OpenBSD Journal

Developer blog - beck@: OpenBSD as a desktop - Hotplugd and iPods

Contributed by deanna on from the not-just-for-routers dept.

Bob Beck (beck@) writes:

My kids at home run dual boot machines. They boot Windows for gaming, and when their school work demands they do it.

However, because long ago I got tired of windows viruses and dealing with de-scumming the windows machine I made a simple rule. Minimal internet access from windows. Because schoolwork may demand it, I do let the windows machine have web contact to the outside, yes, I know this is risky, but it's a long stretch from allowing everything, especially chat protocols etc. However, doing that has another side effect.

My kids want to do things like chat and email, etc. Since it simply won't work from Windows, they are simply more likely to do that stuff from the other side of the machine, where things are unrestricted - that side runs OpenBSD.

For all the naysayers who think OpenBSD doesn't make a "desktop" operating system, OpenBSD with a reasonably full set of ports installed seems to do just fine, and my kids are living proof. It's interesting, because as a long time unix user I usually can't be bothered to figure out how all the "bloatware" applications in ports work, I can get done what I need without them. However, after installing the bloat for my kids they figure out what they need just fine.

My "reasonably full" ports install for my kids is OpenBSD 4.0 with:

  • kde and all the goodies (koffice, etc.)
  • openoffice
  • jdk (gotta have java games)
  • xmms (gotta have music)
  • xpdf
  • gaim (heavy use by my daughter for chat)
  • gnumeric
  • firefox
  • thunderbird
  • blender (my son is a blender addict fascinated with graphics)
  • and some other stuff.

My hat's off to the ports developers for the fact that most of this (scary) stuff works and works well.

Interestingly, my kids actually end up doing most of their schoolwork on OpenBSD, not windows. OpenOffice and koffice stuff gets lots of use, I haven't had to do any handholding (which is good, because I don't personally use any of them much). I have spent $325 (canadian) on a LexMark 510 Laser printer that understands postscript, so all the printing "just works" instead of screwing around with a cups/sillyfilter/ghostscript craziness to support "proprietary" printers (i.e. inkjets that need a proprietary driver). So once they can print and deal with the word and powerpoint docs they find, they tend not to bother with windows, except for gaming.

A challenge was my daughter's ipod nano. Enter gtkpod, from ports. gtkpod works pretty well with her nano, to let her move music on and off it, however, I had to give her all sorts of sudo craziness to mount it and tell her to manually unmount it, etc. etc. While she got it it was a bit of a pain, compared to her friends with macs. (where you just plug it in and it goes).

I also got her a usb thumb drive to sneakernet big things back and forth with her friends and to school.

Now my daughter has a dedicated machine, so I was thinking, how could I make her machine do the right thing for her.

Enter hotplugd(8).

hotplugd notices hotplug devices (like usb sticks and ipod nanos) coming and going. It can then run an "attach" and a "detach" script whenever it sees something happen.

After reading the man page, it took me about 20 minutes to come up with the following, which I have in /etc/hotplug/attach on cathryn's machine:

/etc/hotplug/attach:

#!/bin/ksh

DEVCLASS=$1
DEVNAME=$2

case $DEVCLASS in
    2)
     # disk devices
    disklabel=`/sbin/disklabel $DEVNAME | grep '^label:' | \
        sed -e 's/^label: //'`
    case $disklabel in
        iPod*)
                           # Apple ipod - mount, run gtkpod as cathryn.
        (mount_msdos -o nodev,nosuid -u 1012 -g 1012 /dev/"$DEVNAME"j /mnt/ipod && \
        su cathryn -c "(export DISPLAY=:0 && /usr/local/bin/gtkpod)" ; \
        sleep 1; sync ; umount /mnt/ipod) &
        ;;
        USB?Flash?Disk*)
                           # Rally or other USB flash disk.
        mount_msdos -o nodev,nosuid -u 1012 -g 1012 /dev/"$DEVNAME"i /mnt/flash
        ;;
    esac
    ;;
    3)
    # network devices
    #/sbin/dhclient $DEVNAME
    ;;
esac

Now of course, this is customized for Cathryn's computer, but you should be able to get the idea.

With this, if she plugs in her ipod when logged in, up pops gtkpod - she can do what she likes, and once she exits gtkpod, the ipod is safely unmounted and ready to be unplugged ("just like a mac").

OTOH, if she plugs in her thumb drive, it too automatically gets mounted on /mnt/flash, and she can easily use it. (although in this mode of use she has been told to type "sync" in a shell before unplugging it - a detach script isn't really needed, the usb layer handles unplugs and umounts now cleanly if you yank the device. :)

Anyway, ymmv, but have fun with hotplugd.

-Bob

(Comments are closed)


Comments
  1. By Anonymous Coward (137.122.26.246) on

    In sync(2) in the BUGS section:

    sync() may return before the buffers are completely flushed.

    Might this not potentially cause problems?

