OpenBSD Journal

Gentoo BSD

Contributed by jose on from the strange-but-true dept.

anonymous writes: "For people who enjoy gentoo's portage http://dev.gentoo.org/~g2boojum/ seems to be a interesting project. Although personally I would rather not infest my OBSD installation, maybe some people might. :)"

Yes, it's true. I guess you just have to see it to believe it. Personally, I'm still very fond of the ports tree, and would rather put effort there, but hey, if you can't live without portage ...

(Comments are closed)

Comments

  1. By janus () janus at errornet dot de on http://janus.errornet.de

    That's one of the worst things ever ported to *BSD.
    Portage is the pure sh*t in my eyes... unstable, based on python, unstable, is touching config files without asking you, inconsistent, unstable and... i think it's unstable.

    I abosolutely dislike this project. If there's any way to avoid this inconsistent stuff for *BSD, please tell me.

    And for the proponents: you've be warned, you should use the good old, stable and consistent ports like you ever did.

    Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward () on

      Funny thing is, portage is a step down for BSD-folk, but it's been a huge step-up for Linux folk!

      (I'm not trolling, I don't think there are going to be any Linux zealots here to respond)

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward () on

        > Funny thing is, portage is a step down for BSD-folk, but it's been a huge step-up for Linux folk!

        I still think the apt-get and dpkg tools in Debian are a better thing,.. no need to wait for hour long compiles.
        And the ability to let is NOT touch any config files is a great thing in apt.

        Comments

        1. By Anonymous Coward () on

          Gentoo's portage does not clobber config files, and in fact handles upgrading them much more gracefully than apt, IMHO. Apt asks you on the spot what you want to do with the config file -- there's no "finish the upgrade and let me handle this later" option. Portage does the upgrade, then says " n config files need updating"; etc-update is a tool provided for updating config files interactively (replace, discard, see diff, merge), otherwise they can be updated entirely by hand (the new file is prefixed with ._ in the same directory as the old). That's about as high a level of control as I can think of for an automated package management system -- yes, even a fraction more than ports in BSD, thanks to the 'use' flags and easily configurable compiler options in portage.

          Comments

          1. By janus () janus at errornet dot de on http://janus.errornet.de

            Gnetoo DOES clobber the config files.
            For example setup your favorite pam-config and then re-emerge base-layout... hope you've got a backup.

            Comments

            1. By Anonymous Coward () on

              I take it your brightness has done a bug report?

            2. By cycloon () on

              yes, in this special case it touches configs, since otherwise some people could have lost access to their boxes.
              Howerver, it definitely backs up your configs and even prints out infos about everything it does in this step.

        2. By Anonymous Coward () on

          > I still think the apt-get and dpkg tools in Debian are a better thing

          Yeah, because I love having to install all of Gnome to get something simple like GAIM to work. Or vise-versa, not having Gnome support in GAIM, even if I have it installed.

          Binary packages suck. Give me source packages any day, but without the hassle of figuring out every single damn option available, working out every last dependency of a dependancy, and without having to write a bunch of patches just because a package wants a config file to be in a different place.

          > And the ability to let is NOT touch any config files is a great thing in apt.
          I want the default configuration files installed. If it exists, gentoo won't touch it untill you give it a command to tell it what to do with them.

    2. By not-a-zelot :p () on www.tuxslare.org

      "touching config files without asking you"

      Well, actually, that's not true. It will save the new config files as ._something, and ask you later if you want to upgrade for the new ones, keep them as is, show you a diff between the files, or merge them in a interactivly manner.

      Comments

      1. By janus () janus at errornet dot de on http://janus.errornet.de

        I already said: http://deadly.org/commentShow.php3?sid=20030829235108&pid=120

        Comments

        1. By Anonymous Coward () on

          One thing!! oh no!! It is the end of the world !! The sky is falling !! Do grow up

        2. By Anonymous Coward () on

          Yes you did

          Check out the hours.

          JIZ


          I posted before then you did.



          NAH NAH NAH NAH


          Do grow up!

