Peter N. M. Hansteen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 09:55:13PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > > Do not assume "desireable" and "possible" are always the same. > > > > > > My point was whether the wording "installable on 512MB of storage" is > > > appropriate to put in the OpenBSD 7.3 FAQ, and whether "desirable" and > > > "possible" are the same is outside the discussion. > > > > No, it is optimistic oversell by the faq authors > > > > It should be realistic & accurate, or it should say nothing at all. > > If I rembember correctly, the 512MB number was somewhere in the "possible > but not comfortable" range way back when the text was originally written. > But that was before several space consuming things such as the relinking > at boot steps happened. > > A more realistic estimate looking a the various systems I have within reach > suggests "you can squeeze in a full install inside 1GB, but if you plan on > installing any packages or storing data locally, there is no point in setting > yourself up for the pain of running out of storage". > > You could probably find the absolute minimim (an actually quite useless > number) by > checking the uncompressed sizes of the *.tgz install sets, but the last time I > remember doing a "df -h" on a fresh install before installing any packages or > introducing any data, the total ran to somewhere in excess of 650MB. > > The system with the least storage allocated that I interact with regularly > is a thing that runs spamd and some content filtering, with a total of 6GB > storage, and at most times uses about two thirds of that. > > If the bare minimum size for an OpenBSD install is vital information to you > for some reason, the way to find out is to do a fresh install using only the > Enter key, then recording he total used after first reboot. The exact number > is likely a little different across the 14 supported architectures.
The best way to not lie, is to not say anything at all.
