OpenBSD Journal

NewsForge Review: Trying out the new OpenBSD 3.8

Contributed by jolan on from the desktop-linux-is-like-teenage-sex dept.

Thanks to doctrit for pointing us to the article over at NewsForge entitled, "Trying out the new OpenBSD 3.8". The review details the author's reactions to getting OpenBSD up and running as a desktop sparc64 system on a Blade 100. It's well written and mindful review. From the article:

"So, apart from requiring you to learn more about Unix system configuration than you knew you'd forgotten, how is working on OpenBSD different from working on Linux? The short answer is: it isn't."

This is certainly how I have always felt when talking about ported applications. Gnome and KDE are Gnome and KDE regardless of the underlying OS. Well that isn't 100% true, sometimes there can be OS-specific code that mines information from /proc or some such, but for the majority of functionality, the software is the same.

There are some inaccuracies in the article, such as it being said that the aps(4) driver will park disk heads (it just reports status right now).

I also don't quite know what to make of this statement:

"Due to OpenBSD's focus on server-class features, many casual Linux users may find it an uphill battle to use OpenBSD as a desktop system."

There's even a FAQ entry which tries to dispel this myth. I guess if you're used to bloated window managers coming pre-configured to run at startup as part of the "base" system, I could see how one could come to this conclusion. It does seem that the author has come from such an environment. But enough negativity, all in all this is a very positive and thoughtful review.

(Comments are closed)

Comments

  1. By Anonymous Coward (84.12.143.212) on

    I'm confused by the "desktop-linux-is-like-teenage-sex" comment, but I haven't slept properly for days.

    Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward (142.166.105.140) on

      I don't know what it could imply. Sex was simple when I was a teen. You wanted it. You didn't get it.

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward (199.42.80.225) on

        Teenage sex: everyone is talking about doing it, but few actually are (or something like that).

        Comments

        1. By jose (204.181.64.2) --@---.-- on http://monkey.org/~jose/

          amusingly i instantly thought, "no way, sex as a teenager was way more fun than linux is!" then someone pointed out the whole second half of that comment ...

          Comments

          1. By Anonymous Coward (142.166.105.140) on

            Bastard.

      2. By Anonymous Coward (68.100.43.184) on

        Now, see, that's just ageist...I'm 27 and can't get any :p

        Anyway...

        I've always heard "like teenage sex" referenced as meaning "awkward but thankfully short"

    2. By Brian P. (170.35.208.20) on

      It was a comment made by a redhat exec in the context of linux adoption in the desktop market.........

      It means that people are talking about it......but not doing it........

      --Brian

      Comments

      1. By Krunch (139.165.82.240) on http://krunch.servebeer.com/~krunch/

        The fortune cookie I remember is about C++. Via Google: 
        # C++ is like teenage sex:
    * It's on everyone's mind all the time.
    * Everyone talks about it all the time.
    * Everyone thinks everyone else is doing it.
    * Almost no one is really doing it.
    * The few who are doing it are
          o doing it poorly;
          o sure it will be better next time;
          o not practicing it safely.

        Comments

        1. By Brian P. (69.164.211.75) on

          Very funny......i wish i could print it out and hang it in my cube....... :-))

          Comments

          1. By Anonymous Cowherd (212.104.129.221) on

            ahh, it'll probably work if you don't try and use cups (-;

  2. By Anonymous Coward (208.252.48.163) on

    Almost every Linux distribution makes it trivial to get up and running as a desktop. Your hardware is all detected and a working X configuration file is written for your tweaking (though rarely needed). A slew of often-unneeded-by-everyone applications are installed for desktop use such that the functionality you need is always available, at the cost of disk space and bloat. Easy-to-use network interface management tools are installed and running by default, and it's just as easy as Windows to get a wireless and wired adapaters running in harmony.

    OpenBSD does none of this and configuring all such functionality is an exercise left to the user. A single line in a FAQ that says "OpenBSD makes a great desktop" doesn't change the fact that you have to do the drudge work yourself, and depending on your hardware, it can very easily be an uphill batttle.

    Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward (141.39.13.5) on

      i agree much with what you said -- they target different class of users which most people just can't get along with due to some weird reason.

      it's just like that: put in linux cd/dvd, there's an easy installer which takes you by the hand, it's graphical, and then it throws all kind of pkgs on you drive so afterwards it just boots up and even detected all kind of strange h/w.

      of course this methodology has is inherent downsides, but, if these downsides affect you -- it's pbly just that you don't need some kind of linux distribution like that and then you don't even have to blabber about the bloated evil linux distros.

    2. By Anonymous Coward (142.166.105.140) on

      Of course it depends on your desktop tastes, but if you are familiar with OpenBSD, configuration generally would not add significantly to time you are likely to spend screwing with desktop-setting-minutia anyway (regardless of OS). Preconfigured Linux distros usually have an edge for people that really don't know the intimate details of their OS, and don't wish to read so they can learn. However, I find OpenBSD has an advantage when one encounters a bump on road of installation/configuration. Under-the-hood, it tends to be better organized, more predictable, and better documented than 'friendly' distros.

