OpenBSD 6.5

Post by ahje » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 7:54 AM UTC

pimeys wrote: post #171

ahje wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I, like you, am quite curious about it. I've given OpenBSD a few tries and it runs quite well in a VM, but I've never managed to get it running properly with wifi. I guess it's time to give it a new go, considering there's a bunch of wifi-improvements listed.

Make sure you have a supported chipset, e.g. an intel one. Some cards need extra firmware, which you'll get in the first boot, so until that a network cable is needed. One of the best things about OpenBSD is how connecting to the WiFi is done with ifconfig and how trivial it is compared to wpa_supplicant or NetworkManager.

Post by JdeBP » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 8:20 AM UTC

MisterTea wrote: post #143

Accacin wrote: post #115

As a long time Linux user, I keep thinking about trying a BSD variant, but I get hung up on two things. 1) Which do I pick? NetBSD? OpenBSD? 2) Hardware? I'm thinking about an old ThinkPad for programming, and it looks like OpenBSD at least should run fine on that. What's hardware support like overall?

You won't know until you try them out. My best advice is to download them all and fire up some virtual machines and get installing. Build each of the systems to meet your needs and see how you feel about the admin process. For my more basic needs which is development I chose OpenBSD based on their simple, pragmatic design coupled with tight security practices in coding. Their documentation is excellent and their man…

Post by DblPlusUngood » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 12:05 PM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #190

DblPlusUngood wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What coherence is lacking? OpenBSD supports msync(2), which is the only POSIX mechanism I know of for ensuring coherency between read(2) and shared file mappings. Otherwise relying on unspecified behavior sounds dangerous.

Oh, come on. Every other system in common use is fully coherent. POSIX allowing OpenBSD's behavior doesn't make that behavior a good idea or a quality implementation.

Post by quotemstr » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 3:12 PM UTC

DblPlusUngood wrote: post #195

quotemstr wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, come on. Every other system in common use is fully coherent. POSIX allowing OpenBSD's behavior doesn't make that behavior a good idea or a quality implementation.

OpenBSD's choice is arguably reasonable, given their prioritization of security, since it reduces opportunities for user programs to corrupt kernel memory. What is the problem with OpenBSD's plan for coherency? Why is the burden of explicitly calling msync(2) too much?

Post by mises » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 4:18 PM UTC

viraptor wrote: post #166

structural wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The assumption here is that the machine you're using to do the log analysis is also a Linux machine that uses systemd (and thus has a journalctl binary). This is not necessarily true. A lot of the annoyance that some people have with the systemd crowd is that these kind of assumptions are made all over the place. The actual software is not bad (I really do prefer dealing with systemd units than writing shell scripts…

I'm not sure I see the problem. At scale, you're logging into an aggregator anyway. If part of your job is log recovery/analysis then you need to get the right tools working (docker works almost everywhere now, so that should solve it). In a small environment, I'm you can find a way to run a VM somewhere temporarily.