Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
Zeb Packard zeb.packard at gmail.com writes: One thing I noticed is that they're having a hell of a time transitioning away from the traditional sysvinit-based system to the Upstart event-based init daemon system. Hi Zeb, I still don't get the online start, could you talk me through it?
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:16 PM, J Sisson sisso...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Juan Miscaro jmisc...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 July 2011 15:06, jirib ji...@devio.us wrote: Are you kidding? Ubuntu? Where installed daemons are running by default, where there is no command to disable shitty upstart daemons? Which daemons are those again? apt-get install some_insecure_daemon Oh look, some_unsecure_daemon is running before I have a chance to configure it and lock it down the way I see fit. sarcasmGood thing we all know those Ubuntu/Debian guys are so damned smart and all.../sarcasm Far too many daemons are installed by default on Ubuntu. It's a give people everything they might desire some day approach, rather than a keep it stable by giving them only what they need and ask for. This is particularly evidenced by plethora of 3rd party repositories with fascinating components that are easily merged into Ubuntu, and require more manual integration and local compilation with OpenBSD. And the reliance on older, stable, well-debugged components makes leading edge development of Java and web apps more awkard in OpenBSD. But OpenBSD is vastly more secure and avoids craziness such as NetworkManager and 3 million useless and poorly implemented web proxies and chat servers.
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Juan Miscaro jmisc...@gmail.com wrote: Was wondering what advantages OpenBSD has over a progressive Linux distribution such as Ubuntu (Server edition). One thing I noticed is that they're having a hell of a time transitioning away from the traditional sysvinit-based system to the Upstart event-based init daemon system. Advantages ? You don't fear to upgrade OpenBSD. -- Tristan Le Guern Epitech 2013
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:13:10 -0700 patrick keshishian wrote: added daemons have different connotations from those included in obsd base, and this also applies to debian and derivatives. the closest parallel would be packages built from ports and the automation pkg_add performs on installing them you failed at making any point. I think the point was that things like avahi and cups do have exploits regularly and may not be required at all on certain systems and even manually using init.d stop and update-rc.d and chkconfig etc. etc. does not often work so every so often you have to find the new place to edit a script and prevent those things from running, I assume they assume why would anyone stop those, with this breaking install scripts, it is amateurish, brutish and flagrantly ignorant. Another annoyance is the assumption of why would anyone not want to run a kde desktop without mysqld and especially apt-get remove 'plate from dishwasher' ... to do this you must remove the kitchen sink. And now I've got e-coli. I've also heard complaints, but this depends on your setup that some don't have enough bandwidth to keep their Linux box secure, so preventing removal of these things is plainly wrong.
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 09:02:08 -0400 Juan Miscaro wrote: Was wondering what advantages OpenBSD has over a progressive Linux distribution such as Ubuntu (Server edition). One thing I noticed is that they're having a hell of a time transitioning away from the traditional sysvinit-based system to the Upstart event-based init daemon system. You can also disable the X-aperture not only making your server more secure but also preventing stupid things like running KDE and god forbid, firefox on your server. I was truly shocked when I asked my cousin something inside his cage and he opened up Internet Exploiter on his exchange server to look it up. With the recent addition of HW acceleration and webgl, this is even more important.