      Comments

      1. By tmclaugh (192.216.27.32) on

        Damn good point! I use FreeBSD on my home desktop and OpenBSD on my home "server box" but I use Fedora on my work laptop and CentOS on the servers I manage. Since the GUI tools don't support initializing a bridge interface I've had to dig around in the network initialization and configuration scripts. That has been a painful experience. Linux distros have nice and shiney GUI tools but once you need to do more than they allow it can get a little hellish. I get a feeling RH doesn't expect or want you to look under the hood sometimes. Being a Unix lover this doesn't make sense to me but you learn to adapt which I'm doing slowly and reluctently. (It's a server, why should I need X running on it?)

        Comments

        1. By Anonymous Coward (147.162.55.11) on

          I get a feeling RH doesn't expect or want you to look under the hood sometimes. Being a Unix lover this doesn't make sense to me but you learn to adapt which I'm doing slowly and reluctently. (It's a server, why should I need X running on it?)

          Why should you need Red Hat? It's not the only linux distribution out there.

    3. By Anonymous Coward (66.11.66.41) on

      What? OpenBSD detects hardware just fine, better than linux I've found with its incredibly user-hostile "lets use modules for all the drivers" approach. Its a pain in the ass to try to get wireless working on linux, and in openbsd I just put the card into my laptop and it works just like any other NIC.

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward (128.151.92.148) on

        I second the wireless comment. When I quit using Linux, most wireless drivers weren't part of the mainline kernel, nor was hostap mode. It took an ungodly amount of time to get wireless working.

        When I switched my access point and later my laptop to OpenBSD, I was shocked at how easy it was to set up wireless and particularly hostap on OpenBSD. No kernel recompiles!

        I think that with the latest version of the Linux kernel, hostap as well as most drivers have been merged and so the future of Linux wireless may not be as hellish. But, the fact that they had such crummy mainline support to begin with for so many years is pretty telling of their priorities.

    4. By Noryungi (213.41.135.193) n o r y u n g i @ y a h o o . c o m on

      You obviously don't know what you are talking about.

      I have been using an OpenBSD 3.7 machine as my primary desktop for more than two months now, and it's been very easy to setup. This machine is a second-hand cheap Dell laptop, just to make things more interesting.

      The key point with OpenBSD is that you are expected to read the documentation. Once you have done that, setting up a machine is actually musch faster than setting up a Linux machine, since 90%-100% of the hardware is auto-detected by the standard OpenBSD kernel. My OpenBSD laptop works great, and has been a lot easier to setup than some Linux machines that I have.

      Keep in mind that I have been using Linux for several years now, since my very first Linux distribution was an ancient Slackware that I first installed on a 486 way back in 1995. I have tried several Linux distributions, and most of them -- IMHO -- suck rocks compared to OpenBSD.

      Compared to most Linux distribution, OpenBSD is actually faster and easier to install and configure. Not to mention more secure by default, of course.

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward (69.70.207.240) on

        Nice to see more people like you who think alike and see things the same way. I completely agree!

      2. By Charles Hill (216.229.170.65) on

        No, OpenBSD is not easy to set up as a desktop. Not in comparison to Ubuntu, SUSE 10 or any of the more recent Linux distros. Answer 3 or 4 questions about things like timezone, language, etc. and it does ALL the work.

        Yes, if you know what you're doing AND/OR can actually follow directions, you can set up OpenBSD as an excellent desktop. I've done it and love it. The OpenBSD documentation is usually quite superior to the Linux counterparts.

        However, dropping a user at a command prompt after making them go thru partitioning and labeling a disk, selecting vague package groups, then expecting them to read all the docs to get X and KDE/Gnome started is not "easy".

        It is "simple", as the instructions for all steps are crystal clear. It isn't, however, pop-in-the-CD-and-go-get-a-Coke (tm) easy.

        And I don't know when the last time you installed Linux was, but my last couple installs had no problems with wireless or anything else: scanner, printer, wired & wireless, art tablet or anything. This hasn't been an issue in quite some time.

        OpenBSD assumes the users actually care how their system works. Windows, Mac and newer Linux systems assume they're idiots and just want it to "work, damn it!". Linux, unlike Windows and Mac, gives them the option to dig into the system if they have the inclination, but doesn't require it. OpenBSD requires it.

        -Charles

        Comments

        1. By Anonymous Coward (69.199.202.17) on

          The last time I installed a recent linux distro was yesterday (fedora in this case). It is a horrible, painful process that is just as bad as windows. Average users are still not capable of installing either windows or linux though, and so us IT guys do it for them. We can install openbsd easier than windows or linux, so the whole easy of installation nonsense is irrelivant.

          And for what its worth, linux doesn't work with this NIC (a marvell gigE nic), and wouldn't boot off the SATA drive unless I set it to SATA only and thus had no CD ROM anymore. OpenBSD worked fine, and had no such problems.

