←back to thread

OpenBSD 7.8

(cdn.openbsd.org)
282 points paulnpace | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.23s | source
Show context
liendolucas ◴[] No.45666352[source]
What truly suprises me about BSDs is their simplicity and low footprint, OpenBSD being gold standard.

I've been playing with `byve` the last two weeks (I highly recommend vermaden's blog for anyone interested in BSDs and obviously the handbooks of each project) and I'm seriously thinking not doing a dual boot Linux install again. On my old x230 (which is running FreeBSD) I will be installing OpenBSD just to become more familiar with it.

I still don't get why just after installing Debian `top` shows me around 200 proceses. BSDs? Under 20. Other thing that pisses me off is for example how polluted (at least on Ubuntu) mountpoints are. Package management is also fragmented on Linux, while on BSDs is either a flavour of `pkg` or ports.

Perhaps I should still try more minimalistic Linux distributions, just don't know which are good candidates

Don't get me wrong, I love Linux and still recommend it heavily to non-tech people around me but when you taste a BSD is hard to go back.

replies(8): >>45666558 #>>45666588 #>>45666779 #>>45666839 #>>45666849 #>>45667395 #>>45669844 #>>45677290 #
pyuser583 ◴[] No.45669844[source]
Arch Linux is the closest I've seen to BSD in the Linux-verse. I recommend trying it. I'm not sure about production though, or using more exotic things like CUDA.
replies(2): >>45670604 #>>45680761 #
1. lproven ◴[] No.45680761[source]
> Arch Linux is the closest I've seen to BSD in the Linux-verse.

It really isn't. The BSDs are smaller and cleaner, especially OpenBSD, which is positively minimal. Arch is huge.

The closest Linux to OpenBSD is probably Alpine, of all those I've seen. Takes as much disk as most modern distros take RAM, and because of no glibc and no systemd, a tonne of familiar Linux tools aren't available or don't work... just the old fashioned Unixy stuff... which is very much how running a BSD feels.