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
On 7/11/11 10:48 PM, Andres Perera wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:43 PM, patrick keshishianpkesh...@gmail.com wrote: you failed at making any point. i'll rebrand it into convenient twitter format: debian splits packages to the point where a single service is a associated to a single top level package, meaning that there's never a reason for unused installed services openbsd limitations do not apply 1:1 to other systems unless they happen to be openbsd. in the previous sentence, openbsd can be replaced by any word OK, I got the first paragraph but not the second. Could you please rebrand it so people like me can unnerstand? I just got off the boat. To be clear, which is my thing today, here is how I read the openbsd limitations... sentence: OpenBSD limitations apply only to OpenBSD. As my 4-year old would say, Hello... Your last sentence is equally baffling. I understand you may be mad at some responders, but the lack of clarity makes us haze over your argument and take the topic off on a tangent that you do not like. And that makes you mad, it is a Type A thing - we understand. Simple, clear sentences sting the most. Mehma
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
Please don't. This whole thread has gotten really stupid. Unless you have something funny to add, let's kill it now. On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:11 -0700, Mehma Sarja mehmasa...@gmail.com wrote: On 7/11/11 10:48 PM, Andres Perera wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:43 PM, patrick keshishianpkesh...@gmail.com wrote: you failed at making any point. i'll rebrand it into convenient twitter format: debian splits packages to the point where a single service is a associated to a single top level package, meaning that there's never a reason for unused installed services openbsd limitations do not apply 1:1 to other systems unless they happen to be openbsd. in the previous sentence, openbsd can be replaced by any word OK, I got the first paragraph but not the second. Could you please rebrand it so people like me can unnerstand? I just got off the boat. To be clear, which is my thing today, here is how I read the openbsd limitations... sentence: OpenBSD limitations apply only to OpenBSD. As my 4-year old would say, Hello... Your last sentence is equally baffling. I understand you may be mad at some responders, but the lack of clarity makes us haze over your argument and take the topic off on a tangent that you do not like. And that makes you mad, it is a Type A thing - we understand. Simple, clear sentences sting the most. Mehma
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
Help, i shot it three times and I'm on my fourth monitor, 3 bullets left. What next? On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Eric Furman ericfur...@fastmail.net wrote: Please don't. This whole thread has gotten really stupid. Unless you have something funny to add, let's kill it now. On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:11 -0700, Mehma Sarja mehmasa...@gmail.com wrote: On 7/11/11 10:48 PM, Andres Perera wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:43 PM, patrick keshishianpkesh...@gmail.com wrote: you failed at making any point. i'll rebrand it into convenient twitter format: debian splits packages to the point where a single service is a associated to a single top level package, meaning that there's never a reason for unused installed services openbsd limitations do not apply 1:1 to other systems unless they happen to be openbsd. in the previous sentence, openbsd can be replaced by any word OK, I got the first paragraph but not the second. Could you please rebrand it so people like me can unnerstand? I just got off the boat. To be clear, which is my thing today, here is how I read the openbsd limitations... sentence: OpenBSD limitations apply only to OpenBSD. As my 4-year old would say, Hello... Your last sentence is equally baffling. I understand you may be mad at some responders, but the lack of clarity makes us haze over your argument and take the topic off on a tangent that you do not like. And that makes you mad, it is a Type A thing - we understand. Simple, clear sentences sting the most. Mehma
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
shoot it again son. On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 03:59:31PM -0700, Zeb Packard wrote: Help, i shot it three times and I'm on my fourth monitor, 3 bullets left. What next? On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Eric Furman ericfur...@fastmail.net wrote: Please don't. This whole thread has gotten really stupid. Unless you have something funny to add, let's kill it now. On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:11 -0700, Mehma Sarja mehmasa...@gmail.com wrote: On 7/11/11 10:48 PM, Andres Perera wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:43 PM, patrick keshishianpkesh...@gmail.com wrote: you failed at making any point. i'll rebrand it into convenient twitter format: debian splits packages to the point where a single service is a associated to a single top level package, meaning that there's never a reason for unused installed services openbsd limitations do not apply 1:1 to other systems unless they happen to be openbsd. in the previous sentence, openbsd can be replaced by any word OK, I got the first paragraph but not the second. Could you please rebrand it so people like me can unnerstand? I just got off the boat. To be clear, which is my thing today, here is how I read the openbsd limitations... sentence: OpenBSD limitations apply only to OpenBSD. As my 4-year old would say, Hello... Your last sentence is equally baffling. I understand you may be mad at some responders, but the lack of clarity makes us haze over your argument and take the topic off on a tangent that you do not like. And that makes you mad, it is a Type A thing - we understand. Simple, clear sentences sting the most. Mehma
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