          Comments

          1. By Charles Hill (216.229.170.65) on

            Fedora is a perpetual Beta that isn't really targeted at "desktop". Try Ubuntu/Kubuntu (Gnome/KDE), Xandros or Linspire for a good install experience.

            Be aware, however, that while pretty and easy, they will quickly frustrate any power user to the point of ripping them off the system quickly. They are clearly targeted at the Windows/Mac customer base who's idea of "tinkering" means changing skins.

            -Charles

            Comments

            1. By Anonymous Coward (69.199.202.17) on

              I have tried them. There is little to no difference in the installation procedures. They all suck balls, just like the crappy windows installer they are trying to copy.

        2. By Shane J Pearson (202.45.125.5) on

          No, OpenBSD is not easy to set up as a desktop. Not in comparison to Ubuntu, SUSE 10 or any of the more recent Linux distros. Answer 3 or 4 questions about things like timezone, language, etc. and it does ALL the work.

          Yes, ALL the work to get a desktop targetted to an average user. Are you average then?

          However, dropping a user at a command prompt after making them go thru partitioning and labeling a disk, selecting vague package groups, then expecting them to read all the docs to get X and KDE/Gnome started is not "easy".

          Security is a continuous process which never ends. If people want security, they need to learn. Reading is a good way to learn. OpenBSD provides good tools and reading material. People who don't want to learn, don't NEED to use OpenBSD and certainly should not look baddly upon OpenBSD because it provides all that is needed to keep the process going, right down to the smallest of details.

          It is "simple", as the instructions for all steps are crystal clear. It isn't, however, pop-in-the-CD-and-go-get-a-Coke (tm) easy.

          It neither tries nor wants to be that. It is a system with many various capabilities and possible configurations which should assume very little. It is not designed to be a Desktop system first and foremost, yet it can be, allowing the user all the choice they desire (outside of accelerated 3D). With lots of choice comes well... lots of choosing to do.

          OpenBSD assumes the users actually care how their system works. Windows, Mac and newer Linux systems assume they're idiots and just want it to "work, damn it!". Linux, unlike Windows and Mac, gives them the option to dig into the system if they have the inclination, but doesn't require it. OpenBSD requires it.

          You can still dig into the Windows and Mac systems, but to a much lesser extent than Linux and the BSD's. OpenBSD's focus is security or correctness. That is why I use it and I hope that focus never changes. I don't feel setting OpenBSD up as a desktop is difficult. In fact when you consider what *I* like as a desktop, I find OpenBSD easier. For the simple fact that if I try to set a Linux up the way I like, I end up waiting a long while for the installer to finish, and then even longer removing shit I don't want, adding stuff I do want, configuring it all and then as time goes on I have to tweak the configuration because of all the underlying ASSUMPTIONS of what I was supposed to like.

          OpenBSD is faster to set up how I like and then I can just save the config files. What's more, how much time do you spend setting up an OS? And how much time do you spend actually using it? I prefer the faster "known qauntity" of OpenBSD and view that as a major feature.

          Comments

          1. By Charles Hill (216.229.170.65) on

            I don't dispute any of that, and agree that taking the time to learn what you are doing will unlock the greater potential of OpenBSD.

            I was just pointing out that Desktop Linux is, for the most part, targeting the apathetic masses who have neither the skill set nor the desire to learn what would be necessary for an OpenBSD desktop.

            Different markets, different approaches.

            -Charles

    5. By tamo (220.221.52.177) on

      Yes, the installer kindly tells me to read afterboot(8), which
      may be too long and too descriptive for some desktop users. :)
      But it is necessary information if you want a secure OS.
      So this is not a problem.

      Yes, the number of the hardware drivers could be less than Linux's.
      But this is not a problem of OpenBSD, but of vendors.

      The article points out that one of the biggest difference between
      OpenBSD and Linux distros is their package-management systems.
      Currently the pkg_add is not as powerful as YUM/RPM or APT/DEB.
      But I know the port system is always great. And I wish pkg_add
      will be as useful as FreeBSD's portupgrade.

      So OpenBSD is, or will be, the best system even for desktop users
      like me. I love OpenBSD as a desktop system.

    6. By SleighBoy (64.146.180.98) on http://www.code.cx/

      I think that if OpenBSD has a Linux twin in install simplicity and control, that twin is Gentoo. Instead of some fancy-pants GUI install they just use command line and have a nice "handbook" that guides you through an install just like OpenBSD does. For first-time installers OpenBSD and Gentoos' docs tell you exactly what to do; what makes them an extra value is that they also tell you WHY you are doing it.

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward (203.26.136.138) on

        There might be a similarity in the amount of hand holding done by the systems, but that's where the similarities end.