    Comments
    1. By Bob Beck (129.128.11.43) beck@openbsd.org on http://www.humppa.com/

      > In sync(2) in the BUGS section:
      >
      > sync() may return before the buffers are completely flushed.
      >
      > Might this not potentially cause problems?

      No.

      the sync in the script is actually superfluous (old habits die hard)
      since the umount will flush the buffers :)

      Comments
      1. By Anonymous Coward (70.48.0.176) on

        > > sync() may return before the buffers are completely flushed.
        >
        > No.
        >
        > the sync in the script is actually superfluous (old habits die hard)
        > since the umount will flush the buffers :)

        And for the case of the thumb drive?

        Comments
        1. By Bob Beck (129.128.11.43) beck@openbsd.org on

          > > > sync() may return before the buffers are completely flushed.
          > >
          > > No.
          > >
          > > the sync in the script is actually superfluous (old habits die hard)
          > > since the umount will flush the buffers :)
          >
          > And for the case of the thumb drive?

          Won't matter - a "sync" in userland starts the process. sync(2)
          returns from the kernel before the buffers are completely flushed, however at this point the kernel is flushing the buffers - meaning, it's going
          to complete as fast as it can make it to disk. I.E. it is completely
          not a problem for a normal user situation of someone in meatspace having to type it, and move their hand down then take out a usb key. You are spreading FUD.

          Comments
          1. By Terrell Prude', Jr. (68.167.146.78) on

            >You are spreading FUD.

            I'm not seeing the FUD here, Bob. If you're copying over a large file, say a 650MB ISO image (I actually do this regularly), and sync does return before the buffers are indeed flushed, you could have an incomplete file physically stored on the USB thumb drive at that moment. Remember that it can take several minutes--not mere seconds--to copy over large files to USB thumb drives (they're convenient--not speedy). A user sees sync returning in this situation, and he/she then thinks, "ah, it's safe to pull out the thumb drive now!" Unfortunately, the buffers aren't done flushing yet.

            Would not a umount command be safer here?

            --TP

            Comments
            1. By Janne Johansson (130.237.95.193) jj@inet6.se on

              > >You are spreading FUD.
              >
              > I'm not seeing the FUD here, Bob. If you're copying over a large file, say a 650MB ISO image (I actually do this regularly), and sync does return before the buffers are indeed flushed, you could have an incomplete file physically stored on the USB thumb drive at that moment.

              Sync will exit when it's a fairly small amount left to copy in such a case, not when there's 649M in some buffer, so his statement might still hold for such a case.

              Comments
              1. By Terrell Prude', Jr. (68.167.146.78) on

                > > >You are spreading FUD.
                > >
                > > I'm not seeing the FUD here, Bob. If you're copying over a large file, say a 650MB ISO image (I actually do this regularly), and sync does return before the buffers are indeed flushed, you could have an incomplete file physically stored on the USB thumb drive at that moment.
                >
                > Sync will exit when it's a fairly small amount left to copy in such a case, not when there's 649M in some buffer, so his statement might still hold for such a case.
                >

                Ah, OK. Worth a little experimentation on my part.

                --TP

    2. By Anonymous Coward (203.15.102.65) on

      > In sync(2) in the BUGS section:
      >
      > sync() may return before the buffers are completely flushed.
      >
      > Might this not potentially cause problems?

      The Unix lore is to sync;sync;sync.

  2. By Anonymous Coward (65.243.149.146) on

    evince is a very nice replacement for xpdf

    Also, there are some patches just posted to tech for supporting 2048 bytes/sector devices, including the 8gb nano, 80gb ipod, and 2nd gen shuffle.

    Comments
    1. By Anonymous Coward (69.207.171.114) on

      > evince is a very nice replacement for xpdf

      As someone who uses xpdf and is happy with it, what makes evince better? Just curious to know what I'm missing.

      Comments
      1. By Anonymous Coward (65.243.149.146) on

        > > evince is a very nice replacement for xpdf
        >
        > As someone who uses xpdf and is happy with it, what makes evince better? Just curious to know what I'm missing.

        It has a slightly more modern looking interface than xpdf. It can show page thumbnails down the side. It has continuous and dual page layout modes, and overall nicer rendering. On the other hand it probably has a lot more dependencies and uses a little more resources than xpdf.

        Try it out and see if you like it...

        Comments
        1. By sthen (85.158.44.146) on

          > It has a slightly more modern looking interface than xpdf.

          not everyone likes those gnome buttons (and the amount of vertical space they take up) :-)

          > It can show page thumbnails down the side. It has continuous and dual page layout modes,

          xpdf does have continuous mode (maybe not immediately obvious - you need to right-click on the document to select it). no dual though.

          > and overall nicer rendering.

