/g/ - Technology

install openbsd

[Make a Post]
[X]





OpenBSD or NetBSD Nanonymous No.1228 [D][U][F][S][L][A][C] >>1235 >>1332
File: a4cfd1f222c4893c357b97187889509420d5b79c74e1d000f9710fea52eae228.jpg (dl) (42.59 KiB)

I want to move from Linux onto a BSD system, and after some digging I ended up with these two.
As much as I like pkgsrc, TRIM (running on a SSD), the portability aspect and the Linux compat layer (need it for DAWs/trackers and maybe some games), I also want better security, docs, support and more ports provided by OpenBSD.
Can you anons share your experiences with those BSDs?
>inb4 board subtitle

Nanonymous No.1232 [D]

The answer is to install Gentoo.

Nanonymous No.1233 [D]

Does anyone run openbsd on something other than x86? Now that would be fun.

Nanonymous No.1235 [D] >>1237

>>1228
Not OP, but I've also got this same question more or less. I've got an old 386 lying around from the 1990s and I want to install a unix-like OS on it to replace the macroshit dos trash that comes with it. I don't want Poo-in-the-loonix either because it would probably be unusably slow on such old hardware. Open or Net?

Nanonymous No.1237 [D][U][F] >>1238
File: 49b373167e380c4dd992d6cc4546a3ac4d559468ec5ac791d01ab8ed27f57135.png (dl) (223.74 KiB)

>>1235
I use OpenBSD as a server OS, and it's great. I don't know how well it would perform on your particular hardware and I've never used NetBSD. You may find it to be unreasonably slow no matter what OS you try, Anon.

Nanonymous No.1238 [D] >>1248 >>1268

>>1237
>You may find it to be unreasonably slow no matter what OS you try, Anon.
Oh of course, I know it's going to be slow. I just want the least slow option. I guess I'll try openbsd first since I'm more familiar with it.

Nanonymous No.1248 [D] >>1249 >>1258

>>1238
I highly doubt openbsd would run on a 386, unless you disable most security features. And this may be linux only, but isn't every distro i686+ nowadays ?

Nanonymous No.1249 [D]

>>1248
>every distro i686+ nowadays
The kernel itself is 486+. I just did some brief research and openbsd is also 486+, so looks like netbsd may be mandatory (unless that computer is actually a 486 which might be possible, but I'll have to check). Even netbsd is 486+, so guess I'll just download an old version then. The machine has no networking capabilities whatsoever, so maybe I'll grab a copy of some really old openbsd version like 2.0 and see what happens

Nanonymous No.1258 [D]

>>1248
How many lines of code does it take to get to the DOS prompt, anyway?

Nanonymous No.1268 [D]

>>1238
If you're going for speed, then NetBSD is probably the fastest option, since it has better multithreading support and not as many security features as OpenBSD.

Nanonymous No.1332 [D][U][F]
File: b0f7b57d4ad5882c8460d58b52c1b6dccd19956be575fb87e3350d73e4044325.jpg (dl) (82.66 KiB)

>>1228
OpenBSD is definitely superior if you want security. It has pledge(2) and unveil(2) which can be useful if you're developing secure applications.
OpenBSD is also more popular than NetBSD, so I'd say that netbsd is only useful if you want to install on exotic hardware.

Nanonymous No.1474 [D] >>1476

>>1473
I forgot to mention that I struggle compiling w3m as it requires some GNU-related stuff. Currently I don't have a web-browser there and I'm using curl to download files. If you know about a basic CLI browser that'll compile easily without any GNU shit, please let me know.

Nanonymous No.1476 [D] >>1477

>>1474
Try Links.
Also pretty sure OpenBSD comes with LLVM, so you don't have to use gcc if you don't want to.

Nanonymous No.1477 [D] >>1479 >>1480

>>1476
It does come with LLVM, but I'd still like to remove GCC.

Nanonymous No.1479 [D] >>1480

>>1477
Why?

Nanonymous No.1480 [D]

>>1479
because GCC is a useless piece of gnushit
>>1477
Just manually delete all GCC-related files.

Nanonymous No.1481 [D] >>1482

>>1473
>MUH DEVICES
I'll give you a tip. Shit tons of people are complaining about this.

$ sysctl hw.disknames

Nanonymous No.1482 [D] >>1485

>>1481
I'm aware of that. There's also this command:
[code]dmesg|egrep '([cswf]d). '[/code]
But they aren't as informative and simple as lsblk. Even FreeBSD's camcontrol is pretty garbage.

Nanonymous No.1483 [D] >>1484

[code]
dmesg|egrep '([cswf]d). '
[/code]
Damn it how do I nanochan

Nanonymous No.1484 [D]

>>1483
no [code] on nanochan. Everything's fixed width anyways though.

Nanonymous No.1485 [D]

>>1482
I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to write a simple wrapper around those two commands which does the same thing as lsblk. It's just a matter of spending the time to do it.
Nobody's done it so far because lsblk is really just a minor convenience, not something absolutely necessary.