3 ms·

> Since SystemD has become so prevalent in Linux, I've been looking longingly at BSD. After ~20 years of using Debian, I switched my desktop PC to OpenBSD abou

by johnr2 8y ago

> Since SystemD has become so prevalent in Linux, I've been looking longingly at BSD. After ~20 years of using Debian, I switched my desktop PC to OpenBSD about a year ago due to concerns about the direction Linux has taken (eg. systemd). It was easier to set up the kind of minimalist desktop I like than on Debian, where I have to change a lot of defaults (eg. switching to sysvinit). The package manager is great, and there are ~10k packages available for 6.4. I'm now looking at switching my server to OpenBSD. I'm keeping some dedicated audio workstations on Linux for now (need the raw performance and drivers), but my impression of OpenBSD so far has been very good. OpenBSD caveats: Video and audio can be a little glitchy. Releases are only supported for one year. ABI can change between releases. There's no filesystem journal. The only non-BSD filestems supported are msdos and ext2fs (and read/write speeds on those are slow).

Crontab 8y ago
> There's no filesystem journal That's one that has been sticking out to me lately. Both NetBSD and OpenBSD, as much as I like them, lack a modern filesystem..
- naniwaduni 8y ago
  This is true if by modern filesystem you're thinking something comparable to ZFS. On the other hand, if it's the lack of journaling that's a turn-off, seriously consider soft updates (softdep). Despite being seemingly an evolutionary dead end due to implementation complexity demands (basically, it's only feasible to implement at the level where it's possible to diagram out implied dependencies between all primitive operations), it is still in some respects superior to the journaling approach. In any case, I find that, from reading the design, it feels more elegant and fundamentally right. http://static.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/usenix99/full_papers/mckusick/mckusick.pdf http://static.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/us...

by johnr2 8y ago

Crontab 8y ago

> There's no filesystem journal That's one that has been sticking out to me lately. Both NetBSD and OpenBSD, as much as I like them, lack a modern filesystem..

naniwaduni 8y ago
This is true if by modern filesystem you're thinking something comparable to ZFS. On the other hand, if it's the lack of journaling that's a turn-off, seriously consider soft updates (softdep). Despite being seemingly an evolutionary dead end due to implementation complexity demands (basically, it's only feasible to implement at the level where it's possible to diagram out implied dependencies between all primitive operations), it is still in some respects superior to the journaling approach. In any case, I find that, from reading the design, it feels more elegant and fundamentally right. http://static.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/usenix99/full_papers/mckusick/mckusick.pdf http://static.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/us...