I think it worked. Sent from my iclone. On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Marco Peereboom sl...@peereboom.us wrote: shoot it again son. On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 03:59:31PM -0700, Zeb Packard wrote: Help, i shot it three times and I'm on my fourth monitor, 3 bullets left. What next? On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Eric Furman ericfur...@fastmail.net wrote: Please don't. This whole thread has gotten really stupid. Unless you have something funny to add, let's kill it now. On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:11 -0700, Mehma Sarja mehmasa...@gmail.com wrote: On 7/11/11 10:48 PM, Andres Perera wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:43 PM, patrick keshishianpkesh...@gmail.com wrote: you failed at making any point. i'll rebrand it into convenient twitter format: debian splits packages to the point where a single service is a associated to a single top level package, meaning that there's never a reason for unused installed services openbsd limitations do not apply 1:1 to other systems unless they happen to be openbsd. in the previous sentence, openbsd can be replaced by any word OK, I got the first paragraph but not the second. Could you please rebrand it so people like me can unnerstand? I just got off the boat. To be clear, which is my thing today, here is how I read the openbsd limitations... sentence: OpenBSD limitations apply only to OpenBSD. As my 4-year old would say, Hello... Your last sentence is equally baffling. I understand you may be mad at some responders, but the lack of clarity makes us haze over your argument and take the topic off on a tangent that you do not like. And that makes you mad, it is a Type A thing - we understand. Simple, clear sentences sting the most. Mehma
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
brraaiiinsss. B-) On Jul 12, 2011, at 7:25 PM, Zeb Packard wrote: I think it worked. Sent from my iclone. On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Marco Peereboom sl...@peereboom.us wrote: shoot it again son. On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 03:59:31PM -0700, Zeb Packard wrote: Help, i shot it three times and I'm on my fourth monitor, 3 bullets left. What next? On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Eric Furman ericfur...@fastmail.net wrote: Please don't. This whole thread has gotten really stupid. Unless you have something funny to add, let's kill it now. On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:11 -0700, Mehma Sarja mehmasa...@gmail.com wrote: On 7/11/11 10:48 PM, Andres Perera wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:43 PM, patrick keshishianpkesh...@gmail.com wrote: you failed at making any point. i'll rebrand it into convenient twitter format: debian splits packages to the point where a single service is a associated to a single top level package, meaning that there's never a reason for unused installed services openbsd limitations do not apply 1:1 to other systems unless they happen to be openbsd. in the previous sentence, openbsd can be replaced by any word OK, I got the first paragraph but not the second. Could you please rebrand it so people like me can unnerstand? I just got off the boat. To be clear, which is my thing today, here is how I read the openbsd limitations... sentence: OpenBSD limitations apply only to OpenBSD. As my 4-year old would say, Hello... Your last sentence is equally baffling. I understand you may be mad at some responders, but the lack of clarity makes us haze over your argument and take the topic off on a tangent that you do not like. And that makes you mad, it is a Type A thing - we understand. Simple, clear sentences sting the most. Mehma [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pkcs7-signature which had a name of smime.p7s]
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
On 7 July 2011 15:06, jirib ji...@devio.us wrote: On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 09:02:08 -0400 Juan Miscaro jmisc...@gmail.com wrote: Was wondering what advantages OpenBSD has over a progressive Linux distribution such as Ubuntu (Server edition). Are you kidding? Ubuntu? Where installed daemons are running by default, where there is no command to disable shitty upstart daemons? Which daemons are those again? -- /jm
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Juan Miscaro jmisc...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 July 2011 15:06, jirib ji...@devio.us wrote: Are you kidding? Ubuntu? Where installed daemons are running by default, where there is no command to disable shitty upstart daemons? Which daemons are those again? apt-get install some_insecure_daemon Oh look, some_unsecure_daemon is running before I have a chance to configure it and lock it down the way I see fit. sarcasmGood thing we all know those Ubuntu/Debian guys are so damned smart and all.../sarcasm
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 7:46 PM, J Sisson sisso...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Juan Miscaro jmisc...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 July 2011 15:06, jirib ji...@devio.us wrote: Are you kidding? Ubuntu? Where installed daemons are running by default, where there is no command to disable shitty upstart daemons? Which daemons are those again? apt-get install some_insecure_daemon Oh look, some_unsecure_daemon is running before I have a chance to configure it and lock it down the way I see fit. B sarcasmGood thing we all know those Ubuntu/Debian guys are so damned smart and all.../sarcasm why would you install a daemon and not run it? how is it any different than X listening on localhost by default in obsd? if you install a daemon in debian/ubuntu and it listens on 0.0.0.0 by default, the package isn't following distro policy
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Andres Perera andre...@zoho.com wrote: why would you install a daemon and not run it? how is it any different than X listening on localhost by default in obsd? if you install a daemon in debian/ubuntu and it listens on 0.0.0.0 by default, the package isn't following distro policy Why would you start a daemon before you have had a chance to configure it for your environment? Is it really that hard to run update-rc.d after you edit a config file? OpenBSD asks if X should run by default when you install the system. On top of that, the default firewall rules explicitly block traffic to X. It's quite different in fact. Policy? Well thank heavens for that...I guess I should run Ubuntu on all of my critical infrastructure...their policy will protect me.
