO, OpenBSD isn't that hard
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Please insert clue to continue.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ...
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 ...
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.
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.
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)
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)
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
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.