LinuxQuestions.org
Latest LQ Deal: Latest LQ Deals
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Other *NIX Forums > *BSD
User Name
Password
*BSD This forum is for the discussion of all BSD variants.
FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 04-29-2019, 05:23 AM   #31
linus72
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2009
Location: Gordonsville-AKA Mayberry-Virginia
Distribution: Slack14.2/Many
Posts: 5,478

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 446Reputation: 446Reputation: 446Reputation: 446Reputation: 446

I wonder if it can be remade into iso...
I havent had a chance to try it yet between life and compiling a live slackware current 4.19.37 kernel for Slackerc Live yesterday lol so after work today I plan to check it out
Maybe even remaster it...quite the challenge I suspect
 
Old 04-29-2019, 09:58 PM   #32
bsdunixdb
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2009
Location: London, United Kingdom
Distribution: Slackware-x86_64+multilib (stable) FreeBSD amd64
Posts: 57

Rep: Reputation: 20
It's early days for NomadBSD so options for other installation methods are possibilities. I wish you well with your endeavours.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 04-30-2019, 08:06 PM   #33
FOSSilized_Daemon
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2019
Distribution: OpenBSD/Alpine Linux
Posts: 124

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I know I am likely late to the party, but I heavily recommend OpenBSD. It is extremely reliable, my only critique is that it is (in my honest opinion) bloated.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-01-2019, 03:04 AM   #34
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,267
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 1470Reputation: 1470Reputation: 1470Reputation: 1470Reputation: 1470Reputation: 1470Reputation: 1470Reputation: 1470Reputation: 1470Reputation: 1470
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOSSilized_Daemon View Post
I know I am likely late to the party, but I heavily recommend OpenBSD. It is extremely reliable, my only critique is that it is (in my honest opinion) bloated.
OpenBSD is anything but bloated.
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-20-2019, 08:34 PM   #35
hitest
Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Prince Rupert, B.C., Canada
Distribution: Slackware, OpenBSD
Posts: 5,768

Rep: Reputation: 1889Reputation: 1889Reputation: 1889Reputation: 1889Reputation: 1889Reputation: 1889Reputation: 1889Reputation: 1889Reputation: 1889Reputation: 1889Reputation: 1889
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by FOSSilized_Daemon View Post
I know I am likely late to the party, but I heavily recommend OpenBSD. It is extremely reliable, my only critique is that it is (in my honest opinion) bloated.
You're going to need to elaborate on that opinion. Bloated?
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-21-2019, 11:40 AM   #36
vharishankar
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 3,178
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 138Reputation: 138
OpenBSD seems the sanest BSD distro by far - it's simple to set up and simple to install software and get things up and running. Also great documentation. FreeBSD I haven't used in a long time, but the last time I used, I did not like the way the Ports system worked (either you used packages or ports, but didn't mix - and compiling/installing everything from source is something I prefer to avoid - I consider building every software from source as a waste of my CPU cycles). OpenBSD seems to emphasize a lot on not building your own stuff and provides a nice collection of pre-built packages. So I like the OpenBSD approach. Also the most secure OS by far (from what I've read everywhere).

Regarding bloat: well, OpenBSD 6.5 took about 5 minutes (or less, I didn't time it) to install on Virtualbox, and that can hardly be termed bloated. Yes, the bare OS is very small and you need to install packages to do stuff. But that is not bloat.

Last edited by vharishankar; 05-21-2019 at 11:47 AM.
 
Old 05-21-2019, 12:14 PM   #37
sevendogsbsd
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2017
Distribution: FreeBSD, OpenSUSE
Posts: 934

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Just don't try running it on a 4K monitor, results are not pretty For me, FreeBSD fills all the checkboxes, but the good thing is we have choices!
 
Old 05-21-2019, 01:27 PM   #38
FOSSilized_Daemon
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2019
Distribution: OpenBSD/Alpine Linux
Posts: 124

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by vharishankar View Post
OpenBSD seems the sanest BSD distro by far - it's simple to set up and simple to install software and get things up and running. Also great documentation. FreeBSD I haven't used in a long time, but the last time I used, I did not like the way the Ports system worked (either you used packages or ports, but didn't mix - and compiling/installing everything from source is something I prefer to avoid - I consider building every software from source as a waste of my CPU cycles). OpenBSD seems to emphasize a lot on not building your own stuff and provides a nice collection of pre-built packages. So I like the OpenBSD approach. Also the most secure OS by far (from what I've read everywhere).