          I'll give you this, but it's a lot slower at paging through documents, I find the 'Loading...' makes it quite annoying to flick through a pdf manual to find something (think I'd prefer if it left the old page up until the next was ready). I guess it probably gives you a better experience on a fast computer with a larger screen though :-)

          Comments
          1. By dingo (198.208.251.24) on

            > > and overall nicer rendering.
            >
            > I'll give you this, but it's a lot slower at paging through documents, I find the 'Loading...' makes it quite annoying to flick through a pdf manual to find something (think I'd prefer if it left the old page up until the next was ready). I guess it probably gives you a better experience on a fast computer with a larger screen though :-)

            I've had slow machines before, but I never cared to do much with them in X11. Now that I have a zaurus, I have to avoid the k* and g* packages entirely. Absolutely ridiculous the amount of resources they use. xcalc, xclipboard, windowmaker, xterm, xpdf, and plain vi (not vim) have fulfilled almost all of my basic needs.

            Back to the subject at hand -- I use hotplugd as well for my compact flash cards in my zaurus, as well as some network devices. I especially like running /bin/sh /etc/netstart $2 on insert. I can swap mp3 cf cards while I drive, and the mp3's just autoplay.

          2. By Anonymous Coward (203.15.102.65) on

            > I'll give you this, but it's a lot slower at paging through documents, I find the 'Loading...' makes it quite annoying to flick through a pdf manual to find something (think I'd prefer if it left the old page up until the next was ready). I guess it probably gives you a better experience on a fast computer with a larger screen though :-)

            The benefit of free software is that you have some choices. :D

      2. By Dunceor (192.16.134.66) on

        > > evince is a very nice replacement for xpdf
        >
        > As someone who uses xpdf and is happy with it, what makes evince better? Just curious to know what I'm missing.

        Hmm xpdf if nice but I got one problem with it. I can't have it run full screen because if I do full screen some parts of the pdf get stuck. Or just get black. I can't get this to work with any pdf. either created with pdflatex or created by adobe acrobat.
        I have tried gpdf but wasan't very good either.

        I'll take a look at evince then.

        // Dunceor

        Comments
        1. By Anonymous Coward (85.108.4.16) on

          There is also something called kpdf in kdegraphics. I don't know if it's any better though.

          Comments
          1. By Anonymous Coward (64.233.199.212) on

            > There is also something called kpdf in kdegraphics. I don't know if it's any better though.
            >
            >

            kpdf is very nice in my opinion. It is able to generate pages in the background.

            Comments
            1. By Anonymous Coward (64.233.199.212) on

              > > There is also something called kpdf in kdegraphics. I don't know if it's any better though.
              > >
              > >
              >
              > kpdf is very nice in my opinion. It is able to generate pages in the background.

              Just gave evince a try and it seems to render faster than kpdf.

        2. By Anonymous Coward (84.204.68.14) on

          > Hmm xpdf if nice but I got one problem with it. I can't have it run full
          > screen because if I do full screen some parts of the pdf get stuck. Or
          > just get black. I can't get this to work with any pdf. either created
          > with pdflatex or created by adobe acrobat.

          try running with predefined geometry, e.g:

          xpdf -g 1000x700


          > I have tried gpdf but wasan't very good either.
          >
          > I'll take a look at evince then.
          >
          > // Dunceor

  3. By Anonymous Coward (68.227.41.220) on

    doesn't unplugging a umass device force the umount now?

    this hotplugd setup is basically what I have working with my iPod shuffle, but I was wondering if it was worth looking at dbus to make this more generic.

  4. By Will (82.45.226.191) on

    This was an interesting read.

    I would love to use OpenBSD as my desktop system, but the lack of DRI support puts me off. My desire for DRI is down to the XvMC magic which it enables. From reading the mailing list archives it appears that some work has been done on this, but it isn't yet up to much. Has anyone out there investigated this further?

    Comments
    1. By Archite (67.181.117.42) adam@akarsoft.com on

      > This was an interesting read.
      >
      > I would love to use OpenBSD as my desktop system, but the lack of DRI support puts me off. My desire for DRI is down to the XvMC magic which it enables. From reading the mailing list archives it appears that some work has been done on this, but it isn't yet up to much. Has anyone out there investigated this further?

      Well, though not 100% related to DRI, per se, I believe that this post says a lot about issues modern video cards. We could either give up security to run pretty screensaver and games or have the secure operating system that we all know and love. I think that I would rather have the latter.

      http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=114233317926101

      Comments
      1. By Will (82.45.226.191) on

        > Well, though not 100% related to DRI, per se, I believe that this post says a lot about issues modern video cards. We could either give up security to run pretty screensaver and games or have the secure operating system that we all know and love. I think that I would rather have the latter.
        >
        > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=114233317926101

        Thanks for the link; it was food for thought.
        Presumably, then, a DRI implementation wouldn't function through the aperture, leaving the system less secure. I may very well be wrong though. Even if DRI could not be implemented with the security barrier, many of us I'm sure would at least like the option to take the same risk of other OS users for the gain of useful things like video motion compensation. Not everyone has a fast machine..

  5. By Deysha (68.106.145.187) on

    I just wanted to say, as a growing admin and fond OpenBSD User Thanks!!

  6. By Anonymous Coward (68.148.1.194) on

    will make the "do not unplug me" message of the ipod go away, allow
    you to use the ipod while charging/plugged in to the usb port...