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:48 PM, J Sisson sisso...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Andres Perera andre...@zoho.com wrote: why would you install a daemon and not run it? how is it any different than X listening on localhost by default in obsd? if you install a daemon in debian/ubuntu and it listens on 0.0.0.0 by default, the package isn't following distro policy Why would you start a daemon before you have had a chance to configure it for your environment?B Is it really that hard to run update-rc.d after you edit a config file? that wouldn't be any different than sending a HUP signal or restarting through rc.d, assuming listening on localhost is ok. for exceptional situations where it would be not ok, like increasingly rare truly multi-user systems, you can turn it off globally for newly installed packages OpenBSD asks if X should run by default when you install the system. On top of that, the default firewall rules explicitly block traffic to X. It's quite different in fact. it does not offer granularity covering both running X and X accepting connections from localhost, just like the debian package policy concerning network daemons Policy?B Well thank heavens for that...I guess I should run Ubuntu on all of my critical infrastructure...their policy will protect me.
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Andres Perera andre...@zoho.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 7:46 PM, J Sisson sisso...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Juan Miscaro jmisc...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 July 2011 15:06, jirib ji...@devio.us wrote: Are you kidding? Ubuntu? Where installed daemons are running by default, where there is no command to disable shitty upstart daemons? Which daemons are those again? apt-get install some_insecure_daemon Oh look, some_unsecure_daemon is running before I have a chance to configure it and lock it down the way I see fit. B sarcasmGood thing we all know those Ubuntu/Debian guys are so damned smart and all.../sarcasm why would you install a daemon and not run it? how is it any different than X listening on localhost by default in obsd? Just because you install something doesn't mean you want it run by default. fingerd, ftpd, rshd, popa3d, tftpd, ntalkd, ntpd, bind, lpd, sshd, etc. are installed on OpenBSD, but not necessarily enabled by default. When software thinks too much for the operator is when trouble begins. --patrick
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:40 PM, patrick keshishian pkesh...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Andres Perera andre...@zoho.com why would you install a daemon and not run it? how is it any different than X listening on localhost by default in obsd? Just because you install something doesn't mean you want it run by default. fingerd, ftpd, rshd, popa3d, tftpd, ntalkd, ntpd, bind, lpd, sshd, etc. are installed on OpenBSD, but not necessarily enabled by default. one trait that all of these programs have in common is their inclusion in base, which is meant to be a general purpose system. that's a whole other story from debian and ubuntu. both of these linux distributions have tags such as essential or required reserved for crucial packages; anything else is optional. the packages that brandish the required tag differ significantly from obsd's criteria. suffice to say, httpd does not qualify as indispensable in debian world added daemons have different connotations from those included in obsd base, and this also applies to debian and derivatives. the closest parallel would be packages built from ports and the automation pkg_add performs on installing them When software thinks too much for the operator is when trouble begins. --patrick
