Live data from Hacker News

OpenBSD 5.4 Released

openbsd.org

21–30 of 107 posts

Re: OpenBSD 5.4 Released

#21
post #17
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest I've been using it for about 7 years and I didn't know that. I'm not sure that matters either. It's not really a priority and I respect that.

No, and being able to download all the FAQs easily is cool but there are things where it actually impacts me. For instance, I have a netbook without a cdrom drive or floppy disk. So, to install OpenBSD on it, I had to first install OpenBSD onto another PC computer, and then run makeboot and such on my USB drive and copy over the ramdisk. Apparently the cited excuse for why they don't support USB bootable media is bec…

Yeah I do the same with the USB stick as its easier than CD media. I have a vbox VM ready to roll for such occasions.

I have had numerous problems on older Dell/HP machines with USB booting anything so it's reasonable. I buy the official media even though I rarely use it.

Re: OpenBSD 5.4 Released

#23
post #2

Packets already flowing through 5.4 - release on my 'lil ALIX home router. Workstation on - current , of course. There is nothing quite like OpenBSD out there. Thank you OpenBSD developers!

I'm going to reinstall a couple of servers this weekend with 5.4. It generally is just a matter of printing out /etc/fstab, doing the install (I skip the upgrade on these), install some packages, and laying back down the configs and keys from source code control. It takes about 20 - 30 minutes to put these servers up (gateway, dns).

[edit] I should point out I've had a box running it before release to make sure that any changes are accounted for.

Re: OpenBSD 5.4 Released

#24
post #10
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Signed up to agree. Canned 6 Ubuntu machines (servers) and replaced with OpenBSD 5.3 recently. So much goodness ships with openbsd it's unreal. Bar Theo's sharp tongue (which is usually spot on), you get pf, opensmtpd (so much cleaner than postfix), nginx in base, miles better manual pages than Linux, no horrid gnu info, small and simple base system, absolutely no surprises, no bloated crap like dbus/upstart, tmux in…

Yeah, what is the point of gnu info?

From https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/GNU-Manuals.htm...

The preferred document format for the GNU system is the Texinfo formatting language. Every GNU package should (ideally) have documentation in Texinfo both for reference and for learners. Texinfo makes it possible to produce a good quality formatted book, using TeX, and to generate an Info file. It is also possible to generate HTML output from Texinfo source.

[...]

Make sure your manual is clear to a reader who knows nothing about the topic and reads it straight through. This means covering basic topics at the beginning, and advanced topics only later. This also means defining every specialized term when it is first used.

Programmers tend to carry over the structure of the program as the structure for its documentation. But this structure is not necessarily good for explaining how to use the program; it may be irrelevant and confusing for a user.

Instead, the right way to structure documentation is according to the concepts and questions that a user will have in mind when reading it. This principle applies at every level, from the lowest (ordering sentences in a paragraph) to the highest (ordering of chapter topics within the manual). Sometimes this structure of ideas matches the structure of the implementation of the software being documented—but often they are different. An important part of learning to write good documentation is to learn to notice when you have unthinkingly structured the documentation like the implementation, stop yourself, and look for better alternatives.

For example, each program in the GNU system probably ought to be documented in one manual; but this does not mean each program should have its own manual. That would be following the structure of the implementation, rather than the structure that helps the user understand.

Instead, each manual should cover a coherent topic. For example, instead of a manual for diff and a manual for diff3, we have one manual for “comparison of files” which covers both of those programs, as well as cmp. By documenting these programs together, we can make the whole subject clearer.

The manual which discusses a program should certainly document all of the program’s command-line options and all of its commands. It should give examples of their use. But don’t organize the manual as a list of features. Instead, organize it logically, by subtopics. Address the questions that a user will ask when thinking about the job that the program does. Don’t just tell the reader what each feature can do—say what jobs it is good for, and show how to use it for those jobs. Explain what is recommended usage, and what kinds of usage users should avoid.

In general, a GNU manual should serve both as tutorial and reference. It should be set up for convenient access to each topic through Info, and for reading straight through (appendixes aside). A GNU manual should give a good introduction to a beginner reading through from the start, and should also provide all the details that hackers want. The Bison manual (https://www.gnu.org/software/bison/manual/html_node/Concepts...) is a good example of this—please take a look at it to see what we mean.

That is not as hard as it first sounds. Arrange each chapter as a logical breakdown of its topic, but order the sections, and write their text, so that reading the chapter straight through makes sense. Do likewise when structuring the book into chapters, and when structuring a section into paragraphs. The watchword is, at each point, address the most fundamental and important issue raised by the preceding text.

