No, the manual is on the file system, and they're far better than the crap documentation you get from Linux or other Unixes. It just also happens to be available, in a convenient location on the web.
...until you put a typo in/etc/fstab when you're not used to plain old vi, and get to discover the joys of learning ed. Without a man page because that was in/usr too.
Some reason you can't just manually run "mount" from the command-line to mount the/usr partition, and get vi and man pages back?
And is there some reason you couldn't just visit the website to access the man pages?
Yep, that's pretty much what 99.7% of people can contribute to this discussion(maybe 95% of slashdotters specifically, but still).
You can kinda go "Yay open source operating system that creates a bit of systemic competitive pressure to keep updating other open source operating systems through some really bizarre application of economics towards a system built around entirely free exchange"
FFS2 is basically the original Berkeley FFS (also known as UFS, but there are at least half a dozen incompatible filesystems called UFS, so that just gets confusing) with some extensions. It basically just increases the size of various fields in the inode data structure so that various limits are much larger. I'm not familiar with the OpenBSD implementation, but on FreeBSD it also supports soft updates (where metadata and data writes are sequenced so that the filesystem is aways consistent, although fsck
That doesn't relate to any of the (layering) changes you listed. That's a simple byproduct of ZFS being a copy-on-write (CoW) file system, unlike most other popular file systems. But there are other CoW file systems out there, which similarly have O(1) snapshots.
OpenBSD does have soft updates which are optionally enabled at mount time. It also has software RAID 0 or 1, and 1 allows more than two volumes to be mirrored, kind of like a hot spare that doesn't need rebuild time.
So it's not as full featured as ZFS, though compared to most linux filesystems the FFS and FFS2 are extremely robust at surviving unexpected power failure.
And there you go with the problem with it. OpenBSD has no holes in the install...
Regardless of how you use an operating system, if the OS foundation is not secure, then anything you put on top of it cannot be secure.
At least OpenBSD provides the secure foundation upon which you can build what you'd like. The security of what you build on top of OpenBSD is your responsibility.
OpenBSD have software in place that wouldn't allow the Heartbleed bug to work in the first place. As soon as a Heartbleed event occurred, the OpenSSL software would immediately terminate in OpenBSD.
Not true. It would have done if OpenSSL hadn't used a custom allocator, but the use of the custom allocator bypassed the policy in OpenBSD's malloc() that aggressively returns unused pages to the OS and causes this kind of fault. And why does OpenSSL have this custom allocator? Because without it people complain that malloc() implementations like the one in OpenBSD are too slow...
You got it. I've updated remote (read: "in other countries") OpenBSD machines for over a decade. There is still the anxiety of waiting for the system to boot, but I don't recall ever having it blow up on me.
Not in any specific way. For example when a called subprogram returns an unexpected result, or a result in an unexpected format. Also when the script interpreter is upgraded, it might break something. Heck, sometimes the problem is caused by something silly like a space in a file name.
Not really. Machine code is more robust and, as I said, faster. There might still be other good reasons to use scripts, I'm not denying that. They are easier to maintain, for example.
Its not one script anymore. Its one script hundreds of lines long that calls other scripts to finally accomplish something you could do with seconds and ifconfig. Don't get me started with the mess systemd is.
What an odd measure of the quality of an OS. Like changing your IP from the command line is something that speaks to how well Linux has been developed. And you can change your IP from the command line. ifconfig does this just fine, even if its not the preferred method. you can also do something like this: sudo ip addr add xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
but I guess I just fed a troll, so jokes on me.
There's a little bit of header, a little bit of license, BSD...
It's the silent protagonist in the technological world - they build and refine the technology that seeps into all other operating systems.
The code is licensed so liberally that Stallman's arguments literally boil down to "everyone can use it so it's not free".
If you dig into the credits portion of almost any software, it's there.
We all use BSD.
Stallman has never called the BSD license non-free. You're either delusional or a liar. All free software licenses are wonderful for us users. Copyleft ones are also wonderful for free software as a whole.
The code is licensed so liberally that Stallman's arguments literally boil down to "everyone can use it so it's not free".
