4 ms·

It is really impressive how much you can streamline and simplify a Unix system if you can afford to cut off legacy stuff. It's also great to see that stuff bein

by vog 11y ago

It is really impressive how much you can streamline and simplify a Unix system if you can afford to cut off legacy stuff. It's also great to see that stuff being spread outside the OpenBSD world.

krylon 11y ago
Among the Linux-users I know, OpenBSD has a reputation for being very cryptic and, well, hardcore. I am not really certain why. The installer is kind of spartan, yes, but it is not difficult to figure out. And not only is the system pretty simple, the documentation is really good, too. I recently inherited an old laptop that would have ended up in the trash otherwise, and I installed OpenBSD on it. The battery is busted, unfortunately, but otherwise installing the system and setting up XFCE was pretty straightforward. The community can be a little tough on newbies at times, but if one plays by their rules, they are a very friendly and helpful bunch.
- gnuvince 11y ago
  > The installer is kind of spartan, yes, but it is not difficult to figure out. In fact, it asks the same questions as a typical Ubuntu install: keyboard language, timezone, username + password, partitioning, network. They throw in a couple more questions about enabling NTP and SSH. > And not only is the system pretty simple, the documentation is really good, too. I think that newer users of Linux are not used to searching for documentation in man pages, instead they go look for an answer they can copy-paste off of Stack Overflow.
  - vog 11y ago
    > I think that newer users of Linux are not used to searching for documentation in man pages, instead they go look for an answer they can copy-paste off of Stack Overflow. Unfortunately, we see this for (some, newby) system administrators, too. I guess this is the typical issue with "getting it work" versus "getting it right".
    - moviuro 11y ago
      What about docker .vs. real system administration?...
      - chousuke 11y ago
        You know, if you use Docker for the right reasons, in the right way, it can be a real time saver. I'm not really sold on the way Docker specifically tries to be fire-and-forget easy (it often succeeds in being silly and you have to work around it), but containers are good. There's a lot of very useful software that just expects that it can do whatever it wants on a system, like install its own dependencies from git, run its own version of python etc. You may want to run such software in production and it is an absolute maintenance nightmare if you install all the dependencies via package management. Upgrading starts with rebuilding and repackaging all dependencies. Not fun, and not a good use of time. For such software, containers make it feasible to administer as somewhat manageable units: You create the Dockerfile or whatever to install the software you want, and run the resulting image on a host, and bring configuration in via puppet or something. Then, when you need to upgrade, you rebuild your image and deploy it on the host; rollbacks are trivial, as is scaling, or creating test environments. You can of course achieve the same sort of thing with virtual machines providing you have good orchestration. However, often a deployment can consist of multiple software components that are separate units, but can (or must) share a single host. I think so long as Linux containers don't actually offer real security, that's the niche where they are useful.
  - ams6110 11y ago
