3 ms·

OpenBSD if you don't mind the performance hit. It does feel a little bit slower when browsing the web for example. I don't mind. The installation is very quick

by tpfour 8y ago

OpenBSD if you don't mind the performance hit. It does feel a little bit slower when browsing the web for example. I don't mind. The installation is very quick and then it just work on my t470. Documentation is excellent. Try it.

bubblethink 8y ago
I found OpenBSD in my brief stint to be too useless as a desktop. The installer is quite hostile and stupid (and I don't mean advanced or unix-like before someone tries to defend it; it's actually hostile and retarded. It wiped my gpt table without asking me). The performance was terrible out of the box. It couldn't saturate a standard gigabit Ethernet link on my w530 in iperf, scp etc. pkg management was really slow. pkg_add takes ages like a windows 95 machine. And it doesn't have a standard package update mechanism without relying on a third party like mtier. All in all, the impression I got from using OpenBSD was that it's best used either as an ingredient like OpenSSH in other better operating systems, or maybe for some other specific use cases where these flaws can be overlooked.
- tpfour 8y ago
  This is surprising. When did you last try it? A fresh install of 6.4 feels very lean and mean although a little sluggish when browsing the web for example. OpenBSD just feels really solid and simple, but powerful if you want it to be. The whole system feels very well integrated, nothing out of place. For my purposes I much prefer pledge to seccomp. It is much easier for me to use one of pledges' system call subsets, risking allowing a little bit more than necessary, than doing the equivalent in seccomp. Sure it might be more fine-grained, but I won't bother. I guess nothing stops developers from adding their own pledge syscall subsets to their kernel and recompile it, thus getting closer to seccomp control. However my box doesn't feel as snappy as a lean Debian 9 install with xfce4. You have to decide if that's a dealbreaker :)

by tpfour 8y ago

bubblethink 8y ago

I found OpenBSD in my brief stint to be too useless as a desktop. The installer is quite hostile and stupid (and I don't mean advanced or unix-like before someone tries to defend it; it's actually hostile and retarded. It wiped my gpt table without asking me). The performance was terrible out of the box. It couldn't saturate a standard gigabit Ethernet link on my w530 in iperf, scp etc. pkg management was really slow. pkg_add takes ages like a windows 95 machine. And it doesn't have a standard package update mechanism without relying on a third party like mtier. All in all, the impression I got from using OpenBSD was that it's best used either as an ingredient like OpenSSH in other better operating systems, or maybe for some other specific use cases where these flaws can be overlooked.

tpfour 8y ago
This is surprising. When did you last try it? A fresh install of 6.4 feels very lean and mean although a little sluggish when browsing the web for example. OpenBSD just feels really solid and simple, but powerful if you want it to be. The whole system feels very well integrated, nothing out of place. For my purposes I much prefer pledge to seccomp. It is much easier for me to use one of pledges' system call subsets, risking allowing a little bit more than necessary, than doing the equivalent in seccomp. Sure it might be more fine-grained, but I won't bother. I guess nothing stops developers from adding their own pledge syscall subsets to their kernel and recompile it, thus getting closer to seccomp control. However my box doesn't feel as snappy as a lean Debian 9 install with xfce4. You have to decide if that's a dealbreaker :)