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Andres Perera andre...@zoho.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:40 PM, patrick keshishian pkesh...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Andres Perera andre...@zoho.com why would you install a daemon and not run it? how is it any different than X listening on localhost by default in obsd? Just because you install something doesn't mean you want it run by default. fingerd, ftpd, rshd, popa3d, tftpd, ntalkd, ntpd, bind, lpd, sshd, etc. are installed on OpenBSD, but not necessarily enabled by default. one trait that all of these programs have in common is their inclusion in base, which is meant to be a general purpose system. that's a whole other story from debian and ubuntu. both of these linux distributions have tags such as essential or required reserved for crucial packages; anything else is optional. the packages that brandish the required tag differ significantly from obsd's criteria. suffice to say, httpd does not qualify as indispensable in debian world added daemons have different connotations from those included in obsd base, and this also applies to debian and derivatives. the closest parallel would be packages built from ports and the automation pkg_add performs on installing them you failed at making any point. --patrick When software thinks too much for the operator is when trouble begins. --patrick
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:43 PM, patrick keshishian pkesh...@gmail.com wrote: you failed at making any point. i'll rebrand it into convenient twitter format: debian splits packages to the point where a single service is a associated to a single top level package, meaning that there's never a reason for unused installed services openbsd limitations do not apply 1:1 to other systems unless they happen to be openbsd. in the previous sentence, openbsd can be replaced by any word
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
STeve Andre' [and...@msu.edu] wrote: On 07/07/11 15:12, Amit Kulkarni wrote: The developers don't adopt new things just because they're new. If something isn't reasonable, useful and secure it isn't used. This is one reason why each new release of OpenBSD doesn't have the currently released version of gcc, for example. Wrong. It is because of GPL v3. Gcc in base won't be updated AFAIK. No, this has always been the case. I remember back around 2.5 or so, seeing that OpenBSD hadn't upgraded to the latest gcc, wondering why. The GPL 3 issue of today is relevant, but it extends beyond that. For GCC after 4.2.1, the license is the problem. That is why OpenBSD has 4.2.1+fixes instead of something newer import of gcc-4.2.1, the last gcc release under GPLv2. Same thing is happening right now with binutils 2.17. When OpenBSD went to 2.95.3, to 3.3.5, and again to 4.2.1, the problem each time was the amount of effort required to make it work. When the behavior in GCC changes, or when you run into new compiler bugs, it's a time-consuming problem that disrupt work going on in the system. With the 4.2.1 upgrade, problems with GCC store re-ordering optimization extended into 4.8 release, affecting critical areas like bus_dmamap_sync(). Of course the bulk of the compiler upgrade problems were solved before 4.8. (Solved because people took time to track down, identify and fix those problems.) It's a pain in the ass to swich compilers. It ends up forcing people to troubleshoot code that isn't broken, slowing down other work until the actual compiler problem is identified and workaround applied. OpenBSD historically didn't upgrade compilers until the pain of sticking with the existing compiler met or exceeded the pain of upgrading the compiler. There were plenty of reasons to look at GCC 4 in base for several years now, but the increase in compile time (each generation of GCC is slower than the last) made a switch to GCC 4 less attractive. No consensus to move to GCC 4 was possible. What finally pushed GCC 3.3.5 over the edge was the broken C++ compiler (also not ABI compatible with G++ 4, so everything that linked to a G++ 4 program had to also be compiled with G++ 4. But people want their complex C++ ports to work) Four or five years from now when GCC 4.2.1+fixes becomes too painful, OpenBSD may adopt something new, who knows, maybe llvm or pcc will support more architectures by then? Maybe the GPL 3 will become OK? GCC 4.2.1 is working pretty damn well now.
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Alexander Schrijver alexander.schrij...@gmail.com wrote: For starters, there is 100% consensus among developers that we'll never use newfangled overengineered stuff like System V init. You mean Upstart! or wait You mean systemd! Or the oddness that is daemontools!!
