Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 1st Nov 2011 22:58 UTC, submitted by fran
OpenBSD "OpenBSD 5.0 has been published, six months after the release of version 4.9. The OpenBSD project's newest release of the free BSD based UNIX-like operating system includes a number new and updated drivers, performance improvements and new features. OpenBSD 5.0 includes the GNOME 2.32.2, KDE 3.5.10 and Xfce 4.8.0 desktop environments. It also contains a number of new and updated packages including versions 3.5.19, 3.6.18 and 5.0 of the Firefox web browser, PHP 5.2.17 and 5.3.6, LibreOffice 3.4.1, and Chromium 12. The release includes September's release of OpenSSH 5.9." GNOME 2 you say? Huh. Interesting.
Order by: Score:
Comment by ddc_
by ddc_ on Tue 1st Nov 2011 23:27 UTC
ddc_
Member since:
2006-12-05

GNOME 2 you say? Huh. Interesting.
The -current ports tree is moving to GNOME 3.2 with several components being not ready yet. Too much otherwise unneeded stuff had to be ported to OpenBSD to make GNOME 3 update happen.

BTW, why don't You use GNOME 3 in fallback mode?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by ddc_
by dbolgheroni on Tue 1st Nov 2011 23:53 UTC in reply to "Comment by ddc_"
dbolgheroni Member since:
2007-01-18

And for those who don't know, -current, which is the development branch of OpenBSD, is often more stable than many "stable" OSs out there.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by ddc_
by zima on Wed 2nd Nov 2011 00:28 UTC in reply to "Comment by ddc_"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

KDE 3.5.10 looks a bit more interesting like that, anyway.

Most interesting, in relation to the treatment of the other two DEs, is probably Xfce 4.8.0 - apparently the current version.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by ddc_
by ddc_ on Wed 2nd Nov 2011 01:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ddc_"
ddc_ Member since:
2006-12-05

The reason is simple - it takes much less to port, as it is less platform- and obscure-unneeded-libs-dependent.

GNOME 3 means that one need to port to BSDs pulseaudio and udisks, which are of no use there othrwise; also clutter is to be ported, and may be something else. KDE4 has the same problems plus it depends on half of the ports tree...

And all of that on a system where the majority of users prefer minimalist solutions like scrotwm+xxxterm+xterm.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by ddc_
by brynet on Wed 2nd Nov 2011 02:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ddc_"
brynet Member since:
2010-03-02

There is a port of pulseaudio being worked on in the tree.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by ddc_
by ddc_ on Wed 2nd Nov 2011 07:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ddc_"
ddc_ Member since:
2006-12-05

Effectively, the port of pulseaudio is finished. IIRC, the whole GNOME 3.2 is ported in -current though newer clutter version is worked on in order to run mutter and empathy's calling functionality.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by ddc_
by 0brad0 on Wed 2nd Nov 2011 08:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ddc_"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

Effectively, the port of pulseaudio is finished.


No. It has not.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by ddc_
by ddc_ on Wed 2nd Nov 2011 12:39 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ddc_"
ddc_ Member since:
2006-12-05

What are You talking about? http://openports.se/audio/pulseaudio is there since September.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by ddc_
by brynet on Wed 2nd Nov 2011 15:28 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ddc_"
brynet Member since:
2010-03-02

It's only a basic port, a lot of stuff is disabled because it's not used on OpenBSD.

It's not finished.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by ddc_
by 0brad0 on Thu 3rd Nov 2011 07:00 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ddc_"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

What are You talking about? http://openports.se/audio/pulseaudio is there since September.


and it isn't COMPLETE. It's work in progress.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by ddc_
by gan17 on Wed 2nd Nov 2011 11:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ddc_"
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

Exactly!!
I've never seen a screenshot of OpenBSD (or any BSD other than FreeBSD or PC-BSD, for that matter) running a full-blown DE. If it's not X-less, then it's usually a lightweight *box or tiling WM.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Comment by ddc_
by zizban on Wed 2nd Nov 2011 16:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ddc_"
zizban Member since:
2005-07-06

Want a screenshot of my desktop? I run Gnome 2 on OpenBSD.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by ddc_
by 0brad0 on Sat 5th Nov 2011 11:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ddc_"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

Exactly!!
I've never seen a screenshot of OpenBSD (or any BSD other than FreeBSD or PC-BSD, for that matter) running a full-blown DE. If it's not X-less, then it's usually a lightweight *box or tiling WM.


Exactly what? Your comment makes zero sense. Just because you haven't seen such a screenshot doesn't mean I cannot setup my system with such a DE. Too many people make really stupid assumptions about OpenBSD as if it's not even possible to have a system setup with these bloated DE's.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by ddc_
by zima on Sun 6th Nov 2011 21:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ddc_"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

If it's not X-less, then it's usually a lightweight *box or tiling WM.

One "lightweight *box" - Openbox - is, sort of, at the core of LXDE (even if this one's rather light & modular - essentially following *nix philosophy, one might say - it still shoots for DE status even via its name...)