If necessary, add extra chapters at the beginning of the manual which are purely tutorial and cover the basics of the subject. These provide the framework for a beginner to understand the rest of the manual. The Bison manual (https://www.gnu.org/software/bison/manual/html_node/Concepts...) provides a good example of how to do this.

To serve as a reference, a manual should have an Index that lists all the functions, variables, options, and important concepts that are part of the program. One combined Index should do for a short manual, but sometimes for a complex package it is better to use multiple indices. The Texinfo manual includes advice on preparing good index entries, see Making Index Entries(https://www.gnu.org/software/texinfo/manual/texinfo/html_nod...) in GNU Texinfo, and see Defining the Entries of an Index(https://www.gnu.org/software/texinfo/manual/texinfo/html_nod...) in GNU Texinfo.

Don’t use Unix man pages as a model for how to write GNU documentation; most of them are terse, badly structured, and give inadequate explanation of the underlying concepts. (There are, of course, some exceptions.) Also, Unix man pages use a particular format which is different from what we use in GNU manuals.

[...]

Re: OpenBSD 5.4 Released

#25
post #18
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I'm getting a little glimpse of the community here

Yeah, god forbid people having actual tasks to do instead of micromanaging their online presence like a SF web monkey.

As if it's very hard to make a redirect to the www domain. It takes only a couple of minutes.

Re: OpenBSD 5.4 Released

#26
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, god forbid people having actual tasks to do instead of micromanaging their online presence like a SF web monkey.

As if it's very hard to make a redirect to the www domain. It takes only a couple of minutes.

Takes a couple of seconds.

Re: OpenBSD 5.4 Released

#27
post #2

Packets already flowing through 5.4 - release on my 'lil ALIX home router. Workstation on - current , of course. There is nothing quite like OpenBSD out there. Thank you OpenBSD developers!

I'm going to reinstall a couple of servers this weekend with 5.4. It generally is just a matter of printing out /etc/fstab, doing the install (I skip the upgrade on these), install some packages, and laying back down the configs and keys from source code control. It takes about 20 - 30 minutes to put these servers up (gateway, dns). [edit] I should point out I've had a box running it before release to make sure that…

I used to do fresh installs (due to a general fear of incremental upgrades failing) until I tried using their upgrade guides. I've never looked back. http://www.openbsd.org/faq/upgrade54.html

Re: OpenBSD 5.4 Released

#28
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, what is the point of gnu info?

hypertext man pages ? what is it that people don't like about them ?

Isn't there some way to get hypertext into man pages? Eg extend nroff. Then you don't have to have a parallel system.

Re: OpenBSD 5.4 Released

#29
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to reinstall a couple of servers this weekend with 5.4. It generally is just a matter of printing out /etc/fstab, doing the install (I skip the upgrade on these), install some packages, and laying back down the configs and keys from source code control. It takes about 20 - 30 minutes to put these servers up (gateway, dns). [edit] I should point out I've had a box running it before release to make sure that…

I used to do fresh installs (due to a general fear of incremental upgrades failing) until I tried using their upgrade guides. I've never looked back. http://www.openbsd.org/faq/upgrade54.html

I do upgrades on some machines, but for some servers (firewall, dns, print server), it just takes a lot less time to do a fresh install. I keep the configs, keys, etc. under source control and can put it all back faster than doing the upgrade.

It is also pretty good practice for anytime those servers go bad. It helps to be able to put temporary replacements in service from whatever I have lying around. I can save the hot spares for machines that have user data on them (e-mail, file servers).

Re: OpenBSD 5.4 Released

#30
post #20
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Signed up to agree. Canned 6 Ubuntu machines (servers) and replaced with OpenBSD 5.3 recently. So much goodness ships with openbsd it's unreal. Bar Theo's sharp tongue (which is usually spot on), you get pf, opensmtpd (so much cleaner than postfix), nginx in base, miles better manual pages than Linux, no horrid gnu info, small and simple base system, absolutely no surprises, no bloated crap like dbus/upstart, tmux in…

Do you know how it does with high concurrent loads these days?

I've not done a direct comparison but it feels solid under load. IO bound processes seem to balance IO fairly i.e. no bad neighbour problem where one process will starve another and a fork bomb won't take out the system even though I managed to hit a loadavg of 80! It still was very responsive.

Secondarily, I have a VM on BigV which seems to suffer less pauses and oddness than Ubuntu 12.04LTS did.

Works nicely on UltraSparc machines (U30 and U60 tested) as well which is a bonus. I still find them superior to Intel even if they are power hungry and rather old now. Context switch time seems pretty low on Sparcs. Not sure if it uses hardware contexts or not though - haven't looked at the code.

Post reply on HN