    3. By rankor_industries () on

      unstable? How? Anytime I've had a problem such as a network timeout, it has recovered quite gracefully. It builds the new version in a temporary directory and doesn't overwrite the old version until its complete. How is this unstable?

      I like that its based on python. Python is just the glue that makes things work, so speed issues really do not apply. Python, by its design, tends towards more correct code and is generally IMHO easier to debug. That is just fine for me.

      And your comments about the config files are incorrect. config file editing is done interactively and you can choose which line to keep, which to overwrite, etc..

      Finally, if you don't like it, don't use it. Nobody is going to force you to. I probably wont use it as the ports tree works well enough for me. If someone finds it useful for them however, more power to them and I applaud the developers for increasing the amount of choice available.

    4. By Anonymous Coward () on

      Ein /usr/ports. Ein OS. Ein Theo.
      Right? Wrong!

      Choice = good. This gives a user choice in order to choose the road to Rome.

      And all these efforts to get Debian base (APT/DPKG etc.) working on NetBSD, Amiga, Hurd are useless? Ok, sure.

      Now go away and don't tell us what we should do, you are too archistic and your point should therefore be ignored since this new feature doesn't give you a disadvantage at all!

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward () on

        you apparently have read the section of openbsd.org about goals. go be stupid somewhere else.

        Comments

        1. By Anonymous Coward () on

          We do not need your authority, archism, nor non-arguments.

      2. By Jeremiah Cornelius () half-trolling:jeremiah@nur.net on mailto:half-trolling:jeremiah@nur.net

        half-trolling Look,

        Do you think that if people were interested in choice, that they'd be running BSD?

        Security - yes
        Consistancy - yes
        Choice - er, well... That's why there are 3 free one's, and some you can even buy, right?

        If I want choice, I run Debian or Gentoo.

        Bonus joke for those who've been here:
        Hey! I have an Idea! Let's remotely rev our farm of 30 OBSD boxes up two minor versions this weekend!

    5. By Python () on http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=75060

      There have been a lot discussions about Portage written in Python. Basically it comes down to the following in the Gentoo community: not satisfied with Portage written in Python? Write it in C or C++ or do not whine about it. The authors think the speed advantage is too minor to put the time in it.

      I suggest you either (1) discuss this with the Portage developers and/or Gentoo community in a fruity and constructive manner and that you *do* the needed research. My Portage on my Gentoo doesn't overwrite my config files at all. It never did either. Neither did apt/dpkg/aptitude/dselect on my Debian box. Or (2) you go port it to C or C++. Or (3) you STFU and leave me and other people alone with our Portage on our *BSD. It is MY box and MY choice and the license(s) and opensource structure allow me -and others- to run this software. It doesn't make much sense to comment it down as 'one of the worst ports', and for me it isn't gonna stop me from using it, although that's just my opinion.

    6. By Anonymous Coward () on

      is touching config files without asking you

      Spoken by a true ignorant bastard! Way to go, you should submit this posting along with your Resume to Microsoft's FUD department.

    7. By Anonymous Coward () on

      I think that based on python makes it cool. Try to develop that on C. There is nothing wrong to use a high language to develop applications. Or do you want to develop it with assembler?

    8. By ?? () ?? on ??

      Of course you are right, portage is not for you. Just stop talking bul**it about things you do not use. I use portage for nearly 1,5 a year on a few production boxes and it works just fine. The application itself is very stable. Some builds fail, but hey! we are talking about snapshot releases here! Not a tested/modified stuff with very limited choice of sources versions (like in ports)!

      I do not suppose you could autobuild a self booting distro cd using ports and it's tools.
      With portage and its latest tool 'catalyst' it
      will be easy to do it on Linux. I wonder what will you say about portage if the catalyst starts to work for *BSD also :>

      I think: sit in the corner and listen, kid!

  2. By Anonymous Coward () on

    Gentoo founder denounced OpenBSD with his dissatisfaction (I still don't understand why he felt that way, BTW) and created his own pseudo-BSD stuff. Now the clueless try to get back to OpenBSD. Irony, I tell ya.