        I've found Gentoo to be the nightmare of linux distros. On my first install, some idiot had broken the Python package... the installation depended on Python and refused to go any further. Ok, so I manually fix the package and continue the install.
        I've tried to upgrade the system multiple times to resolve problems with existing packages, only to find new problems with different packages (recent udev issues anyone?).
        I find Gentoo to be like a bag full of open source software which has been shaken up and thrown (monkey faeces style) onto your hard drive.

        I would far have prefered you to compare OpenBSD with Slackware and/or Debian. They're still Linux, but at least there's some consistency across the systems.

        Comments

        1. By Anthony Roberts (70.72.98.19) on

          I've had similar experiences with Gentoo.

          There's breakage that couldn't happen if anyone anywhere had tested it before they released it (stable ebuilds with masked dependencies), they silently change the behaviour of USE flags (Xinerama disapeared thanks to this), etc.

    7. By Clay DOwling (12.37.120.99) clay@lazarusid.com on http://www.ceamus.com

      I'm sorry that your OpenBSD experiences have been so poor. My own experience has been that it's the best platform to support troublesome hardware. It has continuously succeeded in using hardware that no other operating system will. It's also done it with absolutely no trouble. It's always been a case of plugging in the hardware and OpenBSD finds it without any intervention on my part.

      Even setting up X, which is a notorious pain in the tucas, it very easy. Instead of some silly wizard, I just use the built-in configuration features of X, and I've got a config file that works. I've had to look up stuff for specific monitors or video cards before, but that isn't specific to OpenBSD; it's been necessary for Windows and Linux as well.

      I wish you better luck in the future. OpenBSD has been a wonderful choice for me and my business.

    8. By Anonymous Coward (67.64.89.177) on

      Not true. Just did a bunch of SLES9 and SLES10 installs. Not so much X worky. RHEL4 at least worked in 800x600. More irritaing is that it comes with bloatware like gnome or kde; guess what, some people prefer fvwm. It took me over an hour to download and compile all pieces to get fvwm to work on RHEL4. All so called "rpm watch" websites did not have the appropriate rpms available for an install. I had to compile it. CRAZY!

      Oh and I was really trying to get ion3 on it but there was no amount of foo to get that working so I gave up.

      I honestly don't understand all these people that claim that linux works "soooo well". It simply is not true. It is messy & complex and nearly impossible to setup right.

    9. By Shane J Pearson (202.45.125.5) on

      OpenBSD does none of this and configuring all such functionality is an exercise left to the user.

      What an exageration. Have you ever even used OpenBSD before? There have been times in the past where I've just finished installing OpenBSD from CD, restarted, logged in and then typed "startx" just out of curiosity.

      And what do you know? X bloody well started up!

      You are asked at install time if you want to use DHCP or a static IP for each interface and then gateway and DNS addresses. Asked if you want to use X, where you are located etc. In the worst case, you might have to run xorgconfig or some such and maybe tweak the .conf.

      Then you can pkg_add to your hearts content.

      You realise that all this is a FEATURE don't you?

      Here is a tip. Configure an OpenBSD desktop how you like it. Then, oh gee I don't know... save the changed pertinent config files?

    10. By Anonymous Coward (84.12.143.212) on

      "Your hardware is all detected and a working X configuration file is written for your tweaking (though rarely needed)."

      You obviously have a supported system.

  3. By Anonymous Coward (212.112.238.98) on


    Well, I suppose maybe the instant risky gratification from a
    pretty yet immature package with possibly ruinous consequences part...

    Jolan man, I think you need to get laid :)

    -Bob

  4. By Anonymous Coward (128.151.92.148) on

    I've come to the conclusion that I hate it when most users talk about operating systems. There are Windows and Mac users who will bash Linux and BSD at any opportunity, just because Linux and BSD are not Windows and Mac OS. Frankly, I would be a lot happier if this first group of users would just shut up and use Windows and Mac, and quit second guessing other people's preferences because they have a different goal.

    Then there are the Linux folks who buy into the "BSD is dying" trolls on Slashdot. These people are often former Win/Mac users who've recently switched to Linux, and think they know everything about how a Unix-like system should be as a result. We all know that this group of people is sadly mistaken, but they're still quite vocal about it.

    Both groups have come up with some mythical standard known as a "desktop operating system", when really, as the OpenBSD FAQ states, different people want different things for a desktop. I for one am quite content with a basic window manager, mozilla and xterm. If I wanted more, I could easily pull gnome/kde from ports.

    Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward (69.70.207.240) on

      My sentiments exacatly! I couldn't agree with you more; great post!

    2. By Anonymous Coward (84.12.143.212) on

      MacOS X is BSD, in fact MacOS X is by far the most widespread of the BSDs and is the most popular form of desktop UNIX bar none.

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward (131.202.9.179) on

        I think I would be more excited about the BSD side of MacOS-X if it meant that software written for OS-X could be trivally recompiled for the other Unix platforms, as if true for the vast majority of software written for pure Unix/X11 environments. At present, I doubt you could reimplement Apple's APIs without being sued (?) even if you had the resources and desire to do so. As is stands, I think the BSD underpinnings of OS-X are of very little benefit to any non-Apple projects. I can't recall seeing to many instances of useful patches being brought in from Darwin either -- *perhaps* there are a very small number of examples (and perhaps there isn't -- I'm much too lazy to check CVS to see), but certainly nothing compared the other opensource BSD's (esp. Net and Free).

