←back to thread

OpenBSD 7.8

(cdn.openbsd.org)
282 points paulnpace | 7 comments | 22 Oct 25 02:02 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
president_zippy ◴[22 Oct 25 04:09 UTC] No.45664811[source]▶
I'm impressed that they still maintain PA-RISC support even though HP discontinued that architecture in 2008.

They maintain all these architectures in such a small, consolidated codebase with such minimal (if any) bloat.

Their built-in httpd is far and away the best experience I ever had setting up a static file server for my local network, and I can't think of many times where I would ever need anything I couldn't do with the built-in FastCGI support.

I'm also pleasantly surprised by how well Chicago95 (a Windows 95-style UI based on xfce) works on OpenBSD, even though the author never intended to run it on anything but xubuntu. I wouldn't recommend trying that unless you're willing to roll up your sleeves, but the payoff definitely justifies the elbow grease if you like that look and feel better than xenodm, XFCE, or GNOME.

replies(2): >>45664841 #>>45664978 #
citbl ◴[22 Oct 25 04:17 UTC] No.45664841[source]▶
hmmmmm youth.

I remember running windows95 overnight so that it could be a "server".

The next morning, moving the mouse was making the harddrive go nuts, it was paging just by moving the cursor!

Memory leak galore.

This makes me want to run linux as my daily driver! [1]

[1] https://github.com/grassmunk/Chicago95/blob/master/Screensho...

replies(1): >>45665357 #
1. pasc1878 ◴[22 Oct 25 06:00 UTC] No.45665357[source]▶
Well Windows 95 was never a server. MS already had the much better NT and in those days it was not bloated.
replies(1): >>45665486 #
2. microtonal ◴[22 Oct 25 06:23 UTC] No.45665486[source]▶
Yeah. When I was a high school student, we set up the new school network (end of the 90s). We used Windows NT on all the desktops and the domain/file server and SuSE Linux as a firewall/router. The whole setup was super stable and NT ran well, even on the modest desktop hardware.

When we graduated, maintenance was taken over by a local consumer PC builder and had no clue experience maintaining corporate/organization networks. They replaced all desktops and servers by Windows 9x (probably 98), as it was all they knew and the network was constantly down, desktops broken/compromised, etc.

NT 4.0 was a really good OS in those days for servers/work desktops. It was less great for games (though IIRC there was DirectX at some point).

replies(1): >>45665924 #
3. knorker ◴[22 Oct 25 07:37 UTC] No.45665924[source]▶
NT4 ran quake perfectly, including glquake.

What other game was needed in the 90s?

replies(1): >>45666005 #
4. anthk ◴[22 Oct 25 07:48 UTC] No.45666005{3}[source]▶
Unreal; and later, Deus Ex, based on Unreal too :D.

But Windows 2000 was much better for gaming. NT4 supported DX3 and DX5 unnoficially'.

W2k had a DLL call flag to enable a Windows XP like compat mode:

http://www.activewin.com/tips/win2000/1/2000_tips_43.shtml

It only worked on desktop shortcuts, but enough to run most quirky Win95/98 games.

replies(1): >>45667918 #
5. hnfong ◴[22 Oct 25 12:19 UTC] No.45667918{4}[source]▶
I think Unreal Tournament ran on NT4 as well.

Despite Win2k and NT4 kinda having a rep for not for gaming, I found that most games actually did run on them fine. Especially Win2k, probably the most underrated OS of all time in the Windows lineup.

replies(2): >>45674499 #>>45674823 #
6. chungus_khan ◴[22 Oct 25 20:08 UTC] No.45674499{5}[source]▶
Really I think it got that rep mostly from people trying to run DOS games or shoddy ports from DOS to early Windows that still relied on a bunch of DOS stuff.
7. anthk ◴[22 Oct 25 20:35 UTC] No.45674823{5}[source]▶
win2k's support for games was miles ahead of NT4 because of DX 8.1? support. If not DX8, DX7 0a was for sure supported.