6 ms·

OpenBSD is somehow easy to setup, mainly due to the KISS philosophy and excellent documentation. Besides that they aim to be a very secure OS. But my experienc

OpenBSD is somehow easy to setup, mainly due to the KISS philosophy and excellent documentation. Besides that they aim to be a very secure OS. But my experience to make it work as a Desktop OS is very poor. Some reasons: The overall performance is way worse than Linux, the ports are not always up-to-date, other OS simulation is also outdated which means running commercial apps will be a challenge, upgrade process from version X to Y can be quiet painful, the lack of support for certain HW and Battery usage on laptops. I could never find anything that i could not do better and more efficient on Linux. On the positive side: CWM and their Artwork are really cool.

bollu 6y ago
Does anyone have any insight on why performance on OpenBSD is so much poorer? I'm really curious. I would have predicted the opposite: that OpenBSD is faster on account of its leaner.
- iddan 6y ago
  Probably utilisation of hardware
- iuguy 6y ago
  Lots of different reasons, but common ones include: 1. No binary blobs, so hardware acceleration can be missed. 2. There have been issues with specific apps e.g. Firefox that seem optimised for things that OpenBSD doesn't do. 3. Historically SMP/Hyperthreading support hasn't been as performant as it is on other platforms. In some cases this is due to prioritising security over performance - e.g. speculative cache execution bugs.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
    In single-core/early dualcore times on then contemporary PC-hardware, I had the opportunity to compare OpenBSD vs. NetBSD vs. FreeBSD. Though I didn't use them 'shrink-wrapped', but rather like one would do 'Linux from Scratch', or at least a very riced Gentoo :) Anyways, my hardware was supported perfectly on all of them, so no problems there. This way FreeBSD was only slightly faster than NetBSD, and i could have 132x60 textmode on its console, which didn't work at the time for NetBSD, and many, many ports of software. But I didn't need them all, and it felt a little more bloated. Since my goal was full desktop with KDE3 I didn't care much about textmode and went with NetBSD. It flew, rock-solid, unkaputtbar! While OpenBSD, at the times with the parts of KDE3 which were available for it had unexplainable periodic hiccups, not only during load, but light desktop use when no swap was in use at all! That felt very weird, and after a few months I discarded it, since other users and developers/contributors of it which I've spoken to in person(sometimes looking at me like I'd be an alien from outer space for using it as desktop) didn't have more to offer than right tool for the job, yadda yadda... Since then I'm following its progress from afar, only mildly interested. PF and ACKPRI were nice, but at least ACKPRI could be had by other means elsewhere, or some appliance. So... right tool for the job, I guess? edit: the hiccups didn't only happen while in X/KDE. Also when no Xserver at all was running, just doing things on the console, also while no swap was in use. 2nd edit: I pivoted to Arch from there, which in direct comparison to the riced NetBSD flew hypersonic, but wasn't as unkaputtbar (though only slightly less so), but saved much compile time :)
- implements 6y ago
  I’ve a dim memory that a version of Firefox was slow because it frequently called a system function that most OSs implement “quick and dirty” but OpenBSD did “slower, but correct”, so perhaps it’s down to an accumulation of that approach repeated throughout the system?
  - easytiger 6y ago
    Not tremendously helpful without discussing examples. Do you have more information?
    - nix23 6y ago
      Next time use a search engine for yourself: https://flak.tedunangst.com/post/firefox-vs-rthreads https://flak.tedunangst.com/post/firefox-vs-rthreads
      - easytiger 6y ago
        Are you quite serious?
        nix23 6y ago
        Yes http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Firefox+slow+on+Openbsd http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Firefox+slow+on+Openbsd
      - implements 6y ago
        The very one! Thank you.
      - msla 6y ago
        Search engines don't always bring up reputable sources. Case in point, perhaps?
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  I think the truth is that being fast is the result of doing things smarter and being lean means doing less. Intuitively it seems like doing less ought to lead to fewer defects not better performance.
- scns 6y ago
  Filesystem performance
na85 6y ago
I've largely given up on OpenBSD. The security "track record" isn't really much of a track record when you consider that their only claim pertains to "the default install" which frankly doesn't comprise a very useful set of tools for doing anything other than a router. But if you want a router, there's pfsense. Anyways. My experience with OpenBSD mirrors yours. It's easy to set up if your desired end state is an X desktop and ethernet networking. 802.11 in OpenBSD is an exercise in patience to say the least, and the last time I looked (admittedly back in 2016 or so) most guides were still recommending wpa_supplicant and config file editing with a straight face. I'm Canadian, so I really want to like The Little Canadian OS That Could but honestly it's second- or third-best at everything and best-in-class at nothing. I don't know why a person would reach for OpenBSD in 2020 when Debian exists, except perhaps if you want to enable corporations to make parasitic profits from others' hard work. And even then there's FreeBSD for your playstation and for pfsense, and NetBSD for your toaster. I dunno, it just seems like they make so much hay out of being secure, but the "secure OS" isn't much of an OS at all in terms of functionality.
- fogihujy 6y ago
  There are some reasons for chosing OpenBSD, and it does make a quite capable desktop. It still lacks the "just works" approach of Linux distributions like Mint, and the performance of lean distros like Debian. That being said, OpenBSD has an excellent installer, amazing docs, and I did run it as a desktop for a while. Went back to Linux because I wanted to play Dwarf Fortress natively of all things. Things don't neccesarily work better with Linux, but I definitely spend less time tinkering now. Which could be a good or a bad thing depending on whom you ask.
  - na85 6y ago
    Eh, I find the docs aren't as good as people say. If your question is "where is the config file for rc located?" then sure, the manual will tell you. If your question is "what options are allowed in rc.conf and what is the syntax?" then your answer is not found in the manual page for rc but from a random Reddit post your Google search brought up.
PopsiclePete 6y ago
I agree. Installation is kind of fun in an old-school UNIX-y way. I feel Desktop Linux spent the better part of two decades endlessly tweaking the installation experience, as if people spend 50% of their time installing and reinstalling Linux (maybe they do?) But once the install is done, the experience is...underwhelming. Bare-bones X11 and FVWM. Yikes. That with the xenodm login screen give it a distinct 1992-era experience. I'm obviously aware I can install full-blown KDE/GNOME but the whole point (to me) of using OpenBSD is to go minimal, using secure and vetted built-ins as much as possible. If I wanted 500 Gnome packages with potentially thousands of accompanying bugs, well, I'd just run Ubuntu, right? But I also am too ....impatient? old?....to spend hours tweaking .Xresources and dealing with bitmap fonts and the whole (horrific) 1990's X11 experience. I just want a default desktop that does NOT look like complete garbage. Make it super optional and put it under the "lame-n00b" option during install. Mock me during setup and tell me to go back to WinDoze. I'll happily take all that abuse just to boot into something that doesn't look like it ran Ross Perot's campaign.

