3 ms·

> This is the little slice of computing heaven I currently live within. In a lot of ways it feels like what I imagine employed hackers of old in the 90s were up

> This is the little slice of computing heaven I currently live within. In a lot of ways it feels like what I imagine employed hackers of old in the 90s were up to. That does sound like a dream come true; how does one end up in such a gig? > If only there were a freely-usable set of Unix-like operating systems, with an emphasis on keeping things very, very stable over releases, even more stable than Debian does. Enter the BSDs. Free, Open, Net, take your pick. All of them take a “don’t fix it if it ain’t broken” approach to things, which means someone who started slinging NetBSD installs back in 2007 can probably spin up a well-manicured VM of that 2007 install and reliably make their way around the system, even today, in 2024. I dearly love all the major BSDs, but that... isn't the argument I would make for OpenBSD, which is quite happy to break things to improve them. For example, replacing sudo with doas - excellent move, but if you go back multiple versions your knowledge no longer works, much like Debian. (If I were making suggestions, I tend to feel that NetBSD has largely not yet realized it isn't a barely-forked UNIX running on a VAX; it feels much more unchanging to me, at least from a user perspective, though perhaps I merely lack the experience to know better.)

hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago
Author here - yeah, as I've learned more about OpenBSD I've realized that, while "don't fix it if it ain't broken" is still a valid claim about their overall approach, the OpenBSD hackers also just ... see a lot of stuff that's broken, everywhere. Still, somehow, on the margin, I feel I'd be more comfortable hopping back into a much earlier OpenBSD than a much earlier Debian. Maybe it's a taste thing.
silver_silver 2y ago
Not as radical a change as, e.g. integrating systemd though
- graemep 2y ago
  The aim of systemd seems to be to use the Linux kernel as the base for a non-unix OS as shown (hence the "now with 42% linux philosophy tagline of the latest recent release https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/13/version_256_systemd/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/13/version_256_systemd/). Its not a bad idea if you agree with the aim - Linux already has lots of hardware support and an ecosystem to leverage. In the long run BSDs and non-systemd Linux will be more similar to each other than they are to Linux with systemd in a lot of ways. I have started using Alpine for servers - its small and fast. Not so sure about switching on desktops.
  - ziggy_star 2y ago
    I don't believe for a moment that was the initial aim of systemd. They just tried to improve on a pile of hacks and by pulling on that string it sort of ends up touching (or from your perspective infecting) everything. It vaguely reminds me of people arguing about "what color is your function". You open that portal and end up in a new universe. All or nothing. The unix wars are long over I'm not sure what you can point to that ever was a True Unix. Nostalgia not withstanding. What well defined standard Right Way you're actually clinging to is not clear. Whether it will end up for the best or not I don't know but the entire saga seems to be the pitfalls of endless tinkering on display rather than some unifying vision. I wish we lived in a world where systemd type efforts had clear end goals and well thought out architecture in mind when they start but open source doesn't like working this way. It just ends up as "my favorite way of doing things is better" based on vibes. In both directions. That's the problem with "philosophies".
    - galangalalgol 2y ago
      Given android doesn't use systemd, and containers don't expose it even if the host machine uses it, systemd isn't actually that entrenched or irreversible. Containerized applications don't know or care, and neither do all the people toting around android as phones, tablets, or laptops. Unix may only be tied together as a concept at this point by a posixish libc api, and that is probably just fine.
      - hollerith 2y ago
        ChromeOS doesn't use systemd, either. (It uses upstart, which I am guessing they have to maintain without any significant outside help.)
        yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
        I'm pretty sure ChromeOS is getting upstart from their Gentoo base, so what little maintenance it needs should be shared. And I do mean little maintenance; without systemd's infinite scope creep, an init system could reach "done" and coast indefinitely.
zitterbewegung 2y ago
What NetBSD's focus is to get it running on all possible hardware so yea that's why they really haven't gotten it to be much more different than any of the other BSDs. Since OpenBSD's purpose is to make one of the most secure UNIX platforms that's where they generally break things. They also anticipate security holes related to speculative execution like disabling hyperthreading.

hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago

Author here - yeah, as I've learned more about OpenBSD I've realized that, while "don't fix it if it ain't broken" is still a valid claim about their overall approach, the OpenBSD hackers also just ... see a lot of stuff that's broken, everywhere. Still, somehow, on the margin, I feel I'd be more comfortable hopping back into a much earlier OpenBSD than a much earlier Debian. Maybe it's a taste thing.

silver_silver 2y ago

Not as radical a change as, e.g. integrating systemd though

graemep 2y ago
The aim of systemd seems to be to use the Linux kernel as the base for a non-unix OS as shown (hence the "now with 42% linux philosophy tagline of the latest recent release https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/13/version_256_systemd/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/13/version_256_systemd/). Its not a bad idea if you agree with the aim - Linux already has lots of hardware support and an ecosystem to leverage. In the long run BSDs and non-systemd Linux will be more similar to each other than they are to Linux with systemd in a lot of ways. I have started using Alpine for servers - its small and fast. Not so sure about switching on desktops.
- ziggy_star 2y ago
  I don't believe for a moment that was the initial aim of systemd. They just tried to improve on a pile of hacks and by pulling on that string it sort of ends up touching (or from your perspective infecting) everything. It vaguely reminds me of people arguing about "what color is your function". You open that portal and end up in a new universe. All or nothing. The unix wars are long over I'm not sure what you can point to that ever was a True Unix. Nostalgia not withstanding. What well defined standard Right Way you're actually clinging to is not clear. Whether it will end up for the best or not I don't know but the entire saga seems to be the pitfalls of endless tinkering on display rather than some unifying vision. I wish we lived in a world where systemd type efforts had clear end goals and well thought out architecture in mind when they start but open source doesn't like working this way. It just ends up as "my favorite way of doing things is better" based on vibes. In both directions. That's the problem with "philosophies".
  - galangalalgol 2y ago
    Given android doesn't use systemd, and containers don't expose it even if the host machine uses it, systemd isn't actually that entrenched or irreversible. Containerized applications don't know or care, and neither do all the people toting around android as phones, tablets, or laptops. Unix may only be tied together as a concept at this point by a posixish libc api, and that is probably just fine.
    - hollerith 2y ago
      ChromeOS doesn't use systemd, either. (It uses upstart, which I am guessing they have to maintain without any significant outside help.)
      - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
        I'm pretty sure ChromeOS is getting upstart from their Gentoo base, so what little maintenance it needs should be shared. And I do mean little maintenance; without systemd's infinite scope creep, an init system could reach "done" and coast indefinitely.

zitterbewegung 2y ago

What NetBSD's focus is to get it running on all possible hardware so yea that's why they really haven't gotten it to be much more different than any of the other BSDs. Since OpenBSD's purpose is to make one of the most secure UNIX platforms that's where they generally break things. They also anticipate security holes related to speculative execution like disabling hyperthreading.