On 5/3/19 2:32 PM, Strahil Nikolov wrote:
> On May 3, 2019 10:49:55 PM GMT+03:00, Nick Holland
> <n...@holland-consulting.net> wrote:
>> On 5/2/19 1:52 AM, Consus wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've upgraded my systems from 6.4 to 6.5 without a glitch, but I
>>> see that /etc/networks and some other files (like malloc.conf.5)
>>> are
>> still
>>> present, although there is no use for them in the new release.
>>>
>>> Is there a reason why these files are not listed in "FIles to
>> remove"?
>>> Is there a way to track them? It's not like something gonna
>>> break,
>> but
>>> old configuration files (and manual pages) lying around can make
>>> someone's life harder during the debug session.
>>
>> There is no promise that an upgraded machine will be file-for-file
>> identical to a fresh install. Here is the list of problems this
>> might cause you, as you can see, it's a long list and quite
>> horrible:
>>
>> * If you use the same hw for 20 years, you might run out of disk
>> space?
>>
>> Ok, not very long and not very horrible.
>>
>> You are trying to solve a non-problem. And sometimes, 'specially
>> on an upgraded machine, it's great to see how things WERE when the
>> machine was set up. If you really care, go ahead, delete stuff.
>>
>> Nick.
>
> Hi All,
>
> As I linux guy (my experience in openBSD can be easily measured in
> days) I can share the view of less experienced user that was planing
> to upgrade from 6.4 to 6.5 and that eneded with a full reinstall.
>
> I tried to update a VM (stock setup) with a 10 GB disk from 6.4 to
> 6.5 and thus it seemed that booting from the 6.5 DVD will do the
> trick. Sadly the installer never checked the avalable space , but
> just started to do it's stuff until reporting that not enough space
> is available.
The installer didn't check. Neither did you. Let's blame the installer.
Ok, sure, might be nice, but when there are a snootload of different
platforms with radically different size binaries, it's not trivial. But
feel free to send in a patch. Test on two or three different platforms,
first, though, please.
And ... considering the number of times I've seen and heard about Linux
systems hose themselves with upgrades, I question your implication.
Major Linux upgrade? Most people I know just say "Screw it. Rebuild,
reload". Linux might have the edge on incremental upgrades, but
eventually, you are going to need to move to the more current
release...and then OpenBSD starts looking REALLY GOOD.
10g disk? When I first started working with OpenBSD, that was really
big. But then, I had to manually partition the disk. 20 years later,
10G is tiny. The installer auto-partioner is really intended for bigger
disks. Yeah, you are in "Special Case" territory, which isn't a good
spot to be as a new user.
> Why did the installer allow installation despite the available space
> is low ( even windows checks available space :) )???
The average windows user doesn't know what the units of storage mean.
> Why should the end-user delete old unnecessary/problematic files ?
That's my question. What's the big deal? On a modern disk, just ignore
them. They won't be a problem until long after your rotate out the hw.
Problem is, you used a 2001 vintage size disk. You should have rotated
that out around 2005.
And I'm curious how a CentOS 6 to Centos 7 upgrade would go on a 10G
disk. I have my suspicions, and I suspect it would be entertaining to
watch...assuming it wasn't something you were dependent upon.
> Usually we do have package management system to take care of that (or
> at least to rename those files in case we really need them).
Yeah, you need to wait until Linux "package management" screws itself
into a knot for you.
> For me, system upgrade is a very complicated and error prone
> procedure.
OpenBSD has what I call a "Learning Curb". You gotta lift your feet.
Not a lot, it's not hard, but you can't just shuffle along mindlessly
and expect to be carried to the next level without your engaging your brain
If you used Linux for a little bit and figured that OpenBSD is "just
like Linux, but different", yeah, no, you are going to be disappointed.
Different beast. From a management perspective, I'd say Linux and
Windows are much more alike than Linux and OpenBSD. Linux is written
for and by those frustrated with Windows ("Reinventing Windows,
poorly"). OpenBSD is Unix. It's probably the simplest Unix out there
to use and manage, but it's not Windows (or Linux).
Or... Think of Linux (and windows) as the big cushy luxury car. Easy
to drive, assuming you work within the anticipated parameters, but you
really have no idea what's going on under the hood. "you aren't
supposed to". That's the design goal, and it works pretty well...until
it doesn't. OpenBSD is more like a semi-primative small car with tight
suspension and a stick-shift trans. It's got antilock brakes, but for
the most part, it assumes you know what you are doing when you get
behind the wheel. When it gets a little wonky, you pop the hood, look
around, see what's not right. Grab a couple tools from the trunk
(included!) fix it, and be back on the road before the guy in the Luxury
car has figured out how to call for a tow truck.
Spend a little time learning OpenBSD, and you will find you can make it
do amazing things.
Nick.