Given that Stallman's main organisation, the Free Software Foundation, almost actively supports [gnu.org] the BSD license, declaring it a Free Software License compatible with the GPL, I wonder what it is that drives you to say such a thing. A feeling that since the truth normally supports Richard, it's worth spreading almost any lie in the hope of discrediting him?
That is EXACTLY what he is saying given his comments regarding LLVM.
Referring to this [gnu.org] post in particular.
His stance is a demonization of liberally licensed code, to a very unfortunate degree.
I am absolutely not trolling when I say that man has given up freedom for ideology.
"That is EXACTLY what he is saying given his comments regarding LLVM. Referring to this post in particular."
I suggest you re-read his post. If your opinion has not corrected by then, you might need to seek remedial help in Reading or English. "EXACTLY" and "not at all" are not synonyms, and this is actually not at all what he is saying in that post.
I don't consider this a special case. As you've just said, people have been trying to replace GCC for ages. There are a lot of motivations for that, many of which coming down to a distaste for the GPL. There have been hard criticisms for a long time. I've personally run into some of the stranger code malformation issues affecting certain versions while compiling my own code. I think they may have been bit by the same hubris that affects the rest of the software organizations, which leads us to crap like Met
YAY for BSD (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
OMG. Lesbians are recommending the use of OpenBSD. I have just got to install it, just to be like lesbians.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fire up a VM and try it out, OpenBSD is a really nice OS to work with IMO.
Re: (Score:3)
it is a joke, you're funny
you could have made a backup copy of fstab before dicking with it. or followed the excellent OpenBSD documentation and made backup root partition.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the manual is on the file system, and they're far better than the crap documentation you get from Linux or other Unixes. It just also happens to be available, in a convenient location on the web.
Re: (Score:2)
Some reason you can't just manually run "mount" from the command-line to mount the /usr partition, and get vi and man pages back?
And is there some reason you couldn't just visit the website to access the man pages?
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin... [openbsd.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, that's pretty much what 99.7% of people can contribute to this discussion(maybe 95% of slashdotters specifically, but still).
You can kinda go "Yay open source operating system that creates a bit of systemic competitive pressure to keep updating other open source operating systems through some really bizarre application of economics towards a system built around entirely free exchange"
It gets real abstract.
Re: YAY for BSD (Score:3)
If not for the lack of ZFS, I would use OpenBSD. Instead my fileserver is running FreeBSD 10.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
openbsd has the Unix FFS (up to about 1TB volume size) and FFS2 (up to 8 zettabytes volume size)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
FFS2 is basically the original Berkeley FFS (also known as UFS, but there are at least half a dozen incompatible filesystems called UFS, so that just gets confusing) with some extensions. It basically just increases the size of various fields in the inode data structure so that various limits are much larger. I'm not familiar with the OpenBSD implementation, but on FreeBSD it also supports soft updates (where metadata and data writes are sequenced so that the filesystem is aways consistent, although fsck
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't relate to any of the (layering) changes you listed. That's a simple byproduct of ZFS being a copy-on-write (CoW) file system, unlike most other popular file systems. But there are other CoW file systems out there, which similarly have O(1) snapshots.
Re: (Score:2)
OpenBSD does have soft updates which are optionally enabled at mount time. It also has software RAID 0 or 1, and 1 allows more than two volumes to be mirrored, kind of like a hot spare that doesn't need rebuild time.
So it's not as full featured as ZFS, though compared to most linux filesystems the FFS and FFS2 are extremely robust at surviving unexpected power failure.
Re:YAY for BSD (Score:5, Funny)
It gets real abstract.
Well, which is it?
Re: (Score:3)
The former latter.
Re:YAY for BSD (Score:5, Insightful)
And there you go with the problem with it. OpenBSD has no holes in the install...
Regardless of how you use an operating system, if the OS foundation is not secure, then anything you put on top of it cannot be secure.
At least OpenBSD provides the secure foundation upon which you can build what you'd like. The security of what you build on top of OpenBSD is your responsibility.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, no. Heartbleed showed how meaningless theire claims of a secure default install are in this day and age.
It used to mean something against Windows Servers and Linux Distros that had everything enabled by default, but not so much these days.