        Comments

        1. By tedu (64.173.147.27) on

          http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=freebsd-cvs-all&w=2&r=1&s=apple&q=b

      2. By Anonymous Coward (143.166.226.17) on

        The amount of horses shit in this comment is inmense. Do some research before typing.

        Comments

        1. By Anonymous Coward (131.202.9.179) on

          Perhaps so ... I always reserve the right to be completely wrong about anything... Please point out what I've said that's wrong.

          Comments

          1. By Anonymous Coward (67.64.89.177) on

            Wow where do I start. Oh wait, i know.

            OSX has nothing to do with BSD, NOTHING AT ALL. Nada, zero, zip, fuck all etc etc. It's not based on anything BSD; it wasn't derived from anything BSD.

            Do you know how BSD OSX is? The fucking command line tools are based on FreeBSD. That's it, so ls is BSD WOOHOO!!

            What you are trying to say is that you are completely uninformed and have no clue whatsover about this topic however we all know that talk is cheap.

            I hear you thinking, but on slashdot they say its BSD! How can slashdot be wrong?

            Comments

            1. By Anonymous Coward (70.124.65.113) on

              Hey moron, try looking at the Darwin XNU source code sometime before attempting to correct somebody else. Here's a link to help you; notice that there is a bsd/ subdirectory, and that it contains, surprise surprise, BSD kernel code!

              Comments

              1. By Anonymous Coward (67.64.89.177) on

                hahahahahaha

  5. By Anonymous Coward (85.194.223.143) on

    Why on earth is "games" -package included in OpenBSD? And to whom? Somehow that does not seem to fit into the big picture of OpenBSD's goals. "The most secure operating system. Games included!" Silly.

    Comments

    1. By corentin (81.56.152.193) on

      Because Unix was designed to play video games.

    2. By tedu (64.173.147.27) on

      there have always been games. perhaps you could explain how including the games prevents fulfillment of openbsd's goals?

    3. By escapenguin (69.72.7.161) on

      All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

      Comments

      1. By djm@ (203.217.30.86) on

        all work and no play makes jack a dull boy
        alL work annd no play makes JACK a dull boY
        all wokr and nO pLaY MAKES jack a dULL boy
        aLL wOrk and NO PLAY maKes J@cck a DULL B0Y

    4. By m0rf (68.104.17.51) on

      don't want games? don't install them

    5. By Chas (147.154.235.51) on http://rhadmin.org

      These are text-only games (no X-gui), some of which are fairly complex as they implement both curses screen control and network clients/servers. As such, they are a good example of what can be accomplished with the base distribution. BSD has always placed a great emphasis on educational value (the entire OS source code should normally live in /usr/src).

      In addition, the games have been included for a very long time, so concerns for tradition also play a factor.

      As the games package includes the famous "fortune" command, I will usually install it even on my most sensitive firewalls (I love a bit of humor when I log in).

    6. By Anonymous Coward (203.191.40.226) on

      Why no just SHUT UP, and help them!

  6. By anon et al (80.213.141.87) on

    1. ACPI: Laptop owners find suspend usefull. Same goes for battery status - thermal zone, fans etc. These ACPI features are hardly supported by OpenBSD.
    2. NVIDIA/ATI Xorg binary drivers.
    3. Macromedia flash.
    4. Cisco concentrators VPN kernel modules.
    5. VMWARE

    Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward (128.151.92.148) on

      Anon et al? Anon et qui? By the way, sorry to bite the troll, I must say that APM suspend and BIOS suspend to disk works plenty fine on my laptop here. And the free Radeon driver that ships with Xorg is actually pretty good for some cards. (IMHO free drivers are more important than non-free ones anyway, even if the quality suffers.)

    2. By Anonymous Coward (142.166.105.140) on

      This is a giggle..

      (1) Hmm ... I have absolutely no trouble suspending my Thinkpad. I think even hibernate will work, although I've never bothered to make a partition in order to test it. Oh yes, and OpenBSD has a daemon for hardware monitoring, if that is your gig. When ACPI (crap though it is) is fully implemented, I'm confident the OBSD implementation will work right (or it just won't be there) -- it has caused trouble on other systems (including Linux).

      (2) The NVIDIA/ATI drivers are proprietary, so we don't really care whether we have them or not until they open up (and if we did care, it may even be possible to get the Linux drivers to work with OpenBSD ... as I recall this used to work with ATI drivers in the ports tree). Fact is, these are mostly needed for games, and MS Windows has the games market pretty much sewn up right now. For that matter, virtually all things proprietary are still supported first and best on Windows, which seems to be most of your points. I could ask you why stick with Linux? You'd have much better support on Windows.