  3. By Anonymous Coward () on

    OpenBSD has two separate sources of information about how to perform an installation: the FAQ and the i386 install directory.

    Sorry, but this really scares me. OpenBSD packages/ports are targeted for the following platforms: alpha, i386, m68k, powerpc, sparc, sparc64, and vax. (And probably more in the future). AFAIK, portage only supports i386, powerpc, sparc, and sparc64.

    If you've never installed a *BSD before, you might find the partitioning/slicing to be a bit confusing. I wouldn't recommend using a production hard drive!

    You dualboot production systems? Umm...

    At this point you should have a modestly functional portage. Let's see if it works:

    "Modestly functional" to me means that I can install most of my favorite applications. It doesn't mean applying Linux-specific patches to software for use on OpenBSD.

    This seems entirely premature for an announcement or even a webpage. portage doesn't even work on darwin/MacOSX yet, so there's no idea what other kind of portability issues are lurking in the dark.

    I think competition is healthy and I wish them the best of luck, but I just don't think this is going to be a viable alternative.

    Comments

    1. By RC () on

      > portage doesn't even work on darwin/MacOSX yet,

      Mac OS? It has a hard time working on Linux as it is.

    2. By AC () on

      OpenBSD packages/ports are targeted for the following platforms: alpha, i386, m68k, powerpc, sparc, sparc64, and vax. (And probably more in the future). AFAIK, portage only supports i386, powerpc, sparc, and sparc64.

      Wtf are you talking about? Portage is written in Python, so it should run on any platform that has a compatible version of a Python interpreter. I think you're confusing the platforms the Gentoo distribution chooses to support, with the actual potential support of Portage. You see, ebuilds (The install scripts) for each package needs to be written by people, and to support other architectures means that the other architectures need to be taken into account in each of the ebuilds. Gentoo simply chooses a subset of the potential number of architectures to support in their ebuilds. Nothing is stopping anyone from adding support for other architectures, and it's usually not even that hard. If you take a look at an ebuild script (they're written in Bash) it's pretty easy to figure out how they work just by eyeballing one. Theoretically, the limit for architecture support is whatever the kernel supports, with the added stipulation of course, that the package itself suppots such a target platform.

      You dualboot production systems? Umm...

      Who said anything about dualbooting? The author was merely giving advice that the conventions for partitioning a hard disk drive under *BSD are different than those for Linux, and that those who aren't experienced with *BSD should be wary of losing data.

      "Modestly functional" to me means that I can install most of my favorite applications. It doesn't mean applying Linux-specific patches to software for use on OpenBSD.

      Where does it say anything about Linux-specific patches? That step is obviously a bootstrapping stage intended to merely get Portage onto the system. The tarball includes python, bash, bzip2, rsync, and GNU versions of make, patch, sed, and tar (all of which have a "g" prepended so that they don't conflict with the BSD versions). It's obvious that these stand-alone versions of the utilities are meant for exclusive use by Portage, and aren't meant to be used by anything or anyone else. Nothing on your system is being "patched"

      This seems entirely premature for an announcement or even a webpage. portage doesn't even work on darwin/MacOSX yet, so there's no idea what other kind of portability issues are lurking in the dark.

      It's obvious that the author would like for this to get more testing; how else would you suggest he get more testers? And what, exactly, does OS X have to do with ANYTHING? If Portage runs on OS X without a hitch, does that mean it will run on *BSD perfectly as well? You seem to think that OS X has a lot more in common with the other BSDs than it does.

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward () on

        Wtf are you talking about? Portage is written in Python, so it should run on any platform that has a compatible version of a Python interpreter. I think you're confusing the platforms the Gentoo distribution chooses to support, with the actual potential support of Portage. You see, ebuilds (The install scripts) for each package needs to be written by people, and to support other architectures means that the other architectures need to be taken into account in each of the ebuilds. Gentoo simply chooses a subset of the potential number of architectures to support in their ebuilds. Nothing is stopping anyone from adding support for other architectures, and it's usually not even that hard. If you take a look at an ebuild script (they're written in Bash) it's pretty easy to figure out how they work just by eyeballing one. Theoretically, the limit for architecture support is whatever the kernel supports, with the added stipulation of course, that the package itself suppots such a target platform.

