Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenBSD 5.4 Released

openbsd.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 107 posts

Re: OpenBSD 5.4 Released

#31

Post by csmuk »

teddyh wrote: post #24
ape4 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Texinf…

Unix manpages are fine. If you've read the GNU awk manual vs BSD awk, you'll understand what I mean. GNU awk manual is hundreds of pages long and serves only to confuse the user. Not only that, half of it is listing differences between GNU awk and other awks which is just mindnumbing. A fine case of cat -v. And don't get me started on glibc.

The bit that pisses me off is: man awk (see info awk instead). I think they fixed that but it was a pain in the butt for years. Is it in man or is it in info?

One tool for the job.

Edit: cite your sources :)

1 - OpenBSD awk (6 pages if I print preview it): http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=awk&apropos=0&s...

2 - GNU awk (330 pages if I print preview it): https://www.gnu.org/software/gawk/manual/gawk.html

Re: OpenBSD 5.4 Released

#32

Post by stock_toaster »

DennisP wrote: post #20
csmuk wrote: 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 think PF in openbsd is still single core[1]. FreeBSD 10.x apparently has an SMP version of PF[2].

My feeling is still that if high performance is desired, FreeBSD is still preferred. For "normal" workloads though, I think OpenBSD would be a fine choice. I do like how "clean" an OpenBSD system feels.

[1]: http://openbsd.7691.n7.nabble.com/Performance-limits-with-Op...

[2]: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-pf/2012-June/0066...

Re: OpenBSD 5.4 Released

#33

Post by noselasd »

ape4 wrote: post #10
csmuk wrote: 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?

install pinfo , and you'll be able to read all the wonderful documentation instead of fighting with the GNU info frontend.

Re: OpenBSD 5.4 Released

#34

Post by pimeys »

I'm a big OS geek, I love to install and test all new operating systems. Does anybody use OpenBSD as their main development OS? At least there's ports, and looks like you can compile all the necessary tools (xmonad, vim, firefox, zsh) from the ports system. But is this the ideal use of OpenBSD? Do I gain something if changing from Gentoo?

Re: OpenBSD 5.4 Released

#35

Post by dysoco »

pimeys wrote: post #34

I'm a big OS geek, I love to install and test all new operating systems. Does anybody use OpenBSD as their main development OS? At least there's ports, and looks like you can compile all the necessary tools (xmonad, vim, firefox, zsh) from the ports system. But is this the ideal use of OpenBSD? Do I gain something if changing from Gentoo?

I tried luck with FreeBSD and OpenBSD, but just couldn't.

Yes, I love both Operating Systems, I love that they are integrated and somewhat less retarded than Linux, I also like their community and development team and OpenBSD's focus on security and code-correctness.

But they are not yet "there" for Desktop use, many applications won't work or will be difficult to set up, and driver compatibility is way worse.

So maybe in a couple of years I'll switch to FreeBSD as a desktop, but for now Funtoo is still fun and somewhat usable.

Re: OpenBSD 5.4 Released

#36

Post by aortega »

pimeys wrote: post #34

I'm a big OS geek, I love to install and test all new operating systems. Does anybody use OpenBSD as their main development OS? At least there's ports, and looks like you can compile all the necessary tools (xmonad, vim, firefox, zsh) from the ports system. But is this the ideal use of OpenBSD? Do I gain something if changing from Gentoo?

I used it for a while as a desktop. Maybe it's because I have an old Thinkpad, and I know OpenBSD is being developed mainly in old Thinkpads, but everything works just a little better in OpenBSD. The video, sleep/resume, power, wifi, etc. Everything just works a bit faster, a bit cleaner. It's like FreeBSD but without feeling that a script kiddie will remotely crash or pwn your box.

If you limit yourself to the package repository (about 10K packages) everything just works. Compiling things from source often doesn't, (not different than many linux distros). Tip: use the binary packages.

Also it can't run virtualbox or any other virtualization software, so sadly had to switch to Linux again. Soon...

Re: OpenBSD 5.4 Released

#37

Post by hcal »

pimeys wrote: post #34

I'm a big OS geek, I love to install and test all new operating systems. Does anybody use OpenBSD as their main development OS? At least there's ports, and looks like you can compile all the necessary tools (xmonad, vim, firefox, zsh) from the ports system. But is this the ideal use of OpenBSD? Do I gain something if changing from Gentoo?