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
On Jul 9, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Alexander Schrijver alexander.schrij...@gmail.com wrote: For starters, there is 100% consensus among developers that we'll never use newfangled overengineered stuff like System V init. You mean Upstart! or wait You mean systemd! Or the oddness that is daemontools!! Hey, wait for me -- launchd from the Mac! :-) [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pkcs7-signature which had a name of smime.p7s]
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
It doesn't. Just install whatever you think it will serve you and see for yourself. Even if you use state of the art operating system, you will be annoyed if it doesn't serve you the way you like it. Go and install, [dist]linux, openbsd, freebsd, etc., follow the path of installing and configure each of them for a while and see how satisfied you will be after each session. After all this, you will stay with one of them, beginning to like it. Then you will learn it more and more, discover it and like it again. Do not let others choose for you. In the meantime, you will see that you are +10 years older and the all mumbo-jumbo thing like what OS are you running is pointless. Good luck!
How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
Was wondering what advantages OpenBSD has over a progressive Linux distribution such as Ubuntu (Server edition). One thing I noticed is that they're having a hell of a time transitioning away from the traditional sysvinit-based system to the Upstart event-based init daemon system. -- /jm
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Juan Miscaro jmisc...@gmail.com wrote: Was wondering what advantages OpenBSD has over a progressive Linux distribution such as Ubuntu (Server edition). One thing I noticed is that they're having a hell of a time transitioning away from the traditional sysvinit-based system to the Upstart event-based init daemon system. With such a broad, flamebaity question, you're bound to get some--interesting responses. But here's my take: Mostly I'd say that the advantage OpenBSD has over Ubuntu--or any Linux, actually--is that in my (admittedly limited) experience, stuff in OpenBSD doesn't get shipped until it *works*, and they don't throw the baby out with the bathwater just for the heck of it, or because they get bored. How many audio thingamabobs does Linux have now? And that, in my view, seems to be indicative of the whole Linux philosophy. Especially with a server, what you're after is *stability* not extraneous bells and whistles. Also, the OpenBSD documentation is *excellent*--if you don't know how to do something, you can find out. There's at least one Linux distribution (Crux) which at least used to actively remove documentation from its packages. The last time I used Ubuntu it wasn't much better--online user forums can be helpful, but they are not, and cannot be, a substitute for having good documentation in the first place. Pretty much all that is good in OpenBSD flows from those two things, I think.
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
Hello all, For I, differences are simple : OpenBSD : all products included are stable working fully from the install sets packages. OpenBSD : just install necessary things. Ubuntu : All products are allowd to the dist, even unstable Ubuntu : installs many many things as a workstation use even on server version of ubuntu Ubuntu is a good choice too, but it has a workstation-like setup, +server functions, so it can use many ram and many cpu. OpenBSD : just need an bi-annual upgrade, version to version, gets light charge on server itself. I prefer having OpenBSD to all servers but application server. I prefer having Linux to applications server to use GUI-applications-manager/monitor. From: Juan Miscaro jmisc...@gmail.com Sent: Thu Jul 07 15:02:08 CEST 2011 To: openbsd-misc misc@openbsd.org Subject: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server? Was wondering what advantages OpenBSD has over a progressive Linux distribution such as Ubuntu (Server edition). One thing I noticed is that they're having a hell of a time transitioning away from the traditional sysvinit-based system to the Upstart event-based init daemon system. -- /jm Cordialement Francois Pussault 3701 - 8 rue Marcel Pagnol 31100 ToulouseB FranceB +33 6 17 230 820 B +33 5 34 365 269 fpussa...@contactoffice.fr
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
Hi Juan, Juan Miscaro wrote on Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 09:02:08AM -0400: Was wondering what advantages OpenBSD has over a progressive Linux distribution such as Ubuntu (Server edition). One thing I noticed is that they're having a hell of a time transitioning away from the traditional sysvinit-based system to the Upstart event-based init daemon system. For starters, there is 100% consensus among developers that we'll never use newfangled overengineered stuff like System V init. SCNR, Ingo
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
For starters, there is 100% consensus among developers that we'll never use newfangled overengineered stuff like System V init. You mean Upstart! or wait You mean systemd!