        You realize that vax doesn't have shared libraries right? So I have to make another ebuild for every entry in portage because it can't cope with architectures which don't have shared libraries..?

        Where does it say anything about Linux-specific patches? That step is obviously a bootstrapping stage intended to merely get Portage onto the system. The tarball includes python, bash, bzip2, rsync, and GNU versions of make, patch, sed, and tar (all of which have a "g" prepended so that they don't conflict with the BSD versions). It's obvious that these stand-alone versions of the utilities are meant for exclusive use by Portage, and aren't meant to be used by anything or anyone else. Nothing on your system is being "patched"

        I'm talking about the ebuilds themselves. All the patches in the ebuilds are Linux specific. Portage was created with portability being an afterthought and it shows.

        It's obvious that the author would like for this to get more testing; how else would you suggest he get more testers? And what, exactly, does OS X have to do with ANYTHING? If Portage runs on OS X without a hitch, does that mean it will run on *BSD perfectly as well? You seem to think that OS X has a lot more in common with the other BSDs than it does.

        OSX has a lot to do with it. It is the second platform they targetted portage for, and portage is still useless on OSX. They should finish support for OSX first so they can discover and fix portability issues before branching out into other OSes IMHO. I know OSX is radically different from BSD because I run it. I'm suggesting they finish OSX so they can see the shortcomings of portage and fix and extend it, rather than leaving it half baked, and continue making other half baked ports to FreeBSD & OpenBSD.

        Comments

        1. By AC () on

          You realize that vax doesn't have shared libraries right? So I have to make another ebuild for every entry in portage because it can't cope with architectures which don't have shared libraries..?

          First of all, I'd assume that the compiler/linker wouldn't (couldn't) build shared libraries for an architecture where shared libraries aren't supported in the first place. After all, if it could do that, then the support is already half there. Even if that were not the case, it's a simple matter to force static binaries to be built. This can be done by modifying the global compiler flags. In this case, add "-Wl,static" to the CFLAGS variable in the file /etc/make.conf. The contents of the CFLAGS variable are used as the default arguments to the compiler for every merge (which can be overrided if need be). The compiler, upon receiving the -Wl,static argument, will pass it onto the linker at the linking stage, which will then resolve library dependencies and produce static binaries. This is one small change in a single file that will result in changes across all ebuilds.

          I'm talking about the ebuilds themselves. All the patches in the ebuilds are Linux specific. Portage was created with portability being an afterthought and it shows.

          "All" is a pretty big word you're using there. Are you implying that the majority of programs need a third party patch to make them run on Linux? In fact, I'd say the majority of ebuilds don't apply any third party patches at all. And the majority of patches that are included are either bugfixes that haven't been merged into the main tree yet, or patches that modify the behaviour of the program in some trivial, non system-dependant way. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a patch in any way, shape, or form, that's "Linux specific" in the way you put it. And with a properly written patch, it wouldn't matter whether or not it was applied to a non-Linux system anyway. The patch itself would simply say, "Wait, this isn't a Linux system, I should just not do anything."

          They should finish support for OSX first so they can discover and fix portability issues before branching out into other OSes IMHO.

          Well, this has been a classic discussion of ideologies for some time, in many other systems. Basically, the goal is to find flaws in Portage, and the question is , "How do we find bugs in Portage?" Your suggestion is that they do a "depth-first-search", whereby they complete the port to one platform before moving onto the next, the goal of the search being bugs. However, to your dismay, they seem to be taking on a breadth-first-search, where they port to many different platforms at once. Which is better is very dependent on the situation at hand, and of course each has its own advantages. Breadth-first-search, while having the effect of scattering developer resources, has the advantage that bugs discovered on one platform may not be discovered on the other until much further into its development. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, Theo DeRaadt once stated the same benefit in porting OpenSSL to other platforms besides OpenBSD. It forces them to discover erroneous assumptions made about the platform, that would have been exceedingly more difficult to discover, had the port not been done. NetBSD is another example, where porting the kernel to dozens of architectures has no doubt helped them to discover bugs that they didnt' even know existed in certain architectures. Basically,it's a philosophical debate which may be constrained by the practical consideration of the amount of developer resources available.