Before I switched to Mac, I ran OpenBSD for about a year on my primary laptop. It was a pretty good experience but my laptop stays plugged in 90% of the time. I took a pretty good hit on battery life and that would have been a pain if I traveled more. OpenBSD really felt more at home on my server but it still makes an OK desktop. Last I checked GNOME3 wasn't fully operational, but I think it was coming along.

You are really encouraged by the communtiy to use packages over the ports system, but you'll find everything you listed in both.

Re: OpenBSD 5.4 Released

#38

Post by mmariani »

dysoco wrote: post #35
pimeys wrote: post #34

I'm a big OS geek, I love to install and test all new operating systems. Does anybody use OpenBSD as their main development OS? At least there's ports, and looks like you can compile all the necessary tools (xmonad, vim, firefox, zsh) from the ports system. But is this the ideal use of OpenBSD? Do I gain something if changing from Gentoo?

I tried luck with FreeBSD and OpenBSD, but just couldn't. Yes, I love both Operating Systems, I love that they are integrated and somewhat less retarded than Linux, I also like their community and development team and OpenBSD's focus on security and code-correctness. But they are not yet "there" for Desktop use, many applications won't work or will be difficult to set up, and driver compatibility is way worse. So may…

Or you could switch to Mavericks which is based on Darwin that was forked from FreeBSD, and desktop ready. ;)

Re: OpenBSD 5.4 Released

#39

Post by pimeys »

mmariani wrote: post #38
dysoco wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried luck with FreeBSD and OpenBSD, but just couldn't. Yes, I love both Operating Systems, I love that they are integrated and somewhat less retarded than Linux, I also like their community and development team and OpenBSD's focus on security and code-correctness. But they are not yet "there" for Desktop use, many applications won't work or will be difficult to set up, and driver compatibility is way worse. So may…

Or you could switch to Mavericks which is based on Darwin that was forked from FreeBSD, and desktop ready. ;)

But is too complicated system underneath for me to use. I love Funtoo/Gentoo for it's simplicity. I know exactly what's installed to my system and how I should configure it. With OS X, Ubuntu or Windows, I don't have that feeling anymore.

Re: OpenBSD 5.4 Released

#40

Post by teddyh »

csmuk wrote: post #31
teddyh wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Texinf…

Unix manpages are fine. If you've read the GNU awk manual vs BSD awk, you'll understand what I mean. GNU awk manual is hundreds of pages long and serves only to confuse the user. Not only that, half of it is listing differences between GNU awk and other awks which is just mindnumbing. A fine case of cat -v. And don't get me started on glibc. The bit that pisses me off is: man awk (see info awk instead). I think they…

Even the document I cited conceded that there are some very good Unix man pages — BSD Awk may very well be one of many, I have not read it. It follows, logically, that there could be some very bad Info documentation manuals, and the GNU Awk manual may very well be one of many; I have not read it.

This does not disprove the point the citation made; namely, that the Unix man page structure is unsuitable for many things since its structure tends to make people write manuals badly, and there is no place for the kind of introductions and tutorials that good manuals should contain. On the contrary, the man page format lends itself to very strict and terse reference documentation, which is not what I would call a “manual”, as such.

Someone should perhaps do a study of which of the two formats seem to generate the better documentation.

> The bit that pisses me off is: man awk (see info awk instead). I think they fixed that but it was a pain in the butt for years. Is it in man or is it in info?

The official GNU system documentation is in Info. Now, the GNU system is meant to be compatible with Unix, and Unix uses man pages. And since many GNU tools were (and are) not actually developed to be used in the GNU system as such, but instead find their major use and development as parts of various Unix variants, it follows that most of them have Unix have man pages too. Since writing documentation is work, and writing duplicated documentation is even more work, the man pages for GNU tools are often overly terse, incomplete and/or out of date compared to the Info documentation, which is the official documentation. Some well-known exceptions exist, notably GNU Bash does not have any Info documentation, but instead has an (enormously long) Unix man page.

Post reply on HN