    Just another thing to add after the umount... :)

    -T.

    Comments
    1. By Bob Beck (129.128.11.43) beck@openbsd.org on

      > will make the "do not unplug me" message of the ipod go away, allow
      > you to use the ipod while charging/plugged in to the usb port...
      >
      > Just another thing to add after the umount... :)
      >
      > -T.
      >

      Hmm. thanks! Added to it :)

      -Bob

  7. By Anonymous Coward (64.157.15.26) on

    Thanks a lot. I'll use these tips.

  8. By Nicram (84.40.176.68) nicram@bsdzine.org on http://nicram.sytes.net/

    OpenBSD may work as desktop OS. But it's not desktop OS & i think it will never be. Real desktop OS is like when Your children will be able to install all of that themselves & run it without configuring anything (or they will be able to do it without Your help). My mom use OpenBSD sometimes, but i was the person that nistall everything that she needs. Desktop OS that need someone to configure it & install stuff that someone need is not real desktop OS :)

    Comments
    1. By grg (219.90.242.223) on

      What a load of crap, by your definition there are no desktop OSs. Can your mum install and setup windows? Mine can't.

      Comments
      1. By Nicram (84.40.176.68) nicram@bsdzine.org on http://nicram.sytes.net/

        > What a load of crap, by your definition there are no desktop OSs. Can your mum install and setup windows? Mine can't.

        I didn's say anything about installing OS itself. I ment installing apps & configure it. Or configure Windows for example (network, display config etc.).

        Comments
        1. By Anonymous Coward (68.167.146.78) on

          > I didn's say anything about installing OS itself. I ment installing apps & configure it. Or configure Windows for example (network, display config etc.).
          >

          In that case, MS Windows is indeed not a "true desktop OS," either. Neither of my parents knows how to configure Windows in this way. I know, because I had to step them through assigning an IP address over the phone. I'm just glad I remembered how to do it from memory; it's been a while since I've used Windows 2000/XP.

    2. By Anonymous Coward (62.252.32.12) on

      > Desktop OS that need someone to configure it & install stuff that someone need is not real desktop OS :)

      Feel free to show me this magical operating system which can be completely configured and installed by the novice user.

      Comments
      1. By Anonymous Coward (83.5.194.87) on

        > Feel free to show me this magical operating system which can be completely configured and installed by the novice user.
        >

        OS/400?

        Comments
        1. By Anonymous Coward (210.138.62.130) on

          > > Feel free to show me this magical operating system which can be completely configured and installed by the novice user.
          > >
          >
          > OS/400?
          >

          many lulz

      2. By Nicram (84.40.176.68) nicram@bsdzine.org on http://nicram.sytes.net/

        > > Desktop OS that need someone to configure it & install stuff that someone need is not real desktop OS :)
        >
        > Feel free to show me this magical operating system which can be completely configured and installed by the novice user.
        >

        I didn't say about installing OS. I ment apps (install stuff is not install OS). But well. My friend got new laptop. He bought it week ago. After that he by accident format HDD. He got no problems at all with wnidows XP install. It is his first PC & Windows install. He didn't use any guide :)

        Second example is configuring networkfor example. Making WiFi connection or LAN connection under Windows is for example not problematic at all. Even my mom can do that. Just plug cable & work. Or click on open wifi network. This is desktop OS.

        Please don't advertise OpenBSD as desktop OS. It is not.

        Comments
        1. By Anonymous Coward (143.166.255.41) on

          Novice use does not constitute "dekstop" you imbecile.

        2. By Anonymous Coward (83.5.194.87) on

          > > > Desktop OS that need someone to configure it & install stuff that someone need is not real desktop OS :)
          > >
          > > Feel free to show me this magical operating system which can be completely configured and installed by the novice user.
          > >
          >
          > I didn't say about installing OS. I ment apps (install stuff is not install OS). But well. My friend got new laptop. He bought it week ago. After that he by accident format HDD. He got no problems at all with wnidows XP install. It is his first PC & Windows install. He didn't use any guide :)
          >
          > Second example is configuring networkfor example. Making WiFi connection or LAN connection under Windows is for example not problematic at all. Even my mom can do that. Just plug cable & work. Or click on open wifi network. This is desktop OS.
          >
          > Please don't advertise OpenBSD as desktop OS. It is not.
          >
          >

          When you buy a pre-installed XP laptop you very rarely get a full install CD, you usually get something called a recovery CD, afair this does not allow you to do a full fresh install (not sure as I just chuck these things).

          This is simply not true. If you install XP from scratch, you more often than not have to download NIC drivers from the manufacturer, which is usually fun without a network connection. This is nearly never true of OpenBSD, exception being non-redistributable binary blobs for wireless.

          Repeat with each hardware component until funny.

          Oh, but don't they give you driver CD's with the laptop you say?

