51–60 of 114 posts
Who still partitions like that???
You should have at least: /tmp/, /var, /home and /usr by themselfs, personally I'd add /var/log as well. I've lost count of the number of times I had to rescue a Ubuntu system here something filled up either of those directories and now the system isn't responding. Having the entire disc filled up doesn't make it easier to fix.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because you can fit a lot of terminals on a modern display. Aha! you say, just use tmux. tmux is great, but I like the feel of a tileing window manager more than tmux.
Well, you could always go with dvtm [1] and skip X11. [1]: https://www.brain-dump.org/projects/dvtm
Unless you’re coming in through com0, that is.
The word minimal often means minimalistic in appearance and resource use, what I want is minimal work. That's why I run default gnome.
> That's why I run default gnome. That's why I run Mac OS X and don't waste hours setting up a machine/operating system that could just work out of the box.
Not related to OpenBSD itself, more for "minimalistic" approach - screenshots with irssi were popular like 25 or 20 years ago. I see kinda nothing new here, just fly stuck in amber. Has minimalistic meant to be "limited"? Then makes sense. TUI based? Somewhat makes a bit of sense. Minimalistic but yet full featured? I couldn't see that on provided sample.
The word minimal often means minimalistic in appearance and resource use, what I want is minimal work. That's why I run default gnome.
Default KDE does more out of the box, and is very usable. Resource usage seems OK. I recommend it over Gnome. The only thing I liked about Gnome was the appearance, which was something purely superficial. (I don't use Linux anymore.)
Both work great and have all the features I need, but KDE feels a bit boring, a bit "Windows XP" while Gnome seems like a more modern desktop to me. I much prefer Gnome's dock to KDE's "start menu" with so many things cramed at the same place (well, like Windows).
The word minimal often means minimalistic in appearance and resource use, what I want is minimal work. That's why I run default gnome.
> That's why I run default gnome. That's why I run Mac OS X and don't waste hours setting up a machine/operating system that could just work out of the box.
Not related to OpenBSD itself, more for "minimalistic" approach - screenshots with irssi were popular like 25 or 20 years ago. I see kinda nothing new here, just fly stuck in amber. Has minimalistic meant to be "limited"? Then makes sense. TUI based? Somewhat makes a bit of sense. Minimalistic but yet full featured? I couldn't see that on provided sample.
The howto also uses an FTP client, and doesn't explain how it got the checksum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve posted it here before but the frustrating state of OpenBSDs filesystems is a big issue for me putting it into production.
My first one would be "can I hire any reasonable sysadmin for that at all?" Among others - is it supported by any hosting vendor or I'll be forced to tinker with it myself without even cloud-init tooling?
1984.is has OpenBSD as an install option; that's what I use for my mailserver and webserver.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ubuntu and OpenBSD are at completely opposite in the user friendly spectrum. You're a better off moving to Debian.
True, but openbsd is far easier to understand than ubuntu. user friendly is not the same thing as simple.
Testify!