  4. Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward () on

      And ignore the (f)lame trolls over here please!

      Comments
      1. Comments

        1. By blkwolf () on http://blkwolf.dyn.ca

          I'm wondering where the facts are though, since I've been running Gentoo/portage successfully on "production" servers since pre 1.2

          And while there has been the occasional albit rare minor lib issue or specific emerge issue for some app, I have had 0 downtime to any portage related issue on any of 5+ gentoo servers over the past year almost two.

          I'm not going to say portage is perfect or anything but in my experience at least, I've found it to be far from the unstable mess you want to make it out to be.
          I for one welcome the choice to be able to run portage on my other favorite OS.

    2. By Bernard () on http://obsd.at

      I love OpenBSD and Gentoo Linux!

      Comments

  5. By Masta () on

    Simply put, We don't want your Finux wanna-be crap. Isn't it ironic that portage is a replication of FreeBSD's ports tree (which is basicly the same on the 3 primary BSD: open, net, free), and that now its being pushed around as an alternative to the real thing? Gentoo itself originally was a neat idea; A Finux distro with BSD userland, but the Finux folks cannot stand to break ranks with their FSF brothers and it quickly turned to crap as more typical Finux users gave it a try. They assimilated it into yet another Finux distro with a twist, the illusion of a BSD like system. What they have arrived at is something that is neither good for Finux users to get used to BSD, or a Finux system good for a BSD user.

    Comments

    1. By TalkForYourSelf () on

      "Simply put, We don't want your Finux wanna-be crap."

      YOU do not need. YOU. It is YOU. And I do not need YOU to expres MY opinion which is _not_ YOUR opinion - far from it, actually.

      While i'm at it: there's no point on flaming Linux or GNU/Linux. It doesn't make sense imo. You're babbling something about Linux and Gentoo. What that actually matter? We're only talking about a part of Gentoo: Portage.

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward () on

        Linux sucks shit. The only reason it continues its crusade of bloat is because big companies are sinking $$$ into it. Remember when windows was not the best thing around yet it took over the world?
        Exactly the same thing is happening to Linux; it is a bunch of crud but marketing got a hold of it and now it is the bestest thing.

        So Linux == Windows - (a few years)

        Comments

        1. By Anonymous Hero () on

          Sure, sure. Luckily we Linux zealotst have distributions like Debian GNU/Linux. Which are, ofcourse, mostly GPL - and 100% free software. Where is the crud? Where is the marketing? In contrast to the Gentoo homepage -which has Netraverse and Gentoo commercials right on the frontpage- Debian doesn't do such a crap. Actually, i think OpenBSD and Deadly are more commercial with their 'whinings' about buying a CD or T-shirt then i have seen Debian doin'... so *what* marketing? Isn't 'no remote hole in 70 years' a marketing quote? Isn't BSD licensed software exploited by companies to be sold and so - oops, in combination with but not limited to... the thing you seem to hate from your heart... marketing?

          Tell me, how can _that_ become the same bloat, moneydrive, exploiting warmachine like Windows is in just a few years?

          Maybe a few distributions will head that way. We'll see. For now, the communities existing, the freedom as in beer of distributions, and the thing which drives it all: the freedom of speech, the free software, are speaking directly against your paranormal visions.

          So, now... you just go use BSD. And have sex with Theo. Or whatever. Then we, the People, can use whatever we want, and can use and/or support 'Portage on *BSD', without YOUR authorian "no you don't, it sucks, it comes from Gentoo" or "it's Python" whinings? Boohoo! I couldn't care less.. such an authorian behaviour drives directly against the fundemantals of free software and free speech. If you don't like such i suggest you use something which more towards your own behaviour which is reflected by your true philosophy: perhaps something more propierty...8)

    2. By Anonymous Coward () on

      What waste of resources!

