Re: sappend .history file
Thank you Stuart. --- Original Message --- On Saturday, April 29th, 2023 at 2:18 PM, jonathon575 wrote: > Hi, > > How to sappnd history? > > Thanks,
Re: Minimum install size
Stuart Henderson wrote in : |On 2023-04-29, Theo de Raadt wrote: |> The best way to not lie, is to not say anything at all. | |agreed, this value always gets out of date, and it's no longer the days |when one might be deciding whether to buy a 1/2/4GB CF. better to remove |than update now I think. I had 1.4 GB qcow2 VM image after installing 7.3 this week. Then some pkg_add and cvs stuff for the ports i maintain, and i ended up with almost 1.7 GB. Then i dropped the relink stuff, and used tar to copy over the entire system to another qcow2 image (realpath error can still be seen for installboot): -rw-r- 1 root vm 1681326080 Apr 29 21:41 .o-0703.qcow2 -rw-r- 1 root vm 882245632 Apr 29 21:50 o-0703.qcow2 The improvement is even greater than for 7.1, that image ~1.3 GB. A nice weekend i wish! --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer,The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt) |~~ |..and in spring, hear David Leonard sing.. | |The black bear, The black bear, |blithely holds his own holds himself at leisure |beating it, up and down tossing over his ups and downs with pleasure |~~ |Farewell, dear collar bear
Re: sappend .history file
On 2023-04-29, jonathon575 wrote: > > How to sappnd history? chflags(1), but it's usually more trouble than it's worth.
Re: Minimum install size
On 2023-04-29, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > The best way to not lie, is to not say anything at all. agreed, this value always gets out of date, and it's no longer the days when one might be deciding whether to buy a 1/2/4GB CF. better to remove than update now I think.
Re: OpenBSD/i386 7.3 on a Macbook 2006
On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 02:42:27AM +0200, Odd Martin Baanrud wrote: Hello, I???ve installed OpenBSD/i386 7.3 on a Macbook 2006. It works, but the fan is running at maximum all the time. Is there anything I can do to optimize the system for such machines? Here???s the output from dmesg and ???sysctl hw.sensors???: http://paste.debian.net/1278825/ Regards, Martin Did you try apmd(8), see: https://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq10.htmlA Also port obsdfreqd should help: https://tildegit.org/solene/obsdfreqd I know nothing about Apple, but HTH John
Re: A messed-up fresh install due to a careless user
Hello Brian, I forgot to say that my site set did include the already prepared pf.conf, but not rc.conf.local, where pf was set to be disabled. As the result, pf started with rules for nat/firewall, not the default ones. And that created the “problem”. Martin
Re: URNDIS Phone Tethering
I was reluctant to send this direct to the b...@openbsd.org distro - but would that be a better destination that this distro? On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 12:39:11AM +0800, Rob Turner wrote: > Good evening, > > I'm new to OpenBSD and would like some help debugging this issue if possible. > On OpenBSD and Android 13 there is an issue with the URNDIS connection > dropping packets as soon as you try to do anything beyond basic pinging. > I've attached an email I found to b...@openbsd.org. The issue does not occur > with the same phone and laptop running Alpine, or using a different phone > running Android 11, so it appears isolated to this specific combination. > Happy to provide any debug information requested as I'm keen to get mobile > data service. Its a new laptop (Thinkpad Z13) whose soldered Wifi is > unsupported - and the only wifi dongle I could get working is only running at > ~8 Mbs. > > Thanks in advance, > > Rob > From openbsd-bugs Sun Jun 06 15:37:33 2021 > From: Janne Johansson > Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2021 15:37:33 + > To: openbsd-bugs > Subject: Re: URNDIS phone tethering doesn't work AMD64 and I386 6.9 OpenBSD > Message-Id: gmail ! com> > X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-bugs=162299390130161 > > Sounds a lot like MTU issues. > > Den l=C3=B6r 5 juni 2021 kl 12:27 skrev Zen Floater2 .com>: > > > > I can ping and do DNS lookups but can't get any TCP through this interfac= > e > > anymore. > > lynx, fw_update, pkg_add,,, nothing works through urndis cell > > phone tethering anymore. > > > > Charlie > > > > --=20 > May the most significant bit of your life be positive.
sappend .history file
Hi, How to sappnd history? Thanks,
Re: A messed-up fresh install due to a careless user
On Sat, Apr 29, 2023, at 3:48 AM, Odd Martin Baanrud wrote: > Yes, off course one should have a firewall. > That was why I installed OpenBSD on the actual machine in the first place. > I prepared it when it was on the LAN only, and then moved it into production. > And now it works perfectely. > But the firewall needed to be disabled while the machine was on the LAN only. The default pf.conf is very sufficient for allowing incoming traffic in a LAN environment. Brian Conway
Re: Minimum install size
From: WATANABE Takeo > so why not rewrite the FAQ as 1.5 GB as a minimum value Not appropriate since it only considers the case of amd64.
Re: Minimum install size
Peter N. M. Hansteen 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.
Re: Minimum install size
on Sat, 29 Apr 2023 13:40:51 +0200 "Peter N. M. Hansteen" 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". If that is the case, then it is wrong to write "installable on 512MB of storage" in the FAQ webpage. At the very least, you should write a value that works without the installation of additional ports, etc., and if you can make it user-friendly, you should change it to the minimum value that can be used normally, excluding the user area. > 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. In my amd64 environment, with no additional software installed, the results of "df -h" were as follows. hoge# df -h Filesystem SizeUsedAvail Capacity Mounted /dev/sd0a 1.9G91.5M 1.8G 5% / /dev/sd0g 4.8G 18.0K 4.6G 1% /home /dev/sd0d 1.9G 6.0K 1.8G 1% /tmp /dev/sd0f 9.7G 1.3G 7.9G14% /usr /dev/sd0e 3.9G 8.0M 3.7G 1% /var Taking this as an example, this means that about 1.4 GB is being used. Of course, the data capacity required for any partition increases as it is used, so why not rewrite the FAQ as 1.5 GB as a minimum value (but not recommended for use as a comfortable environment)? --- WATANABE, Takeo t...@kasaneiro.jp
Re: Minimum install size
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. -- Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team https://bsdly.blogspot.com/ https://www.bsdly.net/ https://www.nuug.no/ "Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic" delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.
Re: A messed-up fresh install due to a careless user
Hello Steve, Yes, off course one should have a firewall. That was why I installed OpenBSD on the actual machine in the first place. I prepared it when it was on the LAN only, and then moved it into production. And now it works perfectely. But the firewall needed to be disabled while the machine was on the LAN only. Regarding braille, I hope *BSD gets native support for braille displaies some day. The software (brltty) compiles, but it doesn’t get any output from the console. I guess this has to do with the console driver itself, not outputting data the way brltty needs. OpenBSD has a port of brltty which can be run in “screen”, but the version is really out-dated. Regards, Martin
Re: A messed-up fresh install due to a careless user
Odd Martin Baanrud said on Fri, 28 Apr 2023 10:01:29 +0200 >Hello Stefan, > >Thanks for the clear-up. >And now, it works! >When I created the site set, I forgot to add /etc/rc.conf.local, where >pf was set to be disabled. The reason was, as you see, pf. :-) >So a simple “pfctl -d” solved the “problem”. >Good to know that the fault actually wasn’t a careless user who >installed the system, but rather a careless user who forgot to add a >simple file to a tar archive. :-) > >Regards, Martin > You really should have a firewall though. Perhaps set up pf.conf to let through what you need. SteveT Steve Litt Autumn 2022 featured book: Thriving in Tough Times http://www.troubleshooters.com/bookstore/thrive.htm
