3 ms·

It’s great for specific applications but you would be hard pressed to say it’s a better desktop OS than a gnu Linux distro. Bluetooth is a pretty hard thing to

It’s great for specific applications but you would be hard pressed to say it’s a better desktop OS than a gnu Linux distro. Bluetooth is a pretty hard thing to miss.

LoganDark 4y ago
I don't use Bluetooth. I even use my DualSense controller wired. A true UNIX is hard to beat. I grew up with macOS and was devastated when my Mac broke & couldn't afford a new one. Been despising Windows for the past ~1.5 years. OpenBSD is nothing like macOS, but it is still UNIX.
- Kwpolska 4y ago
  Did you consider Linux? While it isn't Unix certified, it's still Unix-like, and is quite usable as a desktop (YMMV of course).
  - LoganDark 4y ago
    I did. I've used Ubuntu, Arch, Alpine and also KISS Linux. I think KISS Linux is my favorite in terms of control, but it gives me so much control that I was never able to get it working. Its build system is theoretically awesome, but in practice maintaining my own distribution is less fun than it sounds. Alpine is my favorite in terms of runtime stability since it essentially reimages itself into a tmpfs every boot and packages are completely atomic. But the fact that everything is statically linked means it's a pain to get anything working, and I haven't yet found anything that fills both niches. (I have not tried Silverblue or NixOS yet) Arch is my favorite in terms of customization because basically everything has an AUR package these days, including the old traditional window managers (i.e. blackbox) that make for a utilitarian UNIX, my favorite kind. (With Wayland that all goes away, which is why I despise Wayland.) Ubuntu is far too "stable" for my needs, and I commonly find that the newest release is already years out of date on packages. You basically need Linuxbrew to do any sort of bleeding-edge development on an Ubuntu machine. I'm open to trying more, of course.
  - t-3 4y ago
    Most Linux distros next to OpenBSD don't measure up well in any area except bleeding-edge hardware and software support. For routers and other network appliances, very often only the base system is needed, no packages or anything extra to install. OpenBSD's userland tools are excellent - configuration files and control interfaces are almost all in a standard format, documentation is excellent, and everything has obviously been designed with care. Stability isn't even a question. Bluetooth, Nvidia, support for most proprietary or highly specialized software are missing, but otherwise it makes a fine desktop/laptop OS.
    - LoganDark 4y ago
      > Nvidia Doesn't Nvidia make first-party drivers for OpenBSD? And they're more likely to work since "OpenBSD" is far more specific than "Linux"?
      - t-3 4y ago
        No, not unless something major has changed that neither I nor Google heard about. Nvidia is very anti-open source AFAIK.
corette 4y ago
If you value simplicity, it's far better than Linux. Many people use it because they like simple things that just work and can be easily fixed when they fail.

It’s great for specific applications but you would be hard pressed to say it’s a better desktop OS than a gnu Linux distro. Bluetooth is a pretty hard thing to miss.

LoganDark 4y ago

I don't use Bluetooth. I even use my DualSense controller wired. A true UNIX is hard to beat. I grew up with macOS and was devastated when my Mac broke & couldn't afford a new one. Been despising Windows for the past ~1.5 years. OpenBSD is nothing like macOS, but it is still UNIX.

Kwpolska 4y ago
Did you consider Linux? While it isn't Unix certified, it's still Unix-like, and is quite usable as a desktop (YMMV of course).
- LoganDark 4y ago
  I did. I've used Ubuntu, Arch, Alpine and also KISS Linux. I think KISS Linux is my favorite in terms of control, but it gives me so much control that I was never able to get it working. Its build system is theoretically awesome, but in practice maintaining my own distribution is less fun than it sounds. Alpine is my favorite in terms of runtime stability since it essentially reimages itself into a tmpfs every boot and packages are completely atomic. But the fact that everything is statically linked means it's a pain to get anything working, and I haven't yet found anything that fills both niches. (I have not tried Silverblue or NixOS yet) Arch is my favorite in terms of customization because basically everything has an AUR package these days, including the old traditional window managers (i.e. blackbox) that make for a utilitarian UNIX, my favorite kind. (With Wayland that all goes away, which is why I despise Wayland.) Ubuntu is far too "stable" for my needs, and I commonly find that the newest release is already years out of date on packages. You basically need Linuxbrew to do any sort of bleeding-edge development on an Ubuntu machine. I'm open to trying more, of course.
- t-3 4y ago
  Most Linux distros next to OpenBSD don't measure up well in any area except bleeding-edge hardware and software support. For routers and other network appliances, very often only the base system is needed, no packages or anything extra to install. OpenBSD's userland tools are excellent - configuration files and control interfaces are almost all in a standard format, documentation is excellent, and everything has obviously been designed with care. Stability isn't even a question. Bluetooth, Nvidia, support for most proprietary or highly specialized software are missing, but otherwise it makes a fine desktop/laptop OS.
  - LoganDark 4y ago
    > Nvidia Doesn't Nvidia make first-party drivers for OpenBSD? And they're more likely to work since "OpenBSD" is far more specific than "Linux"?
    - t-3 4y ago
      No, not unless something major has changed that neither I nor Google heard about. Nvidia is very anti-open source AFAIK.

corette 4y ago

If you value simplicity, it's far better than Linux. Many people use it because they like simple things that just work and can be easily fixed when they fail.