    3. By Strog () on http://www.pkgsrc.org

      I would prefer to stick to the BSD way of doing things. NetBSD's pkgsrc is available on all the BSD's, Linux, Solaris and even a couple exotics like Darwin (OS X) and Irix.

      Portage was a good idea but it seem to be pulled around a bit right now. They need to get/keep focus if they want to make something good of it. I'll stick with ports/pkgsrc for me but to each his own.

  6. By Anonymous Coward () on

    The authors of Gentoo have come to the realization that OpenBSD is superior to any operating system on Earth. Instead of throwing their baby out with the rest of the Linux garbage, they are holding on to the crap they've spent too much time on. Nothing wrong with embracing correctness(OpenBSD), but sometimes you need to let go of the pasts mistakes.

    Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward () on

      "The authors of Gentoo have come to the realization that OpenBSD is superior to any operating system on Earth."

      I take it you can quote 'the authors of Gentoo'?

      You see, the author day i heard Theo babbling about a backdoor in OpenSSH. Believe me, this is the truth. I can't quote him, though.

      ..

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward () on

        Yes, it is called Statistics. You can infer that the authors of Gentoo find *BSD in general superior by the development of portage; which is a FreeBSD ports hack with added bloat(not that FreeBSD ports mechanism isn't bloated itself). In other words, Gentoo is a Linux Kernel with a *BSD userland. In addition, we see Gentoo adopting more mechanisms from OpenBSD and FreeBSD. The only Linux relation I see is the Kernel, lack of portability, and the bloat. So, it's safe to conclude that the Gentoo authors like the *BSD way of doing things.

        side note; why waste development time when you find it inferior?

      2. By Anonymous Coward () on

        Backdoor in SSH?

        Before making such a sizeable accusation, see if you can grep the code for a backdoor. If it's there, submit it to independent security folks.

        If it isn't (which I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts is the case), then why are you wasting our time with such drivel?

        Comments

        1. By Anonymous Coward () on

          Point is, i'm making the same mistake as the one i quoted. I do not state valid proof with my statement. Thus i spread at most FUD; exactly the same as the one i quoted.

          Ofcourse it's BS. It's an anology in practise.

          Comments

          1. By Anonymous Coward () on

            Fair enough.

            But instead of being vague, you should probably make your point instead of leaving us to guess at your meaning.

  7. By Anonymous Coward () on

    The OpenBSD news was so great with all the PF features and addons. Then we have news, it spoiled the whole week. I guess it is ok for people what to use it but I don't think I will not a use for it.

    March on OpenBSD project

  8. By Anonymous Coward () on

    Ugh Linux crud...

  9. By Anonymous Coward () on

    Wow I hate these types of commentaries it shows me how both communities have small-minded zealots. I personally use and love both linux and bsd, and several flavours of both. It's a shame that people need to waste time and energy trying to push one or the other as "the best os". Both bsd and linux have brought wonderful operating systems and contributions to the computing world as a whole.

    Get over yourselves and be happy that we such a large selection of amazing software to choose from that is made freely available. And shame on the boys from gentoo for being similar in mindset to the trolls commenting here.

    Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward () on

      The thing is, BSD was around before Linux, and needs no help from the popularity of Linux.

      Show me more correctness in a operating system that has the same functionality than OpenBSD, and guess where I'll move to? Unfortunatley, I'll doubt you'll have one in mind, or find one to present for your argument.

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward () on

        The right tool for the job. Openbsd is an incredible OS, all the bsd's are. Linux has its caveats too. So why should people limit themselves to blindly following one OS and exclude everything else? If Openbsd fits all your needs then great! If not then there are alternatives in both the bsd and linux community. Engaging in pissing contests about "who was around first" or differing implentations of ideas and which is "superior" is pointless. Openbsd is fantastic in some areas, and in others linux is far more appropriate (ie, smp, clustering for people like NASA, Pixar). Your argument falls into the same catagory of the rest preaching to the converted here, and its very disturbing as I generally regard people who use open source or free software as being intelligent.