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
On 07/07/11 13:25, Ingo Schwarze wrote: Hi Juan, Juan Miscaro wrote on Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 09:02:08AM -0400: Was wondering what advantages OpenBSD has over a progressive Linux distribution such as Ubuntu (Server edition). One thing I noticed is that they're having a hell of a time transitioning away from the traditional sysvinit-based system to the Upstart event-based init daemon system. For starters, there is 100% consensus among developers that we'll never use newfangled overengineered stuff like System V init. SCNR, Ingo To add to this just a little: The developers don't adopt new things just because they're new. If something isn't reasonable, useful and secure it isn't used. This is one reason why each new release of OpenBSD doesn't have the currently released version of gcc, for example. Security means many things besides being attack-proof. If things are solid, you don't have to worry about your machines when away from them. You also have the fact that if a real problem occurs, there will be a rapid response to it. But you need to look the system over, and decide for yourself. Read the website. It isn't that large. --STeve Andre'
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
You mean systemd! You'd need udev in the core system. And everybody knows daemontools/runit is the past, present, and future of init systems.
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 09:02:08 -0400 Juan Miscaro jmisc...@gmail.com wrote: Was wondering what advantages OpenBSD has over a progressive Linux distribution such as Ubuntu (Server edition). Are you kidding? Ubuntu? Where installed daemons are running by default, where there is no command to disable shitty upstart daemons? I installed once mysql on Ubuntu, just to check something, i disabled that ugly symlinks in rcX.d via update-rc.d and it was after reboot running -- well bloody hell, it has also upstart script, OMFG! jirib
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
The developers don't adopt new things just because they're new. If something isn't reasonable, useful and secure it isn't used. This is one reason why each new release of OpenBSD doesn't have the currently released version of gcc, for example. Wrong. It is because of GPL v3. Gcc in base won't be updated AFAIK.
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
On 07/07/11 15:12, Amit Kulkarni wrote: The developers don't adopt new things just because they're new. If something isn't reasonable, useful and secure it isn't used. This is one reason why each new release of OpenBSD doesn't have the currently released version of gcc, for example. Wrong. It is because of GPL v3. Gcc in base won't be updated AFAIK. No, this has always been the case. I remember back around 2.5 or so, seeing that OpenBSD hadn't upgraded to the latest gcc, wondering why. The GPL 3 issue of today is relevant, but it extends beyond that. --STeve Andre'
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
One thing I noticed is that they're having a hell of a time transitioning away from the traditional sysvinit-based system to the Upstart event-based init daemon system. That's syntactical stuff, who knows. That rabbit hole is as deep as your project made it. Strategically, OBSD does less, but does it very well. Linux will claim 5 times more features than OBSD, but only a third of them work as advertised and that third is a moving target from one release to the next, without saying one is better than the other, it just depends on your needs. I think the bigger question is why are you moving from OBSD to Ubuntu?
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server? Answer: It doesn't
Ubuntu is linux, OpenBSD is OpenBSD. On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Juan Miscaro jmisc...@gmail.com wrote: Was wondering what advantages OpenBSD has over a progressive Linux distribution such as Ubuntu (Server edition). One thing I noticed is that they're having a hell of a time transitioning away from the traditional sysvinit-based system to the Upstart event-based init daemon system. -- /jm
Re: How does OpenBSD compare to Ubuntu Server?
All Linux-based distributions are hacked together like a Frankenstein monster, coming from disparate sources stitched together to build a new whole, hoping it won't fall apart anytime soon, while OpenBSD is like a finely tuned thoroughbred, it may not go first place in speed, but will deliver with performance while secure. On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Zeb Packard zeb.pack...@gmail.com wrote: One thing I noticed is that they're having a hell of a time transitioning away from the traditional sysvinit-based system to the Upstart event-based init daemon system. That's syntactical stuff, who knows. That rabbit hole is as deep as your project made it. Strategically, OBSD does less, but does it very well. Linux will claim 5 times more features than OBSD, but only a third of them work as advertised and that third is a moving target from one release to the next, without saying one is better than the other, it just depends on your needs. I think the bigger question is why are you moving from OBSD to Ubuntu?