Regarding bloat: well, OpenBSD 6.5 took about 5 minutes (or less, I didn't time it) to install on Virtualbox, and that can hardly be termed bloated. Yes, the bare OS is very small and you need to install packages to do stuff. But that is not bloat.
I have come to find that I personally have a much more specific view of what should be in a base system and how packaging should be done. Don't get me wrong I love OpenBSD, I use it as my main OS even. But, it is bloated. The fact that in order to install Xorg for example I have to install multiple text editors (unless I built it post install and want to patch in all their patches myself) and many other things just to get Xorg. Not to mention they forked off the old monolithic version of Xorg so you get a big bloated Xorg. There are many many many reasons I consider it bloated, and ultimately it is subjective. I do understand many people consider things like OpenRsync and such to not be bloat, but I do. I consider a lot of their bare base and extended base I guess you could say to be bloat. Two WMs, two shells, many many many many text editors (like seven!) etc. Again, just my opinion, but I fully believe it is bloated. Not as bad as Gentoo, Arch, Void, LFS (yes that is bloated too), Slackware, NetBSD, DSL, Alpine etc. but it is. However, there are trade offs. Amazing security, stability, musl (I know others have it too, but as someone who actually writes C it's amazing to have a system that focuses in using musl exclusively) and many more reasons.
 
Old 05-21-2019, 03:30 PM   #39
jggimi
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2016
Distribution: None. Just OpenBSD.
Posts: 207

Rep: Reputation: 88
I'm confused. I must be misunderstanding.

OpenBSD has only 4 text editors in base: ed(1) - static, useful when /usr cannot be mounted, sed(1) - useful in scripts, and the popular vi(1) / mg(1) text editors, to avoid religious issues arising between the vi and emacs sects of Unix.

The number of editors needed to install X.Org is zero, since it installs from filesets via the install/upgrade script.

The packaging of the X.Org sources and build chain, branded as Xenocara, is structured "...to provide a framework to host local modifications and to automate the build of the modular X.Org components, including 3rd party packages and some software maintained by OpenBSD developers. It is not a fork." (source: either /usr/xenocara/README or xenocara.org)

Building X.Org from Xenocara source packaging requires no additional editors. Nor does building from source. MODIFYING the source will require four development packages not included in base: an automake, autoconf, metaauto, and a libtool, as described in /usr/xenocara/README.

And to my understanding, the libc in OpenBSD is not musl, and still carries BSD license and copyright by the Regents of the University of California.

Last edited by jggimi; 05-21-2019 at 03:47 PM. Reason: clarity, added musl confusion.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-21-2019, 05:50 PM   #40
FOSSilized_Daemon
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2019
Distribution: OpenBSD/Alpine Linux
Posts: 124

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by jggimi View Post
I'm confused. I must be misunderstanding.

OpenBSD has only 4 text editors in base: ed(1) - static, useful when /usr cannot be mounted, sed(1) - useful in scripts, and the popular vi(1) / mg(1) text editors, to avoid religious issues arising between the vi and emacs sects of Unix.

The number of editors needed to install X.Org is zero, since it installs from filesets via the install/upgrade script.

The packaging of the X.Org sources and build chain, branded as Xenocara, is structured "...to provide a framework to host local modifications and to automate the build of the modular X.Org components, including 3rd party packages and some software maintained by OpenBSD developers. It is not a fork." (source: either /usr/xenocara/README or xenocara.org)

Building X.Org from Xenocara source packaging requires no additional editors. Nor does building from source. MODIFYING the source will require four development packages not included in base: an automake, autoconf, metaauto, and a libtool, as described in /usr/xenocara/README.

And to my understanding, the libc in OpenBSD is not musl, and still carries BSD license and copyright by the Regents of the University of California.
I apologize, I was referring to how the sets during install are done If I go and install the X sets during install then I am getting screwed with much more than just what I want to install. You can of course install them via the source code, but then you have to patch and deal with that headache. I guess I should've explained all this better.
 