      (3) Flash is proprietary ... and a plague, you are welcomed to it.

      (4) Correct me if I'm wrong, but again it appears to be proprietary -- thus I can't say I really care.

      (5)VMWARE -- a quick google seems to yield some success stories with OpenBSD here, but I've never tried it myself. As such I have no idea what the current status happens to be and again, it appears to be proprietary. If I *had* to have it (on my desktop?), I can always use it with a different OS. I'm a practical guy.

      Comments

      1. By tedu (64.173.147.27) on

        "(3) Flash is proprietary ... and a plague, you are welcomed to it."

        flash the format is open.

        Comments

        1. By Nate (65.95.228.247) on

          About as open as pdf is, in that Adobe pretty much is the only one with anything worth using and even then it's bloated and evil. Besides, there is flash support through ports.

        2. By Nate (65.95.228.247) on

          About as open as pdf is, in that Adobe pretty much is the only one with anything worth using and even then it's bloated and evil. Besides, there is flash support through ports.

          Comments

          1. By Ben (148.104.5.2) on

            PDF *is* open. See here: http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/pdf/index_reference.html

            And:

            gv has worked fine for me
            xpdf has worked fine for me
            gpdf has worked fine for me

            As for creating PDFs? OpenOffice works fine for me. ps2pdf* works fine for me. texpdf works fine for me. Printing with a PS-based printer driver in CUPS works fine for me.

            Comments

            1. By Anonymous Coward (128.151.92.148) on

              There are a few files that for whatever reason don't seem to work in gv. xpdf seems to read whatever I throw at it. I keep the linux acroread from ports around just in case.

        3. By Anonymous Coward (142.166.105.140) on

          Well I stand corrected ... it's still a plague =)

    3. By Amir Mesry (208.34.41.179) on

      Why would I want to use Cisco VPN concentrator, when I can use OpenVPN which works beautifully.

    4. By Anonymous Coward (69.199.202.17) on

      1. ACPI: Laptop owners find suspend usefull. Same goes for battery status - thermal zone, fans etc. These ACPI features are hardly supported by OpenBSD.

      Too bad ACPI is fucked and doesn't even work right on windows, much less linux and freebsd. If you want to suspend you laptop, then buy a laptop that doesn't suck dicks.

      2. NVIDIA/ATI Xorg binary drivers.

      Yes, I also wish I could have my machine's lock-up because of broken binary only crap from those asshats.

      3. Macromedia flash.

      Uh, its in the ports tree. I have it installed just for strong bad.

      4. Cisco concentrators VPN kernel modules.

      Ok, now you are reaching. Why do you want that pile of crap, and why is it openbsd's problem that cisco doesn't release their software for openbsd?

      5. VMWARE

      Also in ports. Although whining that some company doesn't release their software for openbsd should be directed at that company, not openbsd. If enough people complain, maybe they will take the time to release openbsd binaries.

    5. By m0rf (68.104.17.51) on

      1) apm works, acpi is a horrible design
      2) the ATI drivers work, nvidia drivers don't. we should really be focusing on open sourcing drivers, not giving closed vendors a free ride
      3) so hows flash 8 support in linux atm?
      4) crappy and closed source. want it? get cisco to opensource it.
      5) earlier versions work on openbsd. there are open source alternatives like qemu.

      so basically your list consists of one interface and a whole bunch of binary only gunk which their vendors are too ashamed to opensource?

      5 reasons windows is better than linux
      1) winmodem support
      2) directx/3d/sound, etc
      3) macromedia flash 8, authorware, shockwave, macromedia studio
      4) Microsoft Backoffice
      5) microsoft terminal server

      yes, this list is bogus, but then, so is yours.

      Comments

      1. By Ben (148.104.5.2) on

        Actually, both lists are good reasons for saying that Linux is better than OpenBSD on the desktop, and also for saying that Windows is better than Linux on the desktop.

        Of course, all the squabbling in these threads is about the wrong things. We should be arguing about how we define the word "better", rather than getting huffy about supporting "binary crap" or having DirectX or whatnot.

        In the context of desktop use, I usually think that "better" means "easier to use" and "is supported by hardware and software vendors" and "requires minimal technical tweaking". By this standard, Windows is better than Linux is better than OpenBSD.

        In the context of development and server deployment, Linux and OpenBSD are "better" than Windows, in my opinion. Whether or not OpenBSD is better than Linux or vice versa in this context further depends on exactly how you define better. If your priority is support for more architectures, then Linux is better. If stability is more important, than OpenBSD is better.

        In a licensing and IP context, ostensibly most people reading this would place the availability of software that lacks legal encumberances as a high priority; thus, OpenBSD is better than Linux is better than Windows.

  7. By Jim (69.183.91.173) on


    If desktop Linux is like teenage sex, what is desktop OpenBSD like? Winning $350 million in the lottery or something? Perhaps OpenBSD advocates should point out where OpenBSD is better than Linux, rather than where it is as good as Linux.