          Example: I installed a new laptop for my sister the other week and half the included CD's were bent and unreadable, sure I can probably get them replaced but that probably involves calling customer service in Timbuktu, or filling out an array of web forms, then waiting 2 weeks.

          Please go install a 100 of each OS on varying hardware and come back with your thoughts.

          Comments
          1. By Nicram (84.40.176.68) nicram@bsdzine.org on http://nicram.sytes.net/

            > When you buy a pre-installed XP laptop you very rarely get a full install CD, you usually get something called a recovery CD, afair this does not allow you to do a full fresh install (not sure as I just chuck these things).
            >
            > This is simply not true. If you install XP from scratch, you more often than not have to download NIC drivers from the manufacturer, which is usually fun without a network connection. This is nearly never true of OpenBSD, exception being non-redistributable binary blobs for wireless.
            >
            > Repeat with each hardware component until funny.
            >
            > Oh, but don't they give you driver CD's with the laptop you say?
            >
            > Example: I installed a new laptop for my sister the other week and half the included CD's were bent and unreadable, sure I can probably get them replaced but that probably involves calling customer service in Timbuktu, or filling out an array of web forms, then waiting 2 weeks.
            >
            > Please go install a 100 of each OS on varying hardware and come back with your thoughts.

            He didn't buy new one laptop. It wasn't new. Someone sell it to him. The drivers for realtec NIC are there in OS already. So yes, it just works after that.

            Well, he didn't have to xorgconfig before making wnidows start. He didn't have to pkg_add some apps to make window menager look good (eyecandy). He didn't have to make few steps to make it use Polish language. etc. etc. & about the drivers. Well if Windows don't got them in base install it is problem. Wel You must get those CD's & click NEXT few times. But what will happend if someone get OpenBSD without them? Uhh, wait for another release, or check current, or try to port it from NetBSD to OpenBSD, recompile kernel & check, maybe it will work. Yeah. Really desktop friendly OS :)

            I don't say that OpenBSD is bad. Or that those things are bad, evil & 666. Just OpenBSD is not full desktop operating system. I know many of people here are making such things in 1 second. But wake up. John Smith don't have to know all those things. He just want his computer to work.
            For him even clicking NEXT is problematic.

            I don't wanna to say, that OpenBSD can't be used as desktop. Ofcourse it can & after all those things like writing script for iPod etc. it may work very nice. But someone have to first make it workingl ike that. & i'm sure John Smith is not the person, who would like to do it.

            Comments
            1. By Anonymous Coward (166.70.207.2) on

              > But wake up. John Smith don't have to know all those things. He just want his computer to work.
              > For him even clicking NEXT is problematic.
              >
              > I don't wanna to say, that OpenBSD can't be used as desktop. Ofcourse it can & after all those things like writing script for iPod etc. it may work very nice. But someone have to first make it workingl ike that. & i'm sure John Smith is not the person, who would like to do it.

              This is an extremely elitist attitude. Why are you so convinced that John Smith is an idiot? When I found computers in the early 90s, I was a 22 year old waitress. I dialed in to an AT&T UNIX machine and learned how to find my way around the internet. It was foreign, at first, but I eventually learned the basics, and I learned them the UNIX way, because that's all there was.

              If I had started out on a Windows machine instead, I don't see how it would have been any different, and I surely wouldn't have had a problem clicking NEXT if it got me to where I wanted to be. It's really all the same at this level: you have a computer and a person who wishes to interact with it. Between them is an operating system, which is much like a human language; you stutter a bit learning your first one, but then it comes quite naturally. It takes a bit of effort to learn a second, or a third, but anyone can do it.

              I am really sick of hearing this UNIX is hard, Windows is easy, people are stupid FUD. It's nothing but marketing.

              Comments
              1. By Nicram (84.40.176.68) nicram@bsdzine.org on http://nicram.sytes.net/

                > I am really sick of hearing this UNIX is hard, Windows is easy, people are stupid FUD. It's nothing but marketing.

                Have You a friends? Outside IT? You know, the problem is not that ppl are idiot. & i never think that. They just don't have time for computers so much to learn some things, when they can choose something simpler or easier for them. My friend like to fix cars. but sometimes he wanan to check some emails & browse few websites. So should he learn OpenBSD first, to make his desktop? How time that may take for him? Will this be longer than installing some Windows OS or something? Do he really have to know all that stuff?

                Do You really don't see that OpenBSD may be problematic? I think that "OpenBSD is great desktop OS" is just marketing ;)

                Comments
                1. By Anonymous Coward (66.199.184.254) on

                  > So should he learn OpenBSD first, to make his desktop?
                  > How time that may take for him? Will this be longer
                  > than installing some Windows OS or something?
                  > Do he really have to know all that stuff?

                  If it is easier for this person to learn Windows, it is because they already know it. Starting from scratch, I insist that there is no difference. I know this from having seen average college students (english majors and such) who learned on wyse terminals connected VMS freak out completely when placed before a Windows computer with a mouse. And seeing some of them pick up the mouse and try to make it work by placing it on the glass of the CRT. :-)

                  No computing knowledge comes naturally. It all has to be learned.