Old 05-22-2019, 05:26 AM   #41
jggimi
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2016
Distribution: None. Just OpenBSD.
Posts: 207

Rep: Reputation: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOSSilized_Daemon View Post
You can of course install them via the source code, but then you have to patch and deal with that headache.
You can eliminate portions of X.Org to meet your personal requirements. You can build custom kernels, stripped of features you dislike. You can remove undesired libraries. Eliminate unwanted components and utilities. And of course, you could even try to shoehorn in your preferred C library, since you apparently don't like the one that comes with the OS.

All of that could be done, if you want to do this, using one of the built-in editors.

Quote:
I guess I should've explained all this better.
Indeed.
 
Old 05-22-2019, 08:20 AM   #42
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,267
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 1470Reputation: 1470Reputation: 1470Reputation: 1470Reputation: 1470Reputation: 1470Reputation: 1470Reputation: 1470Reputation: 1470Reputation: 1470
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOSSilized_Daemon View Post
The fact that in order to install Xorg for example I have to install multiple text editors (unless I built it post install and want to patch in all their patches myself) and many other things just to get Xorg. Not to mention they forked off the old monolithic version of Xorg so you get a big bloated Xorg.[etc]
Your opinion and definition of code bloat seems to differ to the accepted definition.

When you stated that OpenBSD was "bloated", I expected an example of some particular components of the base system - e.g. the kernel, which you had perhaps audited?

Instead you seem to be referring to the "footprint" of the installed OS? Unless hard disk space conservation is your number one priority, what gets installed seems irrelevant.

An example of bloat would be the Linux kernel - it is over 15 million lines of code, compared to OpenBSD's less than 3 million lines. So in my understanding that's "code bloat" and not where some OS or Linux distribution is taking up more hard disk space than you think it should.

Another example is X.org, which you refer to, but which is just bloated software irrespective of which OS it might be running on.
 
Old 05-22-2019, 11:14 AM   #43
jggimi
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2016
Distribution: None. Just OpenBSD.
Posts: 207

Rep: Reputation: 88
I can't speak for FOSSilized_Daemon (FD), but I perceive two possible bloat definitions. 1) "Things FD doesn't use" and 2) "A choice available for reasons not apparent to FD."
  • Above, I've described the 4 text editors I'm aware of in base, and why they're included.
  • There are two window managers included in base because the Project wants the choice in base. cwm(1) replaced wm2 in 2007, so the choice is directed and intentional, similar to the vi-or-mg choice for text editors. Commit logs in the historical x11 and xf4 CVS repositories might have more information about the original decision. They are apparently still available via CVSync.
 
Old 05-22-2019, 12:08 PM   #44
sevendogsbsd
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2017
Distribution: FreeBSD, OpenSUSE
Posts: 934

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
FWIW, my def of bloat is simply how much a given OS or app loads my CPU or RAM. I don't care about disk space used because I have a ton of space. Not everyone has the same definition and I only worry about end user tool bloat, at least when it comes to BSD. I could care less what the core OS includes as long as it gives me a good user experience.
 
Old 05-22-2019, 01:33 PM   #45
hitest
Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Prince Rupert, B.C., Canada
Distribution: Slackware, OpenBSD
Posts: 5,768

Rep: Reputation: 1889Reputation: 1889Reputation: 1889Reputation: 1889Reputation: 1889Reputation: 1889Reputation: 1889Reputation: 1889Reputation: 1889Reputation: 1889Reputation: 1889
Quote:
Originally Posted by sevendogsbsd View Post
FWIW, my def of bloat is simply how much a given OS or app loads my CPU or RAM.
I guess. OpenBSD uses more RAM to run XFCE than Linux does, but, typically the BSDs use more RAM than Linux. I don't think that's necessarily a qualification for being bloated.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: Antergos Best Arch based distro for beginners, whoever want to taste arch, give a try LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 10-10-2016 08:54 AM
Wanting to give Arch a try, but having installation issues bret381 Arch 9 02-22-2010 05:25 PM
Which variant of Linux would be best for me? rob92110 Linux - Newbie 13 05-21-2008 09:15 AM
A slacker's perspective: which BSD for learning? randomsel Slackware 11 04-07-2008 02:15 AM
:Pengy: Linux and/or BSD variant on an old mac? cmack Linux - General 2 08-09-2003 01:30 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Other *NIX Forums > *BSD

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:42 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration