3 ms·
> terrible battery life on laptops It's not terrible, just worse. On an X240, it was about 60-70% of what I could get from optimized Linux. Before you say that
by 4ad 11y ago
> terrible battery life on laptops
It's not terrible, just worse. On an X240, it was about 60-70% of what I could get from optimized Linux. Before you say that's terrible I will say that stock Ubuntu only got 70%-80% of optimized Linux too. So OpenBSD was only slightly worse than Ubuntu in this regard.
Sure, Linux in general can be optimized much further than stock Ubuntu, but that's work I'd prefer not to do. If it's important to you, sure, go ahead and do it!
Battery life is important to me, but even more important to me is having more reliable networking, and network tools I can actually understand and use. Ever tried to set a GRE tunnel in NetworkManager?
And sure, I can chose not use to NetworkManager and Ubuntu and do everything "the old fashioned way" in Linux too. I can install Gentoo and make it work without all that, but that's work I prefer not to do. OpenBSD does what I want from it from the default install. Nothing else to tinker with.
- parennoob 11y ago> Battery life is important to me, but even more important to me is having more reliable networking, and network tools I can actually understand and use. Ever tried to set a GRE tunnel in NetworkManager? I have no doubt that doing advanced network stuff is easier in OpenBSD than Linux -- but remember I was talking about average users. How often does your average desktop or laptoo user need to set up a GRE tunnel? Overall, I see your viewpoint, and I think you see mine too. OpenBSD is a more reliable OS for servers and in general headless stuff. That being said, given your optimism, I will try out OpenBSD again on a laptop.