On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 09:41:51AM -0700, Justin Bengtson wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 09:53:53AM -0700, Cory Petkovsek wrote:
> > > Debian is the "pure" linux. Pure as in untainted by non-free code.
> > >
> > "If linux were a beer, they'd ship it across the ocean in open barrels
> > so everyone could p**s in it." - a popular .sig at openbsd.org
> >
> heh, good one.
>
> > How can an OS, or even a kernel, that is hodgepodged together from
> > patches and binaries from anyone and everyone, without ever going
> > back to look at where things are and how they got that way, be
> > considered "pure" in any way?
> >
> you have just described every OS i've ever used save Mac, Windoze
> and Dos. The main problem i am finding with Linux is that each distro has
> it's own place to put things and nothing is "standardized."
>
Ah, so you haven't tried OpenBSD. It is an OpenSource project and
does use sources from a wide array of coders. The difference is
that the OpenBSD developers actually sat down and took stock. They
weeded out the bugs in many programs used by many other OSes. They
found security risks, and minimized or eliminated them.
> > Sure, Linus gives his OK on the next revision. So using stock
> > linux kernel source could be "pure Linux". But has anyone reviewed
> > the kernel? Does development slow down so a security audit can be
> > made? No, more patches, lets see what this baby can do!
> > Linux itself is not an OS, it's a kernel. Most of the GNU tools,
> > which let one use a kernel, are by default installed in /usr/local.
> > For good reasons, OS designers put them other places where they
> > are more usable. So right there, we see again that "pure" is
> > somewhat elusive.
> >
> explain to me these "good" reasons. i don't understand why
> "standardization" within a given OS (or kernel...) is bad
>
I for one like to have separate mount points for different parts
of my disks that have different kinds of data, and serve different
uses. I like to have a small /, about 50Mb or so. Just the kernel(s)
and enough programs in /bin and /sbin to boot and edit configs in /etc.
I mount /usr separate, because this is where the programs I use the
most are, and are therefore more likely to get corrupted than anything
in /bin and /sbin. If /usr gets corrupted, I can still boot. For the
same reason, /tmp and /var have their own mount points. Sometimes
I mount /usr/local separate also.
Now, the subject of /usr/local. I consider /usr/local to be the
place to add stuff that is not part of the base system. Stuff that
was added locally. Assuming that adding stuff locally is more
unstable than the base OS, the reasons for a separate filesystem
mentioned above apply here too.
I wasn't trying to imply that a standardized directory structure
is bad. I think there should be a standardized directory structure
for all UNIX-like OSes, following what I laid out above (which is
not my original idea, rather, something I read once that made sense
to me.) I just meant to show that there is no "pure" in the *N*X
world.
> > Or perhaps you mean "pure" as in an OS without crufty GUI sysadmin
> > crap. Or perhaps a system that doesn't rely on binary micropackaging,
> > and all the lovely files in /var and binaries and scripts that go
> > along with the circular dependency trap known as a "package manager".
> >
> find that package managers ease my problems considerably. i don't
> have to worry about "non-standardized" directory structures at this point.
> don't have to worry about my next program compile ("is everything in the
> right place? will it actually work? is my OS "standardized" enough for the
> program?")
>
And what if you didn't need a package manager? What if the entire
OS with all the tools needed: compilers, editors, perl, web server
and client, mail server and MUA etc are in the base system? What
if the base system installed from 4 tarballs and a sh script? What
if the source has undergone audits? What if the entire OS was built
from those audited sources at the same time, instead of piecing
together binaries?
I have never wondered if a program that came as part of the OpenBSD
base would work, because I have never had one not work. I have wondered
if the program sources I download on my own will compile, or if they
have too much Linux specific code, and whether I have the skills to
port it.
It is essentially a question of whether or not the program itself
is "standardized".
> > Or maybe "pure" means a system that can be completely rebuilt from
> > source on the machine it will run on with a few 'make's? Or maybe
> > you're looking for an OS that allows and encourages you to download
> > it's RCS archive, so you can go and make your own OS?
> >
> make my own OS? kewl. where do i sign up? is it easy? i'm merely
> a lowly VBA programmer with expensive hardware. i have very little C skillz
> and i can't even comprehend a Perl script, but i'd like to give windoze a
> miss. do i have to write my own Detonator driver for this fscking GeForce
> card? 'cause i can't.
>
ftp://openbsd.rug.ac.be/pub/OpenBSD-CTM/
Well, you'd be starting from a stable, capable OS, so until you
make the kind of changes that would warrant it being a "different"
OS, it would be easy :)
About the driver? If you feel like it you could write your
own video graphics system, or better yet, just see if the XFree86
Project has written a driver for it. Of course, if the card needs
to use a VESA framebuffer, then you are out of luck with OpenBSD.
You could use FreeBSD tho.
> > Then again "pure" could also mean clean, so what about an OS that
> > actually has undergone a security audit, with unnecessary and
> > potentially dangerous code being removed?
> > Or maybe "pure" means you don't even rely on bash?
> >
> i like bash. bash is kewl. (aaarrrggghh! no good reason...)