                2. By Anonymous Coward (201.52.7.237) on

                  > > I am really sick of hearing this UNIX is hard, Windows is easy, people are stupid FUD. It's nothing but marketing.
                  >
                  > Have You a friends? Outside IT? You know, the problem is not that ppl are idiot. & i never think that. They just don't have time for computers so much to learn some things, when they can choose something simpler or easier for them. My friend like to fix cars. but sometimes he wanan to check some emails & browse few websites. So should he learn OpenBSD first, to make his desktop? How time that may take for him? Will this be longer than installing some Windows OS or something? Do he really have to know all that stuff?
                  >
                  > Do You really don't see that OpenBSD may be problematic? I think that "OpenBSD is great desktop OS" is just marketing ;)
                  >
                  >

                  don't you realize that they already spent time learning windows?
                  they haven't been born knowing how to deal with one OS or another.
                  here in Brazil poor people first get in touch with lunix, without any prior knowledge of computers. and don't start trying to install the OS by themselves. they use an OS previously ready and 'user friendly'.

                3. By sthen (85.158.44.148) on

                  > My friend like to fix cars. but sometimes he wanan to check some emails & browse few websites. So should he learn OpenBSD first, to make his desktop? How time that may take for him? Will this be longer than installing some Windows OS or something?

                  Considering somebody more knowledgeable will probably install the OS in both cases, I'd say there's little difference. If he's starting from scratch himself without help, well, at least OpenBSD provide good documentation...

              2. By Anonymous Coward (68.167.146.78) on

                > I am really sick of hearing this UNIX is hard, Windows is easy, people are stupid FUD. It's nothing but marketing.
                >

                I'm with you, sister. I used to be a MCSE, and I totally bought the "UNIX is hard" line. Then, at COMDEX, I got introduced to Red Hat Linux v5.2. Yes, this was a few years back. :-) Obviously, I installed the OS myself, on a computer that I built (thus, no "Microsoft tax"). But I also needed a word processor. I chose to download WordPerfect 8.0 for Linux--the native Linux one, not that WINE-linked crap that came later. I was totally new to anything UNIX-y and still kinda scared. I found that it wasn't that hard at all, and in about 15 minutes, I had WordPerfect 8.0 up and running on the RHL 5.2 box.

                With OpenBSD, all I did was read the directions, and I got KDE and Firefox installed without much trouble. Of course, I'm much more proficient with UNIX these days, but OpenBSD's still kinda new to me. Hell, I even installed Evolution without any drama. :-)

                So, I have to say that yes, OpenBSD, or any other operating system these days for PC's, is indeed a desktop OS. If a MCSE like me can figure it out, then, believe me, *ANYBODY* can. I had to unlearn a bunch of crap. Folks new to computers aren't crippled in that way like I was; they're lucky.

            2. By Anonymous Coward (83.5.194.87) on


              > He didn't buy new one laptop. It wasn't new. Someone sell it to him. The drivers for realtec NIC are there in OS already. So yes, it just works after that.
              >
              > Well, he didn't have to xorgconfig before making wnidows start. He didn't have to pkg_add some apps to make window menager look good (eyecandy). He didn't have to make few steps to make it use Polish language. etc. etc. & about the drivers. Well if Windows don't got them in base install it is problem. Wel You must get those CD's & click NEXT few times. But what will happend if someone get OpenBSD without them? Uhh, wait for another release, or check current, or try to port it from NetBSD to OpenBSD, recompile kernel & check, maybe it will work. Yeah. Really desktop friendly OS :)

              xorg.conf is in most cases no longer required but whatever...

              You don't seem to understand, the power of OpenBSD concerning hardware is that everything that is supported is in the base install. No extra CD's, no downloading extra drivers, and no, no kernel recompilation.

              Trust me, if you do this enough you come to appreciate it. If it doesn't all work you get by until it does or use something else.

              It's not for everyone though and perhaps not suited to your friend's needs. However, when XP screws up, which it will, your friend will be no better off because recovering an XP installation is much more complicated than recovering OpenBSD.

              By the way, I don't code, have trouble writing a shitty script and have absolutely no clue as to how the kernel works. I can read docs though.

              I'll give you one last thought, if you want to help people like your friend, make a desktop metaport which installs what you consider to be the perfect indispensible applications. If you do that, I can guarantee that someone else will come and gripe that it's not a real desktop :)

              Comments
              1. By Nicram (84.40.176.68) nicram@bsdzine.org on http://nicram.sytes.net/

                > xorg.conf is in most cases no longer required but whatever...

                it never worked fine for me without it :(

                > You don't seem to understand, the power of OpenBSD concerning hardware is that everything that is supported is in the base install. No extra CD's, no downloading extra drivers, and no, no kernel recompilation.
                >

                Well i understand that perfectly, i use OpenBSD on routers/servers & i think it is best place for OpenBSD :)

                > Trust me, if you do this enough you come to appreciate it. If it doesn't all work you get by until it does or use something else.

