[Disclaimer: I love OpenBSD]
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 10:26:03PM +0100, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote:
> Why is there software being developed for any BSD either? I have a
> FreeBSD box, I wonder what the commands are.
>
> Grep is... Gnu grep! Gnu grep is an abomination! I used it on a big
> file last November when I was still using Linux. I noticed it took a
> seemingly unreasonable time, decided to try Plan 9's grep. I am not
> kidding in the least when I say it was FOUR HUNDRED TIMES faster. To
> be fair to Gnu in general it's just grep, Gnu sed was nearly 200
> times faster than grep at the same task, but that bug's only been
> open for 5 years. What grep does your BSD use?
OpenBSD does not use GNU grep. I'm not sure how it compares speed wise
though.
> diffutils - no horror stories I know of, but it's the same one linux
> uses.
OpenBSD has their own diff.
> gcc... do I even need to begin? You want to do anything remotely
> interesting and it can't generate the code correctly with any set of
> options!
Well, can't say much here. OpenBSD did just make the switch from GCC3
to GCC4 recently in -current, and I believe the main reason was for C++
support. Also note that OpenBSD is trying to phase out all C++ from the
source tree (ex. see mandoc) so they can switch to using pcc.
> What about the kernels? NetBSD - XML parser in the kernel! At least
> the Linux kernel maintainers keep some of the crap out. FreeBSD...
> not really heard much positive about it, and Stealth used to say it
> was just "trying to be Linux" anyway. OpenBSD's hardware support
> seems to be around the level of Plan 9's, but at least it's got gcc,
> eh? Looking around for something to replace Linux at the end of last
> year I seriously got a "why bother" feeling about all the BSDs.
If hardware doesn't work in openbsd there's usually a good reason, like
if a hardware vendor will not release documentation (with or without an
NDA). I would rather run something which has a strict no-blob policy
and find hardware which works with it then relying on hacks and blobs
for bad hardware.
> A little careful listening & my feeling became more than just "why
> bother". "Cat went to _Berkley_ [not Gnu] and came back waving
> flags." It's Berkley that took a good unix and started gluing cruft
> to it, and if Gnu has attracted more hackers to glue rubbish onto
> their stuff, so what? The attitude is still there, certainly in
> FreeBSD and NetBSD, so what reason is there to believe they won't
> mess up any future features they take from Plan 9? From what I hear
> they already have screwed up union mounts. Union mounts are crucial
> to Plan 9's design!
>From cat(1):
SEE ALSO
head(1), less(1), more(1), pr(1), sh(1), tail(1), vis(1), setbuf(3)
Rob Pike, UNIX Style, or cat -v Considered Harmful, USENIX Summer
Conference Proceedings, 1983.
Yeah, they recognize the problem. I think it's more there for
historical reasons then because anyone likes it.
If this counts as fanboyism I'll gladly take the label. :) OpenBSD
sucks considerably less then any other unix I've tried.
Josh Rickmar