Reply Score: 2

openbsd website
by fran on Tue 1st Nov 2011 23:45 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

I think the openbsd webpage also deserve a makeover.

Reply Score: 5

RE: openbsd website
by drcoldfoot on Wed 2nd Nov 2011 00:24 UTC in reply to "openbsd website"
drcoldfoot Member since:
2006-08-25

I disagree. If it's not broken, don't fix it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: openbsd website
by ddc_ on Wed 2nd Nov 2011 12:45 UTC in reply to "openbsd website"
ddc_ Member since:
2006-12-05

Their site is very usable, much more then those of most Linux distros. And it demonstrates the project's philosophy: simplistic, informative, with easy access to documents and all the possibly distracting features are cut off.

I think those who prefer fancier sites are not the target auditory of the project.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: openbsd website
by Doc Pain on Wed 2nd Nov 2011 14:14 UTC in reply to "RE: openbsd website"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

Their site is very usable, much more then those of most Linux distros. And it demonstrates the project's philosophy: simplistic, informative, with easy access to documents and all the possibly distracting features are cut off.


And keep in mind it's also a barrier-free presentation, so blind users can view the site and navigate it using a Braille readout or a voice synthesizer. This increases the target audience.

Form and content go hand in hand here. :-)

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: openbsd website
by 0brad0 on Thu 3rd Nov 2011 10:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: openbsd website"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

"Their site is very usable, much more then those of most Linux distros. And it demonstrates the project's philosophy: simplistic, informative, with easy access to documents and all the possibly distracting features are cut off.


And keep in mind it's also a barrier-free presentation, so blind users can view the site and navigate it using a Braille readout or a voice synthesizer. This increases the target audience.

Form and content go hand in hand here. :-)
"

With you mentioning that I thought I should mention there have been a few vision impaired users over the years post to our mailing lists mentioning how they are using OpenBSD.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: openbsd website
by zima on Tue 8th Nov 2011 23:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: openbsd website"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Though a site can be both aesthetic and functional. Almost insisting this is an "either-or" situation is a poor defence.

Even a nice colour scheme (with some still simple layout) can do a lot, for the site to be more pleasant... while now, main OpenBSD page has blue (typical browser default) links on ~turquoise field, WTH? (it's like somebody there assumes only blind visitors ...and/or wants to put strain on the eyes of those who still can see ;) )

If Slackware site is much more aesthetic than yours, then you have a problem ;)

Reply Score: 2

gcc4.6.1
by ebasconp on Wed 2nd Nov 2011 04:20 UTC
ebasconp
Member since:
2006-05-09

Has someone installed gcc 4.6.1, netbeans or java in openbsd?

Reply Score: 2

RE: gcc4.6.1
by brynet on Wed 2nd Nov 2011 04:33 UTC in reply to "gcc4.6.1"
brynet Member since:
2010-03-02

The system compiler is GCC 4.2.1 + patches, it is the last GPLv2 licensed version.

The ports tree has GCC 4.2.4 and 3.3.6 for some things that can't be built with the system compiler.

Nothing is preventing you from compiling a newer version yourself, but, it might not actually produce working executables.. and it's not supported.

And yes, ports exist for netbeans 6.9.1, jdk 1.6 and 1.7 (..openjdk).

Edited 2011-11-02 04:36 UTC

Reply Score: 3

v OpenBSD guys are a bunch of traitors
by twitterfire on Thu 3rd Nov 2011 14:08 UTC
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

Shocking horror! They even talked about replacing the much superior and freer gcc with something as awful as llvm/clang. Which, as anyone can guess, is NOT licensed under GPL v3. Where is this world going?

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

No, not clang/llvm. gcc might be replaced by pcc at some point in time though, at least for building the base system.

Reply Score: 2

0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

No, not clang/llvm. gcc might be replaced by pcc at some point in time though, at least for building the base system.


The only compiler so far that has any chance of replacing GCC in base is LLVM. pcc has way too many issues for that to be a reality. A complete lack of arch support, no C++ support, no SIMD intrinsics support, etc.

Edited 2011-11-05 11:16 UTC

Reply Score: 2

0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

Shocking horror! They even talked about replacing the much superior and freer gcc with something as awful as llvm/clang. Which, as anyone can guess, is NOT licensed under GPL v3. Where is this world going?


Shocking horror. We like having truly free software, not "free" with strings attached. GPLv3 is NOT free.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I see what you did there.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Why are they traitors to free software?

their software btw is actually included in pretty much every *nix ... every heard of SSH. So if you are saying they are traitors so is every Distro using SSH ... oh well good luck finding another implementation ... you can always use putty on Windows ... oh wait ... you need to connect to SSH.

The license is pretty liberal and is even endorsed by the FSF.

<sarcasm>
BTW ... I secretly agree ... How dare they release software with a license they feel is appropriate

How dare a developer choose how their work is distributed!! ... it not like they wrote it is it </sarcasm>


TBH not sure if Troll or Stupid ...

Trololololo!!

Edited 2011-11-03 20:28 UTC

Reply Score: 2