                I don't talk about myself. I talk about ordinary people that don't read undeadly.org & other BSD sites.

                I really love OpenBSD. But i don't see it as cool desktop OS.

                > It's not for everyone though and perhaps not suited to your friend's needs. However, when XP screws up, which it will, your friend will be no better off because recovering an XP installation is much more complicated than recovering OpenBSD.

                That's true that fixing WinXP is more complicated than OpenBSD. But only if You know what to do. If You don't, then i think for novice user making winXP work again will be easier. But i never test such things. Maybe i should with some friend :P

                > By the way, I don't code, have trouble writing a shitty script and have absolutely no clue as to how the kernel works. I can read docs though.

                Anyone can read. I read them a lot. But not all people got time to read docs learn OS. They prefer just use it more, than read about it's functions :)

                > I'll give you one last thought, if you want to help people like your friend, make a desktop metaport which installs what you consider to be the perfect indispensible applications. If you do that, I can guarantee that someone else will come and gripe that it's not a real desktop :)

                Well, i don't want make OpenBSD more desktop OS. I love it as network unix like operating system. I love PF & all apps that are in base system. That's is best from OpenBSD i can get & it's cool.

                I only wanna to say, that OpenBSD may work as desktop, but it's not so good like other systems made for that like Windows, MacOS, SkyOS, Zeta etc.

                I can't code. I just know how to use stuff that other ppl make. But i don't stop myself on reading docs. I push zophie (security patch for OpenBSD kernel) developers to make it work on OpenBSD 4.0. I'm trying to talk with developer of XMail (smtp/pop3) to make it work more stable on OpenBSD (& there are effects). & i'm trying make OpenBSD more popular so more ppl will use it (this means more secure network for all & more money for the project in the future).

                Comments
                1. By grg (219.90.157.225) on

                  > > It's not for everyone though and perhaps not suited to your friend's needs. However, when XP screws up, which it will, your friend will be no better off because recovering an XP installation is much more complicated than recovering OpenBSD.
                  >
                  > That's true that fixing WinXP is more complicated than OpenBSD. But only if You know what to do. If You don't, then i think for novice user making winXP work again will be easier. But i never test such things. Maybe i should with some friend :P

                  Fixing Windows (any version) is nigh on impossible when it screws up. The "fix" is a reinstall, which is more difficult than an OpenBSD install.

                  I've recently acquired an amd64 machine and have a shiny new graphics card donated to me, so I felt inclined to install windows on it for gaming. Well, three different versions of windows later and I still lack support for all my hardware. One version doesn't do sound, another doesn't do 3D, the last seems to hate my motherboard. Each install took in excess of 1hour +many hours of fruitless fucking around with random drivers from the net. Add to that windows doesn't install unless the target drive is the first one according to how windows detects them (e.g. sata drive 0 is detected after secondary ide slave thus can't install to sata drive w/out unplugging ide).
                  And don't get me started on the insane defaults for almost every setting.

                  Yeah, windows is really really easy to get going.

                  OpenBSD took about 5 minutes to install, booted first time (as opposed to windows), no panics (as opposed to windows) and supports all my hardware (with the expected exception of 3D support).

                  Comments
                  1. By Anonymous Coward (68.167.146.78) on

                    > Fixing Windows (any version) is nigh on impossible when it screws up. The "fix" is a reinstall, which is more difficult than an OpenBSD install.
                    >

                    Heh...you said it! Even Microsoft claims that *they* cannot fix a corrupted Windows XP system. In this case, they are speaking of malware, arguably the most frequent cause of MS Windows problems these days.

                    http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1945808,00.asp


                    > Add to that windows doesn't install unless the target drive is the first one according to how windows detects them (e.g. sata drive 0 is detected after secondary ide slave thus can't install to sata drive w/out unplugging ide).
                    >

                    All Microsoft OS's insist on being on the first primary partition of the first hard disk on the system. That fits right in with MS's mindset that they're the only ones that should be on your hard disk. Even IBM OS/2 didn't impose that kind of limitation.

                    > OpenBSD took about 5 minutes to install, booted first time (as opposed to windows), no panics (as opposed to windows) and supports all my hardware (with the expected exception of 3D support).
                    >

                    It takes me about 20-25 minutes to install OpenBSD; I just recently did so on a Pentium 4, 2.8GHz w/ 512MB DRAM. However, I agree with the rest of your statement. And 20-25 minutes is still considerably less than the 50+ minutes that Windows XP took on the same machine.

                    Of course, Ubuntu GNU/Linux's installation took about 35 minutes *and* gave me OpenOffice.org, USB hot-plug, GNOME, Firefox, Evolution, etc. ready to go _right now_ without any further work from me. Installing KDE, Thunderbird, and a few more apps that I like took another 20 minutes, thanks to Synaptic. Therefore, for my parents, Ubuntu's a better choice. For me, OpenBSD is the better choice.