    Even older users can get into this habit. I started with Unix before the web existed. Man pages (or books) were usually the only documentation. Then Google, and StackOverflow, and others came along and it was very easy to slip into the habit of just searching for answers. When you use OpenBSD there isn't necessarily a lot to be found online, other than mailing list archives. But remember to look at the man pages and the OpenBSD FAQ[1] they will usually have the answers you need. [1] http://www.openbsd.org/faq/ http://www.openbsd.org/faq/
  - smcl 11y ago
    I know what you mean about man pages, but I think it's a little subtler than that. The man pages are generally useful if you already know roughly what you're looking for (i.e. you know that some utility provides the functionality you need) but can be a little troubling if you haven't a clue which combination of program, config file etc to use.
    - ethbro 11y ago
      This is a fair point. As far as I know, on linux there are limited / no man pages covering general system architecture. E.g "My wifi is broken, where do I start?"
  - fao_ 11y ago
    > I think that newer users of Linux are not used to searching for documentation in man pages, instead they go look for an answer they can copy-paste off of Stack Overflow. I do not disagree entirely, but I would add that they've probably learned to do this because most linux distributions* are not very well documented -- in comparison to BSD systems, which are known for their amazing handbooks, man pages, etc. *: Excluding (of course) Arch, Gentoo, and (Last I checked) Slackware
- omnibrain 11y ago
  > Among the Linux-users I know, OpenBSD has a reputation for being very cryptic and, well, hardcore. I only played around on several occasions with OpenBSD but I always found it a lot easier and transparenter than Linux.
- protomyth 11y ago
  The only real difficulty with the installer I've found is the partitioning. That takes a bit of explanation. It is a bit funny that it takes less time to run the installer and copy the needed files to /etc for our firewall than to re-image a disc. Same with our domain name servers.
- pyvpx 11y ago
  the community is not tough on newbies; it is _harsh_ on those that do not read the documentation before asking questions. if something is not documented or documented incorrectly, that is a bug. too many folks who are new to OpenBSD do not bother to read any of the man pages or even the FAQ (which points to man pages) and then immediately hit the list, as if other people are supposed to do the reading and research for them.
- technofiend 11y ago
  I'm not sure that's really limited to any of the BSDs, honestly. Newer Unices and Linux in particular are pretty darn user friendly relative to how it used to be. And users have the backstop of googling for any answer these days. OpenBSD hearkens to the older school of thought that reading the docs is not a bad thing and in fact can be a great place to start. It reminds me of my start on UNIX puzzling out the mysteries of UNIX one man page at a time. You are in a maze of twisty little man pages, all alike.
njorth 11y ago
Each release is like an obituary for grudgingly tolerated Unix software. See X11, Apache, BIND, Sendmail, OpenSSL, etc. Let's toast to a GCC replacement before 7.0!
- upofadown 11y ago
  X11?
  - sevensor 11y ago
    I imagine GP is referring to XFree86, before XOrg.
    - bch 11y ago
      Or essentially running as root, and aperture[0] mitigation? [0] http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man4/xf86.4?query=xf86&sec=4 http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man4/...