All these years, and they hadn't even audited openssl, a key core component of the default install.
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression that OpenBSD did not enable heartbeats by default and, as such, was not vulnerable to Heartbleed by default.
Am I wrong?
Re: (Score:1)
OpenBSD have software in place that wouldn't allow the Heartbleed bug to work in the first place. As soon as a Heartbleed event occurred, the OpenSSL software would immediately terminate in OpenBSD.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly I'm not sure. If heartbleeds are not enabled that's great.
It still lessons their claim since they missed a vulnerability from 2011 in the base install. No doubt there are others.
Re: YAY for BSD (Score:3, Informative)
How to update Open BSD: insert CD, boot CD, select update. Wait a few minutes. Upgrade ports. Wait a few minutes. You are done.
No CD? Copy base files to machine through SSH. Install files. Reboot. Upgrade ports. Wait a few minutes. You are done.
Any other questions?
Re: (Score:1)
You got it. I've updated remote (read: "in other countries") OpenBSD machines for over a decade. There is still the anxiety of waiting for the system to boot, but I don't recall ever having it blow up on me.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do we not like scripts? Honest question.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Break easy compared to machine code in some specific way?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is to say: it's software.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Its not one script anymore. Its one script hundreds of lines long that calls other scripts to finally accomplish something you could do with seconds and ifconfig. Don't get me started with the mess systemd is.
Re: (Score:1)
How do you even change the ip address from the command line?
"ip addr add $IP_NUM dev $IP_DEV"
Or, if you like, you can use ifconfig, even though that's obsolete.
They'll collect your nerd card on the way out, troll.
Not quite (Score:2)
Wasn't that easy on my BeagleBone Black board http://derekmolloy.ie/set-ip-a... [derekmolloy.ie]
How anyone is supposed to figure that out is beyond me. Is a script calling ifconfig too good for you people?
Re: (Score:1)
but I guess I just fed a troll, so jokes on me.
Re: (Score:3)
You use the same tools the scripts use. Ifconfig.
Choose a better distro and things wont be so obfuscated.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, doesn't work on Linux. NetworkManager or some other daemon will come along and overwrite your manual ifconfig change in short order.
Re: (Score:2)
/sbin/ifconfig
It's not just for listing!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's the silent protagonist in the technological world - they build and refine the technology that seeps into all other operating systems.
The code is licensed so liberally that Stallman's arguments literally boil down to "everyone can use it so it's not free".
If you dig into the credits portion of almost any software, it's there.
We all use BSD.
Re: (Score:1)
Stallman has never called the BSD license non-free. You're either delusional or a liar.
All free software licenses are wonderful for us users. Copyleft ones are also wonderful for free software as a whole.
Re: (Score:1)
The code is licensed so liberally that Stallman's arguments literally boil down to "everyone can use it so it's not free".
Given that Stallman's main organisation, the Free Software Foundation, almost actively supports [gnu.org] the BSD license, declaring it a Free Software License compatible with the GPL, I wonder what it is that drives you to say such a thing. A feeling that since the truth normally supports Richard, it's worth spreading almost any lie in the hope of discrediting him?
Re: (Score:2)
Stallman has always acknowledged it as Free and continues to do so.
Dont be a troll.
Re: (Score:3)
Referring to this [gnu.org] post in particular.
His stance is a demonization of liberally licensed code, to a very unfortunate degree.
I am absolutely not trolling when I say that man has given up freedom for ideology.
Re: (Score:2)
Referring to this post in particular."
I suggest you re-read his post. If your opinion has not corrected by then, you might need to seek remedial help in Reading or English. "EXACTLY" and "not at all" are not synonyms, and this is actually not at all what he is saying in that post.
Re: (Score:2)
A. Nowhere.
"What is the correct interpretation of his comment that BSD devs basically avoid talking about freedom if it doesn't mean it isn't truly free?"
That despite being Free they do not share the values and goals of copyleft, do not recognise or care about the need for copyleft.
Free Software: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Copyleft: https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/
List of Free Software Licenses: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
you sure? your printer doesn't have have controller running BSD? or network appliance?