    Anyhow, the last sentence in the FAQ entry is "can it do the job you desire in the way you wish?" If a user wants to have X.org configured correctly for his graphics chipset and monitor as soon as the installation is over, then guess what? Linux can do the job in the way the user wishes better than OpenBSD can.

    But this is the most important part -- ITS OK! Its OK that OpenBSD doesn't configure X out of the box. Some users prefer it that way (and I would guess those users are a majority on this message board), and OpenBSD targets those users.

    Comments

    1. By tedu (64.173.147.27) on

      how much X config do you need? i just type startx and it works.

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward (69.183.91.173) on

        Didn't work on my Sparc64 boxen.

        Comments

        1. By Anonymous Coward (69.199.202.17) on

          Its worked that way on my thinkpad for ages. I just typed startx, it knows to do 1600x1200 24bit all on its own.

        2. By tedu (64.173.147.27) on

          which linux distro did work?

        3. By Anonymous Coward (84.12.143.212) on

          Yeah, you have to read the README file and do what it says.

          Worked for me no problem

          Comments

          1. By Anonymous Coward (84.12.143.212) on

            Sorry, I should have said this is for Sparc64

    2. By Anonymous Coward (143.166.255.18) on

      Linux is garbage. That said I don't rememember typing startx which didnt work without creating xorg.conf. WTF are you people talking about? Setting the resolution is the ONLY reason one would edit the file. Linux sucks shit; get over it.

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward (69.183.91.173) on

        "Linux sucks shit; get over it."

        The quintessential undeadly.org comment. Disparaging, meaningless, and one less reason to buy 3.9 (I decided against buying 3.8 after being repeatedly insulted on this message board a few months ago).

        Comments

        1. By Anonymous Coward (128.151.92.148) on

          Opinions here do not officially represent OpenBSD in any way. I'm sorry that someone insulted you, but that's no reason not to like OpenBSD.

        2. By Nate (65.95.228.247) on

          Well, then suck on it and die. If you cannot take being insulted for your mistakes then you really have too thin a skin.

          People do not idly tell you you are a retard, you generally have to say something retarded first.

        3. By Anonymous Coward (68.106.232.57) on

          I just love the little tenderhearts of the world.

          You take comments on electronic boards far too seriously. Learn to move on or perhaps get a therapist. I suppose you rage about being cut off in traffic for hours as well?

        4. By Lars Hansson (203.65.246.6) lars@unet.net.ph on http://mono.blogsome.com/

          "The quintessential undeadly.org comment. Disparaging, meaningless"

          Hey, just like your comment! What a coincidence, eh?

        5. By m0rf (68.104.17.51) on

          yours is the more typical whiny post on undeadly. oh no the bad people on the internet insulted me, so i'll not support the project.

          with an attitude like yours, i'm really not surprised you rubbed the people on udeadly the wrong way.

        6. By Chris (24.76.100.162) on

          If this is how petty you are, you deserve the life you'll get.

    3. By Anonymous Coward (68.106.232.57) on

      Yes, it is OK.

      Honestly, how many Linux distributions out there (of the hundreds there are) do a large number of things the same? Some have a certain admin gui for printers; others a neat network configuration hack; some have a nifty package management solution that lets you locate packages based on country or origin or development language; others ship with a flashy bubbly installer; anyway, very seldom do you come across some "easy to use" thing that works consistently across distributions or even across versions of the same distro.

      The one thing that is always there is how to manage a Linux (or more often than not, UNIX) system. Learn the basics, and you can use any (well, most) Linux distros. Even the BSDs. Even some commercial Unices.

      OpenBSD has this. It demands knowledge of UNIX. It's a beautiful thing because its consistent and sensible. It works. It has worked for decades. It will work for many more.

      At my last job I was the keenest Linux admin on staff. It didn't come because I was good at Linux. I learned Unix principles on OpenBSD. When I had to deal with Linux, I started reapplying things I had learned. The other admins were constantly amazed at the tidbits of information that I mystically knew about "magic command line things."

      "I'm having a problem configuring X using Shnazzy-GUI-X-Configurator-Vendor-Shipped_utility.sh! Can you help?" And yes, I helped them by running 'Xorg -configure' and copying the resulting config into place. No "easy" tool needed (especially the one that didn't work), and it was actually faster on the command line.

      What's that? Printconf GUI not working? Guess how that was fixed? Edited printcap.

      GUI partitioner not working? Learn about fstab, fdisk and disklabel. Guess what? They're documented. Read. Learn.

      The world needs to get out of the "ease of use means easier to use" and the "GUI = easy" mentality and grow a pair of nuts. Users that find command line configurations difficult need to stop using UNIX because no matter how many GUI tools you throw at them, the end result is that they end up on the shell fixing the mess made by the utils or trying to do things that are more than mildly complex because the GUI can't do it. It's a perfect example of why any UNIX is more flexible and capable that any Windows OS. If you don't like this business, then UNIX is the wrong OS for you. OpenBSD isn't what you want, Linux isn't what you want, and OSX may not be what you want either.