bollu 6y ago

Does anyone have any insight on why performance on OpenBSD is so much poorer? I'm really curious. I would have predicted the opposite: that OpenBSD is faster on account of its leaner.

iddan 6y ago
Probably utilisation of hardware
iuguy 6y ago
Lots of different reasons, but common ones include: 1. No binary blobs, so hardware acceleration can be missed. 2. There have been issues with specific apps e.g. Firefox that seem optimised for things that OpenBSD doesn't do. 3. Historically SMP/Hyperthreading support hasn't been as performant as it is on other platforms. In some cases this is due to prioritising security over performance - e.g. speculative cache execution bugs.
- LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
  In single-core/early dualcore times on then contemporary PC-hardware, I had the opportunity to compare OpenBSD vs. NetBSD vs. FreeBSD. Though I didn't use them 'shrink-wrapped', but rather like one would do 'Linux from Scratch', or at least a very riced Gentoo :) Anyways, my hardware was supported perfectly on all of them, so no problems there. This way FreeBSD was only slightly faster than NetBSD, and i could have 132x60 textmode on its console, which didn't work at the time for NetBSD, and many, many ports of software. But I didn't need them all, and it felt a little more bloated. Since my goal was full desktop with KDE3 I didn't care much about textmode and went with NetBSD. It flew, rock-solid, unkaputtbar! While OpenBSD, at the times with the parts of KDE3 which were available for it had unexplainable periodic hiccups, not only during load, but light desktop use when no swap was in use at all! That felt very weird, and after a few months I discarded it, since other users and developers/contributors of it which I've spoken to in person(sometimes looking at me like I'd be an alien from outer space for using it as desktop) didn't have more to offer than right tool for the job, yadda yadda... Since then I'm following its progress from afar, only mildly interested. PF and ACKPRI were nice, but at least ACKPRI could be had by other means elsewhere, or some appliance. So... right tool for the job, I guess? edit: the hiccups didn't only happen while in X/KDE. Also when no Xserver at all was running, just doing things on the console, also while no swap was in use. 2nd edit: I pivoted to Arch from there, which in direct comparison to the riced NetBSD flew hypersonic, but wasn't as unkaputtbar (though only slightly less so), but saved much compile time :)
implements 6y ago
I’ve a dim memory that a version of Firefox was slow because it frequently called a system function that most OSs implement “quick and dirty” but OpenBSD did “slower, but correct”, so perhaps it’s down to an accumulation of that approach repeated throughout the system?
- easytiger 6y ago
  Not tremendously helpful without discussing examples. Do you have more information?
  - nix23 6y ago
    Next time use a search engine for yourself: https://flak.tedunangst.com/post/firefox-vs-rthreads https://flak.tedunangst.com/post/firefox-vs-rthreads
    - easytiger 6y ago
      Are you quite serious?
      - nix23 6y ago
        Yes http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Firefox+slow+on+Openbsd http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Firefox+slow+on+Openbsd
    - implements 6y ago
      The very one! Thank you.
    - msla 6y ago
      Search engines don't always bring up reputable sources. Case in point, perhaps?
michaelmrose 6y ago
I think the truth is that being fast is the result of doing things smarter and being lean means doing less. Intuitively it seems like doing less ought to lead to fewer defects not better performance.
scns 6y ago
Filesystem performance

