> 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.
>
nope, haven't. i checked out both FreeBSD and OpenBSD on their
respective web sites. both look good. unfortunately, i'm not sure if i'm
up to installing and trying to comprehend yet another OS.
> 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.
>
would definitely agree with you on the "Pure" part. unlike you, and
maybe it'll be my downfall someday, i see no reason to partition my drive
into eighty billion little drives. my computer has one user, no more. if
i'm worried about a piece of data, i back it up on CD periodically.
> 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".
>
yes, i suppose that would be the question. so in essence, if linux
were actually somewhat standardized (which it *kind of* is...) it really
depends on the program. i can dig it.
> 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.
>
looked into FreeBSD. it caught my eye. OpenBSD didn't look like
it'd do it for me (no offense...) unfotunately, i have no idea where to
even START as far as programming a driver. will linux drivers compile for
the BSD's? then again, why do i care? i still need win2k for lightwave...
i think i'm becoming soft with the use of GUI's.
> > > 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.
>
never tried it. suppose i'll have to.
> 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.
>
okay, sounds good. my statement was probably made in haste. when i
check out an operating system's site, i'm looking for what software it runs.
OpenBSD was very vague about this. FreeBSD told me what i needed to know.
>
> 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
>
i don't have time today to look at the manpages, but rest assured
that i will get to them before the weekend is out. you've certaqinly piqued
my interest in the BSD's.
> 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.
>
i agree with what you are saying here, but what is the point of an
operating system if only one person is using it? further, if we don't care
for people who can't contribute to an OS, why have the Linux Demo Day at
all? how many people out there know C or C++, or whatever language you
prefer, and can actually contribute to an OS? how many people have the
time? i'd love to contribute to an OS or any other programming project, but
the only language i really KNOW is VBA. now, does Linux have Excel? (mind
you, this is how i make my money. it speaks nothing for what i really want
to learn...)
> > 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.
>
it's also the most widely supported OS out there. 90% of the
desktop market (and dropping!) means that developers go to windoze with
their programs. who wants to write programs for *nix when there's little or
no money in 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?
>
support as in what programs are written for it. choice of software
is a BIG deciding factor when i look at an OS.
> > 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 :)
>
i'm working on it... ;) yes, i suppose i'm mainly whining here.
> If Mandrake has proper man pages, reading through bash(1) and rm(1)
> should show you the light.
>
manpages... manpages... you know my thoughts about them already...
i try to steer clear of them and use tangible resources that make sense to
me. i didn't look into this issue when mandrake was installed because i
went back to Debian four nights later (if Linux were a religion, which some
people treat it as, i'd be a born-again...)
> > > 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."
>
whoah there. sorry for not expanding my thoughts. not exactly what
i meant (shouldn't have been so hasty there in the last mail...). let me
rephrase that : In a perfect world we'd all be using one OS which was
customizable to the way we like to compute, being standardized or at least
able to adapt to the personal changes we've made, and it would be free of
charge because you NEED something to run your hardware and software. this
will NEVER happen. so i am stuck paying for my software, which i don't
really have a problem with. what i do have a problem with is paying out a
sizable chunk of my paycheck for an OS. if i want Debian on CD, i order it
for roughly $40 (a couple years ago. it may have changed...) plus shipping.
Windoze costs me $145+. see the difference? i can afford $40 and i
certainly don't mind paying it. $145 is stretching it.
i could care less about the GNU GPL or OpenBSD's liscense, so long
as the system WORKS and runs the software i like to use. source code and a
good liscense is simply icing on the cake (when i learn a proper language,
that is...) this does not mean that i do not pay attention to liscensing.
it simply means that between two systems with decent ( but different )
liscensing, the one that works for me is the one i use.
i am whining. i appologize for doing it, but i want my system to
work. even if i exactly follow the directions of people who have gone
before, nothing i do seems to work. i am looking for an alternative because
i, personally, after much tooth-gnashing and smacking of keyboard, cannot
get my system to work. i read documentation. i read howtos. nothing seems
to help. it MUST be a personal problem.
BTW, thank you for the conversation. very enlightening!