      As for the Linux desktop, no, its not there yet. If you have great success with your Linux distro of choice giving you a perfect configuration with no work on your behalf, straight out of the box, consider yourself fortunate for having a very mainline set of hardware that happens to be commonplace. Their autoconfig utility predicted that one. There are plenty of other users that finish installing your distro, start X and watch it bomb out because their monitor resolution didn't get probed correctly. Or who didn't have the correct kernel modules autoloaded for their video or disk adaptors. Or are running a non-IMPS/2 compliant mouse. Or whatever.

      The only shortcomings I see in an OpenBSD desktop are the bad assumptions made by Linux developers who write most of the GUI applications. Like relying on /proc to be present, or any other number of stupid things. Blame them, and blame other vendors like game manufacturers, video card manufacturers, and others that don't consider OpenBSD a worthwhile market niche. I have news for you; just because 4 or 5 vendors are professing to be "Linux friendly" and produce a binary driver or config utility for your hardware doesn't mean you're any better off. If you're like me, what you get is a shoddy half-assed excuse to appease the small market share.

  8. By Anonymous Coward (141.39.13.5) on

    it's sad, all these bullshit comments make undeadly brink on the unreadable.

    comments which don't fit the openbsd elitism mainstream are constantly modded with "you don't know what you're talking about. i have ONE gateway system which functioned well, blah", valid points are
    always too modded down and then invalidaded with some weird reasoning.

    really, there's no real discussions here taking place (anymore), it's always like this -- smb has a different opinion (or just says that linux distros have their place and advantages for /some/ users) and then it's "you suck, fuckwit, die, blahblah", it's really sad an interesting forum for discussions more or less disappeared

    Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward (84.12.143.212) on

      maybe you should read slashdot ?

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward (205.156.117.1) on

        Yes, because a whinging board of hypocrites is *exactly* where one should be. Most Slashbots are pathetic, desperate wannabe-gurus who wouldn't know a technical discussion if one came up and bit them on the ass.

    2. By Anonymous Coward (131.202.9.179) on

      Sometimes good/valid comments do get moderated down ... after all anyone and everyone can moderate (it's an imperfect system, and some people with agendas probably abuse it in both directions). Unfortunately many of the critical comments from people who don't really use OpenBSD are often misinformed. It's the same effect you get when Windows-only people criticize Linux in other forums. If you make a good point, you can be sure that *most* people reading it will recognize it as such. Poor moderation scores and numerous silly rants can't invalidate of well-reasoned argument or criticism.

  9. By strlen (67.180.226.43) alex@strlen.net on http://e.strlen.net

    Is it more, or are ``tech journalists'' getting more and more militantly ignorant day by day? Has the idea of running ``xorgcfg'' and enabling xdm (which is trivial) and editing a single file (.xsession) evaded them? Are they *that* militant about not simply reading any documentation?

    They fail to raise a single valid problem. Perhaps they would indeed be better off running Solaris 10 (which *forces you* to install GNOME in the *minimal install* even on a headless system).

    I myself have no stake in this, I do not run OpenBSD on the desktop (I run OS X) neither on a laptop (I run FreeBSD) -- all for their own reasons. But really, what is with the expectation of complete and utter handholding (as in Fedora/default-Ubuntu) and dismay and shock whenever it is not there.

    I'd be dismayed if (Open|Free)BSD by *default* decided to auto-configure my video card (what if I don't want x11? what if I want to download different drivers, so forth...) and installed GNOME without my consent.

    It is like a review I've read earlier from some moron who installed FreeBSD and whined endlessly about it -- and never even bothered to setup ports (or even mentioned their existence, simply spoke about the out-of-the-box install). Seems to be people are flocking to Linux/BSD because they don't like Solaris/Windows/Linux, not because they are ready to embrace the idea of UNIX on the desktop. Here is an excellent, rant from Linux people which seems to take on lot of the premises taken on by the author of the review (especially if you do s/Linux/OpenBSD/ and s/Windows/Linux/ on the rant):

    http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

    (Apologies in advance for not formatting this message as HTML and not making the link click-able).

  10. By Anonymous Coward (85.101.92.94) on

    You know what, the problem is not the desktop really. OpenBSD lacks some interesting packages which run on the command line, such as lilypond, csound and some common-lisp implementations to name a few. I really like OpenBSD and I am trying to be constructive here rather than destructive. Don't you also think OpenBSD should put more effort in porting applications? And did you notice that in 3.8, number of pre-compiled packages actually reduced by 40? Unfortunately I am not proficient in porting to be able to help. I wish I was. Please help OpenBSD by porting interesting applications!

    Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward (83.147.128.114) on

      You can help by pressuring the application writers to write higher quality code so that it works under OpenBSD.

      Many open source projects are written from a "the whole world is Linux on an i386" perspective.

      If you can't write diffs, I suggest filing bug reports or mailing the authors or whatever.

Latest Articles

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.]