na85 6y ago

I've largely given up on OpenBSD. The security "track record" isn't really much of a track record when you consider that their only claim pertains to "the default install" which frankly doesn't comprise a very useful set of tools for doing anything other than a router. But if you want a router, there's pfsense. Anyways. My experience with OpenBSD mirrors yours. It's easy to set up if your desired end state is an X desktop and ethernet networking. 802.11 in OpenBSD is an exercise in patience to say the least, and the last time I looked (admittedly back in 2016 or so) most guides were still recommending wpa_supplicant and config file editing with a straight face. I'm Canadian, so I really want to like The Little Canadian OS That Could but honestly it's second- or third-best at everything and best-in-class at nothing. I don't know why a person would reach for OpenBSD in 2020 when Debian exists, except perhaps if you want to enable corporations to make parasitic profits from others' hard work. And even then there's FreeBSD for your playstation and for pfsense, and NetBSD for your toaster. I dunno, it just seems like they make so much hay out of being secure, but the "secure OS" isn't much of an OS at all in terms of functionality.

fogihujy 6y ago
There are some reasons for chosing OpenBSD, and it does make a quite capable desktop. It still lacks the "just works" approach of Linux distributions like Mint, and the performance of lean distros like Debian. That being said, OpenBSD has an excellent installer, amazing docs, and I did run it as a desktop for a while. Went back to Linux because I wanted to play Dwarf Fortress natively of all things. Things don't neccesarily work better with Linux, but I definitely spend less time tinkering now. Which could be a good or a bad thing depending on whom you ask.
- na85 6y ago
  Eh, I find the docs aren't as good as people say. If your question is "where is the config file for rc located?" then sure, the manual will tell you. If your question is "what options are allowed in rc.conf and what is the syntax?" then your answer is not found in the manual page for rc but from a random Reddit post your Google search brought up.

PopsiclePete 6y ago

I agree. Installation is kind of fun in an old-school UNIX-y way. I feel Desktop Linux spent the better part of two decades endlessly tweaking the installation experience, as if people spend 50% of their time installing and reinstalling Linux (maybe they do?) But once the install is done, the experience is...underwhelming. Bare-bones X11 and FVWM. Yikes. That with the xenodm login screen give it a distinct 1992-era experience. I'm obviously aware I can install full-blown KDE/GNOME but the whole point (to me) of using OpenBSD is to go minimal, using secure and vetted built-ins as much as possible. If I wanted 500 Gnome packages with potentially thousands of accompanying bugs, well, I'd just run Ubuntu, right? But I also am too ....impatient? old?....to spend hours tweaking .Xresources and dealing with bitmap fonts and the whole (horrific) 1990's X11 experience. I just want a default desktop that does NOT look like complete garbage. Make it super optional and put it under the "lame-n00b" option during install. Mock me during setup and tell me to go back to WinDoze. I'll happily take all that abuse just to boot into something that doesn't look like it ran Ross Perot's campaign.