        Does Openbsd beat linux for security? You bet your ass it does. Does this mean linux or any other operating system doesn't have a place, or can't be useful? Not likely. That is as sadly narrow-minded as the crap Stallman is constantly spewing in the linux community. The source is open here, but I see some of the minds aren't.

        Comments

        1. By Anonymous Coward () on

          I agree with your comment except: "That is as sadly narrow-minded as the crap Stallman is constantly spewing in the linux community"

          Can you elobarate?

        2. By Anonymous Coward () on

          "Linux is far more appropriate (ie, smp, clustering for people like NASA, Pixar)."

          Ever wonder why that is the case? Ignorance will not allow you to spend time on anything that freely gives the results to the competitors, which the BSD license allows. Yet, those same companies will *use* BSD licensed software.

          However, I agree with the quoted statement. Linux is *far* more appropriate for SMP; OpenBSD SMP is in its infancy. Now ask yourself, if OpenBSD SMP was mature enough, what would reason use? Right, correctness wins everytime. Some evidence: OpenSSH and pf. Both have replaced crap software. OpenSSH is everywhere, and pf has become something not to ignore. Given the complexity of OpenSSH and pf, I'll wager OpenBSD SMP will be in the same league.

          "The League of Extraordinary Software!" :P

          Comments

          1. By Anonymous Coward () on

            And at the point where SMP achieves that level if people feel it suits their needs then by all means use it. You have taken my comments to mean that I am saying Openbsd is inferior to Linux, whereas I am actually stating use what you see to be the best tool for the job.

            What is the reason that Openbsd SMP isn't at that level yet? Well it hasn't been a developer priority, which is absolutely fine. Openbsd isn't a good choice for an average user as a desktop, and I say "average" user before I get a dozen people saying it works fine for them. Some day it might be, and if so great!

            The point which you have missed repeatedly is that damn sandbox is big enough for everyone to play in, and that includes linux, and all the bsds. However it seems some people would prefer to push the idea of using only one operating system, regardless of whether there are other options that might fit a particular situation better. That idea is as silly as someone building a house and insisting that everyone only use one particular tool. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't buy a house from someone who built it only using screwdrivers.

            Is my point a little clearer? Or should I just toss you a Phillips and let you go on your merry way?

      2. By Anonymous Coward () on

        btw the way next time try reading a comment before you reply to it.. you missed every single point I made... instead you tossed the exact same rhetoric at it that I was refering to...

        RTFC (read the fscking comment)

      3. By Anonymous Coward () on

        OpenVMS was earlier then OpenBSD. Clearly, this is a valid argument for my statement that OpenVMS is Superiour to OpenBSD. OpenVMS doesn't need help from the popularity of OpenBSD.

        Comments

        1. By Anonymous Coward () on

          To start, OpenVMS is not in question here and is irrelevant. Nice try with the Red Herring. Second, OpenBSD was not stated to be superior to Linux because of age, but from the fact that OpenBSD is as correct an operating system has gotten to this point in history; correct from the standpoint of using standards and sane coding practice.

          The point of popularity is exactly what it is; a lot of people have jumped on the Linux bandwagon. The popularity of OpenBSD is minute compared to that of the Linux community, yet you'll hear time and time again how Linux needs to take some pointers from the success of OpenBSD. That success is not being the most popular, it's the success of being correct and not deviating or compromising that goal.

    2. By djm () on

      yeah, if people recognised the value of using the right tool for the job they wouldn't bother trying to recreate the BSD ports system in Linux or trying to recreate this back in BSD.

      More interesting is Openwall Linux's take on the ports-style "build from pristine source with patches" philosophy - they build the entire OS from a CVS tree of RPM spec files and patche (and have a great attitude to security).

