Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 19th Oct 2009 12:06 UTC, submitted by ebasconp
OpenBSD As mentioned in the release announcement: "Many people have received their 4.6 CDs in the mail by now, and we really don't want them to be without the full package repository. We are pleased to announce the official release of OpenBSD 4.6. This is our 26th release on CD-ROM (and 27th via FTP). We remain proud of OpenBSD's record of more than ten years with only two remote holes in the default install." I really want news like this on the front page, but sadly, the long list of improvements makes no sense to me - I don't know what's important and what isn't. If someone can provide a nice readable summary of the most important improvements, I'll include it to the item and place it on the front page. There we are.
Thread beginning with comment 390004
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Cool, but...
by DBAlex on Mon 19th Oct 2009 11:16 UTC
DBAlex
Member since:
2006-12-31

Can anyone tell me, is OpenBSD just a niche BSD based around security... or is it useful as a Desktop OS too?

Also is it the same case with NetBSD?

Or should I just stick with trying FreeBSD instead? (I did try it a while ago, the ports system is very nice, but not a good idea to compile GNOME on a slow machine...)

Alex.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Cool, but...
by sbenitezb on Mon 19th Oct 2009 12:09 in reply to "Cool, but..."
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

There are some that use OpenBSD for desktop; it's possible.

FreeBSD is nice, but having to compile everything takes a lot of time. I wish pacman + repos were available. As an intermediate solution, you could pkg_add -r *desktop-of-choice* and then compile from ports overnight. I don't know how much speed gain you get from compiling out what you don't need. I, for once, compile xorg without hal and dbus, and use xorg.conf to have it configured and stripped to a minimum. But it takes a hell of a lot of time to build my regular desktop.

NetBSD I don't know, never used it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Cool, but...
by vermaden on Mon 19th Oct 2009 13:42 in reply to "RE: Cool, but..."
vermaden Member since:
2006-11-18

FreeBSD is nice, but having to compile everything takes a lot of time.

NetBSD I don't know, never used it.


OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD, all three provide packages that can be added by pkg_add(1), you MAY compile from ports, but packages are available on all of these systems.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Cool, but...
by tyrione on Mon 19th Oct 2009 17:36 in reply to "RE: Cool, but..."
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

There are some that use OpenBSD for desktop; it's possible.

FreeBSD is nice, but having to compile everything takes a lot of time. I wish pacman + repos were available. As an intermediate solution, you could pkg_add -r *desktop-of-choice* and then compile from ports overnight. I don't know how much speed gain you get from compiling out what you don't need. I, for once, compile xorg without hal and dbus, and use xorg.conf to have it configured and stripped to a minimum. But it takes a hell of a lot of time to build my regular desktop.

NetBSD I don't know, never used it.


That's where Debian FreeBSD is big news.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Cool, but...
by Zbigniew on Mon 19th Oct 2009 12:22 in reply to "Cool, but..."
Zbigniew Member since:
2008-08-28

Of course you can use OpenBSD for desktop, but sometimes you'll get the feeling of "Linux (over) ten years ago".

IMHO Linux is much better for the desktop than any of the xBSD systems, and if you need "something Unix-like" for your desktop - you'll be much more pleased with Linux. Why do you want to switch, anyway? You can always choose "less bloated" distro, like Slackware or Gobo - keeping all Linux' advantages: many drivers, many different filesystems available to choose from, full internationalization, etc. etc.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Cool, but...
by sbenitezb on Mon 19th Oct 2009 15:23 in reply to "RE: Cool, but..."
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

Of course you can use OpenBSD for desktop, but sometimes you'll get the feeling of "Linux (over) ten years ago".


And why is that exactly bad? I still remember using Linux 10 years ago and how things were amazing and less bloated/shiny.

IMHO Linux is much better for the desktop than any of the xBSD systems, and if you need "something Unix-like" for your desktop - you'll be much more pleased with Linux.


Actually Linux is less *nix like than the BSDs. Consider all things added to Linux that set it apart from the *nix tradition and some new stuff that makes it incompatible with the BSDs.

Why do you want to switch, anyway? You can always choose "less bloated" distro, like Slackware or Gobo - keeping all Linux' advantages: many drivers, many different filesystems available to choose from, full internationalization, etc. etc.


Many drivers are useful only if you have exotic hardware and you need those drivers. Having many filesystems doesn't mean you get a good filesystem, just lots of limited/mediocre/obsolete ones. From the available selection, you would probably pick ext4. In the future you might picl btrfs, but that's it. For desktop at least.

In the end, he will choose whatever OS fits the bill. He doesn't need to use just 1. I use both Arch and FreeBSD, as I like them both.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Cool, but...
by wigry on Mon 19th Oct 2009 12:29 in reply to "Cool, but..."
wigry Member since:
2008-10-09

OpenBSD is surprisingly useable as a desktop system, The ports system is a bit frightning, but always check the packages directory first before starting to compile the ports, because there is big chance that precompiled package is already available.

Just set the PKG_PATH=ftp://...
and then type pkg-add <the-package> (or was it installpkg...)

And look as all the dependencies and all gets installed. Really wonderful for a secure BSD.

PS: Well I've been using Slackware for too much that I consider automated dependency tracking a wonderful feature ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Cool, but...
by strcpy on Mon 19th Oct 2009 14:35 in reply to "Cool, but..."
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

Can anyone tell me, is OpenBSD just a niche BSD based around security... or is it useful as a Desktop OS too?


With little effort and patience, yes.

But even if the whole system was designed to run a desktop, don't expect it to be Ubuntu.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Cool, but...
by glarepate on Mon 19th Oct 2009 19:26 in reply to "Cool, but..."
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

... should I just stick with trying FreeBSD ...


PC-BSD ( http://www.pcbsd.org/content/view/12/26/ for the 'About' page) and FreeSBIE ( http://www.freesbie.org/ homepage) are both FreeBSD and are designed to be very usable desktop systems. So, technically, you could switch AND stick with FreeBSD. Plus I believe they both come as live CDs so that you can try/test them and see if it looks like something you are interested in. But I didn't find anything about PC-BSD being a live CD so that may turn out to be a VirtualBox, Parallels, VMware, QEMU, Bochs thing (I haven't figured out how to use XEN or kvm yet) to see if you like it if you aren't committed to installing right off the bat.

They mention dual-booting but nowadays there are few reasons to run just one OS at a time in order to research one. YHMDO (Your hardware may dictate otherwise.)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Cool, but...
by vikramsharma on Tue 20th Oct 2009 12:57 in reply to "Cool, but..."
vikramsharma Member since:
2005-07-06

Olive used to be a system based on OpenBSD, don't know how useful that would be as a Desktop OS. You could also try PC-BSD in case you are interested in FreeBSD, it's a pretty good Operating System for Desktops.

Reply Parent Score: 2