4 ms·
> Invariably they advise updating the base system and pkgng, then immediately installing bash, nano, htop, lsof, coreutils, proc, and more. Isn't this what was
by cesarb 6y ago
> Invariably they advise updating the base system and pkgng, then immediately installing bash, nano, htop, lsof, coreutils, proc, and more.
Isn't this what was commonly done on proprietary Unix, even before Linux existed? From what I have read about that era (I started with Linux so I didn't live through these times), the GNU tools were better than what came with these Unix systems. The authors of these guides probably have a similar opinion about the BSD tools.
- smabie 6y agoIn my opinion, the BSD userland is much nicer than GNU: the documentation is better, no long name arguments, and simpler. Browsing the source is also good fun, the implementations are straightforward and look like how I imagine K&R would write code. This is in contrast to the GNU userland, which is just so crazy. It's evident that the GNU people don't really like C and refuse to accept the language's simplicity, instead struggling all the way. Maybe I'm weird, but I like using systems in which I can feel good about the code, even if I never contribute a patch. And though I use Arch Linux instead of OpenBSD nowadays, I don't feel good about really anything to do with Linux. The ecosystem is gross and has turned into Frankenstein's monster.