      Gentoo is derivative and caters to the 16-year old Slashdot crowd who just want compile everything with compiler optimisations so they can feel l33t. No thanks.

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward () on

        Having tried Gentoo just to see what Linux was like, I can say that the compiler options you think are for 16 year old /. users make a lot of difference. I was sceptical about it until I tested it on my P-III 600 test box. Generic compiler options a la OpenBSD's gcc gave a much slower system than the system specific options available in Gentoo's gcc. Roll on the day when OpenBSD moves over to gcc 3.3+ so we too can move away from running Pentium or worse code on our Pentium-IV's.

      2. By Anonymous Coward () on

        Those "GNU" optimizations is reason enough not to touch Gentoo, period. Right, I want someone to take my baby and mangle to the way *they* feel is best for the sake of gaining performance? no, thank you. I'll practice correct coding and have no need for optimization. That is right, optimizations are for incorrect code with a lack of efficiency in mind when it was written.

        Comments

        1. By Anonymous Coward () on

          welcome to 1980...

  10. By Anonymous Coward () on

    Everytime a topic such as this comes along suddenly the bsd community turns into a bunch of 12 year olds. I personally run openbsd on servers and freebsd on workstations so I'm not some linux troll. Yes, BSD is in several ways superior to linux. However, does no one in this community want *bsd to ever be taken seriously? While linux gains steam it's also because their community is slightly more mature and actually cares about their user base. *bsd folk tend to sit and scorn everyone with superior attitudes that accomplish nothing. Or maybe the bsd community has no desire to be taken seriously, in which case I'm sorry I said anything.

    Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward () on

      Have you ever heard a "typical" Linux user talking about Linux vs. Micro$oft? The best part of the show comes, when the Linux dude even talks to a Micro$oft dude about that topic... hell, and you say the *BSD community is a kindergarten? :->

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward () on

        You still don't get the point.

    2. By Anonymous Coward () on

      "However, does no one in this community want *bsd to ever be taken seriously?"

      OpenBSD should be taken seriously based on technical merit, period. Not on what people think of the community. I'm not here to make anyone feel comfortable by entertaining them with my incredible charisma and character. :P People pay shrinks for that.

    3. By Anonymous Coward () on

      I think the aforementioned 12 yo's are not really a representitive sample of BSD users. They just happened to be attracted to these forums. Personally, I'd be perfectly content to see flames and immature rants (including this one) simply deleted from deadly. Flames, trolling, and immature rants are what Slashdot is for....

  11. By Anonymous Coward () on

    I think time would be better spent on our own system that wrapped around the current ports tree. It could be done in Perl or Python as well.. But you could still fall down to the Makefiles if you like.

    Seems to make more sense to piggypack off our current ports system than to introduce a whole new system.

  12. By heywood () on

    I understand choice is good and all ... but i think time would be better spent working towards refining and adding to the existing ports tree ... some of the reasons why i am fond of openbsd is that it is well organized, clean, and refined enough to be rock solid ... linux distros, mentality and community (especially the concept of portage) seem to be dirty hacks that are only somewhat functional. This is diverges from the openbsd goals and direction. Lets not bring the cruft from the desktop/server/whatever os linux world into the bsd world ... or better yet ... for all you "choice is better" folk out there ... lets allow it to be an option ... and watch it either flop or rise to our standards ... either way ... as long as we don't fall into their mentality, we come out ahead

    Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward () on

      "linux distros, mentality and community (especially the concept of portage) seem to be dirty hacks that are only somewhat functional."

      Never heard of that. It should be noticed that not all Linux distro's are the same, that not the whole community GMTA's, that not the mentality is the same at all, and so on.

      So i'm looking forward to your examples and proof that portage is a 'dirty hack'.

Latest Articles

Credits

Copyright © - Daniel Hartmeier. All rights reserved. Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors, submission implies license to publish on this web site. Contents of the archive prior to as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original deadly.org with Jose's and Jim's kind permission. This journal runs as CGI with httpd(8) on OpenBSD, the source code is BSD licensed. undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]