I like zsh. It's smaller than bash. It has a better security record
than bash. It has more features than bash. But that's not what I was
getting at. Bash is the /bin/sh on GNU/Linux. Bash is NOT sh. Shell
scripts in GNU/Linux are run by bash, the Bloated Almost SHell.
> >
> > Maybe the "pure" Linux isn't even Linux at all?
> >
> > http://www.openbsd.org/
> >
> OS doesn't look very "mature". four years and they still don't even
> have SMP support? will it run X (this was not answered on the page, aside
> from some reference about running *most* binaries from linux)?
>
Hmm... I'll just quote a book.
The UNIX operating system originated from AT&T (now USL) in the
early 1970's. Because UNIX was able to run different hardware
from different vendors, this encouraged developers to modify UNIX
and distribute it as their own value-added version of UNIX.
Separate UNIX traditions evolved as a result: USL's System V,
Berkeley Standard Distribution (BSD, from the University of
California, Berkeley), Xenix, etc.
UNIX in a Nutshell, O`Reilly & Associates, Inc, page 1-1
And reference a website.
http://www.unix-systems.org/what_is_unix/history_timeline.html
OpenBSD split from NetBSD in 1995. NetBSD being derived from
4.4BSD-lite and 386BSD. Theo de Raadt started OpenBSD because he
thought that instead of trying to support all hardware known to man,
the system should be made secure.
As far as a secure OS, OpenBSD is very mature. They have had four years
without a remote hole in the default install. I don't think any other
OS can make that claim.
Time spent on security audits is time taken from new features.
Some of the features that OpenBSD doesn't support, video framebuffers
and SMP for example, are actually quite difficult to do securely.
Yes, OpenBSD includes X. 2.9 has XFree86 4.0.3, plus many 3.3.6
servers.
And yes, you can run Linux binaries on OpenBSD. You can install
rpm and a RedHat Linux 6.2 subsystem. I'm currently using StarOffice
and gftp which I installed from rpms. I'm also using linux binaries
for acroread and Netscape 6.01, as well as Navigator 4.77 with Flash
5 and RealPlayer 8 plugins.
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > I do what the words in my manpages tell me. <Sorry, Mike :>
> >
> manpages do no good when they are written from the programmer's
> perspective. honestly, how many books about computing, networking,
> programming, physics, higher math and underwater basketweaving do i have to
> read to understand a manpage? these people don't seem to think about their
> users at all.
Yes, well, you have not experienced OpenBSD manpages. One of the things
I like about OpenBSD is that there aren't a bizillion half-right
HOW-TOs, there`s the man pages.
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=man
> if you want new converts to an OS, make it easy to use and
> install.
Yes, well, I don't think that's the idea. I think the idea is more
like, "Hey, I'm not getting paid for this, but I want to see it so
I'll make it possible. Here, I'll give you a copy of my work."
I think the only converts a "free" OS wants are people who will
give back to the project. It's unlikely that a person who can't
even install the OS will be able to make a contribution.
> why do you think Microsoft dumbed-down their OS so much (aside
> from the obvious reasons...)
The only reason I can see is so people can use it without having
to know how a computer works. There are a heck of a lot of people
who don't know how a computer works. And the reason they want a lot of
people to use it is because they $ELL it.
> BeOS is the same way. a friend of mine is
> constantly raving about the fact that it installed within two minutes,
> finding every piece of hardware he had. i'd switch if it was more widely
> supported...
If everything is configured properly, what support do you need?
> hell, i'd use a Mac with OSX if the freakin' hardware wasn't
> so expensive and non-proprietary...
If you want an OS that is well supported, works with any hardware
you want, and is easy to use and maintain, then you need to be rich,
so you can hire a support staff and programmers :)
> >
> > > 'rm -i' is not burned into your .bashrc. Remove it from your .bashrc of
> > your current logged in user. Look in .bash_profile. Log out and log in,
> > or run 'source ~/.bashrc' Or run "alias rm='rm' " To remove it from
> > your current session. 'alias' will show you your current aliases.
> >
> > Don't forget about /etc/skel. I think this is where the idea of 'burned
> > in' comes from.
> >
> haven't tried that... then again, i just killed Mandrake and went
> back to Debian, where i know how to configure bash. Mandrake's .bashrc and
> .bash_profile have no references to aliases. so, as far as i know, being a
> relatively new linux user, it's "burned in".
>
If Mandrake has proper man pages, reading through bash(1) and rm(1)
should show you the light.
> > PS I find the BSD license to be less "non-free", as in free speech
> > and free enterprise (freedom in general), than the GPL.
> >
> i could care less, so long as i don't have to pay some exorbitant
> fee for software that is "required" by my computer. IMO, an OS should be
> free anyway.
>
And you shouldn't get paid for your work either. I didn't mean any
offense by that, but that's what you are saying to OS developers.
Think of it this way. When you do a favor for someone, or at least make
some effort to make things easier for someone, do you like it when
they tell you, "This sucks, why didn't you do it like this. No I didn't
read your documentation, I couldn't make heads or tails out of it.
I want it my way and I want it now! Why can't you do this? I paid
these other guys and they did it. And don't EVEN think I'm going to
give anything to you in return."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