                    The point is that we have choice. OpenBSD is indeed a fine desktop OS, so I cannot agree that Nikram's assertion is universally true. It really does depend on your audience. But there's no way that I would say that MS Windows is a better desktop OS than OpenBSD. Windows is just too broken.

        3. By Anonymous Coward (67.158.67.218) on

          > My friend got new laptop. He bought it week ago. After that he by accident format HDD.

          What your friend really needs is an OS that doesn't let you format the boot drive by accident.

          > Please don't advertise OpenBSD as desktop OS. It is not.

          I agree, because like you I've obviously never tried using it as a desktop OS. However, OpenBSD makes an awesome laptop OS; there were no configuration issues at all. No driver problems either -- every USB device I've thrown at it has worked automatically. Neither Linux nor Windows XP can say that...

      3. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

        > Feel free to show me this magical operating system which can be completely configured and installed by the novice user.

        The only real desktop OS I can think of is MacOS X

        I have to say though of all the other OSes I have installed over the years, I still find OpenBSD to be better than any other Open Source OS. There is a bit of a learning curve with initial disk set up, but once you've done that a few times it ceases to be a problem.

        Comments
        1. By Anonymous Coward (67.64.89.177) on

          > The only real desktop OS I can think of is MacOS X

          Man you must love to wait!

    3. By Steven (198.166.227.91) on

      > OpenBSD may work as desktop OS. But it's not desktop OS & i think it will never be.
      How can some be both a desktop OS, and not a desktop OS? I use it as a desktop, but I'm mistaken to do so? That doesn't make a lot of sense, now does it?

  9. By Anonymous Coward (216.17.222.1) on

    Regarding "and some other stuff", would you mind posting the results of a pkg_info?

  10. By Anonymous Coward (88.103.118.171) on

    I think that OpenBSD is a desktop OS and why?

    Because :

    It has ftp
    It has www browser lynx
    It has mail
    It has text editor vi and others
    It has games very funny games (for people which were started on Atari and etc.)
    You can programming
    It has graphical desktop fvwm

    So it's enough for people like me from IT :-)

    And for others people there are a lot of packages like Firefox,OOffice and more and more (offcourse you must prepare PC with it for others).

  11. By Oleg Pilyavets (193.205.94.142) fenicottero@gmail.com on

    I can not understand why even OpenBSD-developers who can write very difficult good programms and who have greate experience in computer science use computer only in windows way if it is considered as a desktop. For example, to comment the list of tipical cultivated applications on your home computers I could notice that:

    >kde and all the goodies (koffice, etc.)

    This is a windows way to manage windows of applications.
    It's a very simple method to understand, but it is not convinient for experts. I know many extremly innovation good ideas in wmii WM such as "stacked layer" to organise your windows on the desktop.

    >openoffice

    It will be more rightly to write relevant additions to TeX or LaTeX or use already existing ones by compare the using this staff ("text processors"). I use only LaTeX for articles and documentation.

    >jdk (gotta have java games)

    Java on a desktop? When I had some 233MHz computer I have an opportunity to understand what is a java and what applications is really well. It's not about openoffice or java.

    >xmms (gotta have music)

    It's very good way to use some daemon for any application and then use some program to control this daemon. Fortunately, this daemon already exists. What do you think about musicpd & mpc? You need to write one command only in your commandline to make many things with your music... And I can not say the same about xmms (what is winamp-like player) method of music managing.

    >xpdf

    It's not good with cyrillic pdf-files and nonadequately slow (especialy on weak computers).

    >gaim (heavy use by my daughter for chat)

    Console jabber-clients are not good? They work more quickly... for example, mcabber and more convinient for experts.

    >gnumeric

    MatLab & Octave. Parody on Microsoft Office is the same
    ugly thing as using Microsoft-like applications with Microsoft Way of managing them.

    >firefox

    w3m browser tried to decide this problem... But unfortunatelly at moment we don't have any normal browser for nonidiotic people to let them using vim when they want to write message and keyboard only to manage sites.

    >thunderbird

    mutt? nmh?

    >blender (my son is a blender addict fascinated with graphics)
    >and some other stuff.

    In any case it is interesting what do you think about these ideas:
    http://ratpoison.elektrubadur.se/cgi-bin/wiki/Propaganda

    As concerns me 3 years back I was usual windows user and knew nothing abot UNIX or UNIX-like systems.

    A would be very pleased if you clarify me developer's point of view on this questions. I'm not a programmer. I'm only usual user. In addition I often meet the situations when some applicable _adequate_ soft don't exist due to the above circumstances... (That is these applied soft are not necessarily for developers - they use other applications...)

    Comments
    1. By Oleg Pilyavets (193.205.94.142) fenicottero@gmail.com on

      In addition to if I would have my children they use the same applications that I use now...

Credits

Copyright © - Daniel Hartmeier. All rights reserved. Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors, submission implies license to publish on this web site. Contents of the archive prior to as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original deadly.org with Jose's and Jim's kind permission. This journal runs as CGI with httpd(8) on OpenBSD, the source code is BSD licensed. undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]