by vog 11y ago

It is really impressive how much you can streamline and simplify a Unix system if you can afford to cut off legacy stuff. It's also great to see that stuff being spread outside the OpenBSD world.

krylon 11y ago

Among the Linux-users I know, OpenBSD has a reputation for being very cryptic and, well, hardcore. I am not really certain why. The installer is kind of spartan, yes, but it is not difficult to figure out. And not only is the system pretty simple, the documentation is really good, too. I recently inherited an old laptop that would have ended up in the trash otherwise, and I installed OpenBSD on it. The battery is busted, unfortunately, but otherwise installing the system and setting up XFCE was pretty straightforward. The community can be a little tough on newbies at times, but if one plays by their rules, they are a very friendly and helpful bunch.

gnuvince 11y ago
> The installer is kind of spartan, yes, but it is not difficult to figure out. In fact, it asks the same questions as a typical Ubuntu install: keyboard language, timezone, username + password, partitioning, network. They throw in a couple more questions about enabling NTP and SSH. > And not only is the system pretty simple, the documentation is really good, too. I think that newer users of Linux are not used to searching for documentation in man pages, instead they go look for an answer they can copy-paste off of Stack Overflow.
- vog 11y ago
  > I think that newer users of Linux are not used to searching for documentation in man pages, instead they go look for an answer they can copy-paste off of Stack Overflow. Unfortunately, we see this for (some, newby) system administrators, too. I guess this is the typical issue with "getting it work" versus "getting it right".
  - moviuro 11y ago
    What about docker .vs. real system administration?...
    - chousuke 11y ago
      You know, if you use Docker for the right reasons, in the right way, it can be a real time saver. I'm not really sold on the way Docker specifically tries to be fire-and-forget easy (it often succeeds in being silly and you have to work around it), but containers are good. There's a lot of very useful software that just expects that it can do whatever it wants on a system, like install its own dependencies from git, run its own version of python etc. You may want to run such software in production and it is an absolute maintenance nightmare if you install all the dependencies via package management. Upgrading starts with rebuilding and repackaging all dependencies. Not fun, and not a good use of time. For such software, containers make it feasible to administer as somewhat manageable units: You create the Dockerfile or whatever to install the software you want, and run the resulting image on a host, and bring configuration in via puppet or something. Then, when you need to upgrade, you rebuild your image and deploy it on the host; rollbacks are trivial, as is scaling, or creating test environments. You can of course achieve the same sort of thing with virtual machines providing you have good orchestration. However, often a deployment can consist of multiple software components that are separate units, but can (or must) share a single host. I think so long as Linux containers don't actually offer real security, that's the niche where they are useful.
- ams6110 11y ago
  Even older users can get into this habit. I started with Unix before the web existed. Man pages (or books) were usually the only documentation. Then Google, and StackOverflow, and others came along and it was very easy to slip into the habit of just searching for answers. When you use OpenBSD there isn't necessarily a lot to be found online, other than mailing list archives. But remember to look at the man pages and the OpenBSD FAQ[1] they will usually have the answers you need. [1] http://www.openbsd.org/faq/ http://www.openbsd.org/faq/
- smcl 11y ago
  I know what you mean about man pages, but I think it's a little subtler than that. The man pages are generally useful if you already know roughly what you're looking for (i.e. you know that some utility provides the functionality you need) but can be a little troubling if you haven't a clue which combination of program, config file etc to use.
  - ethbro 11y ago
    This is a fair point. As far as I know, on linux there are limited / no man pages covering general system architecture. E.g "My wifi is broken, where do I start?"
- fao_ 11y ago
  > I think that newer users of Linux are not used to searching for documentation in man pages, instead they go look for an answer they can copy-paste off of Stack Overflow. I do not disagree entirely, but I would add that they've probably learned to do this because most linux distributions* are not very well documented -- in comparison to BSD systems, which are known for their amazing handbooks, man pages, etc. *: Excluding (of course) Arch, Gentoo, and (Last I checked) Slackware
omnibrain 11y ago
> Among the Linux-users I know, OpenBSD has a reputation for being very cryptic and, well, hardcore. I only played around on several occasions with OpenBSD but I always found it a lot easier and transparenter than Linux.
protomyth 11y ago
The only real difficulty with the installer I've found is the partitioning. That takes a bit of explanation. It is a bit funny that it takes less time to run the installer and copy the needed files to /etc for our firewall than to re-image a disc. Same with our domain name servers.
pyvpx 11y ago
the community is not tough on newbies; it is _harsh_ on those that do not read the documentation before asking questions. if something is not documented or documented incorrectly, that is a bug. too many folks who are new to OpenBSD do not bother to read any of the man pages or even the FAQ (which points to man pages) and then immediately hit the list, as if other people are supposed to do the reading and research for them.
technofiend 11y ago
I'm not sure that's really limited to any of the BSDs, honestly. Newer Unices and Linux in particular are pretty darn user friendly relative to how it used to be. And users have the backstop of googling for any answer these days. OpenBSD hearkens to the older school of thought that reading the docs is not a bad thing and in fact can be a great place to start. It reminds me of my start on UNIX puzzling out the mysteries of UNIX one man page at a time. You are in a maze of twisty little man pages, all alike.

njorth 11y ago

Each release is like an obituary for grudgingly tolerated Unix software. See X11, Apache, BIND, Sendmail, OpenSSL, etc. Let's toast to a GCC replacement before 7.0!

upofadown 11y ago
X11?
- sevensor 11y ago
  I imagine GP is referring to XFree86, before XOrg.
  - bch 11y ago
    Or essentially running as root, and aperture[0] mitigation? [0] http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man4/xf86.4?query=xf86&sec=4 http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man4/...