On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 11:49:05PM -0500, NetNeanderthal wrote: > On 1/22/06, Scott Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > you mean, aside from including man38.tgz? What else are you looking > > for? There's some docs on their website, but why would you need > > anything beyond what ships with OpenBSD? There's a man page for > > everything, and while they don't include a "we did the following steps > > in this order, and here's why we have privoxy and pf and how they're > > configured", it's easy enough to just read the config files and the > > relevant man pages. Keep in mind also that this is, at best, a beta > > release (if not alpha). > 'They' as in you, sure.. and they didn't. Go to the site. Go to > sf.net's doc page. Neither contain any documentation. My original > statement stands as-is. OpenBSD is well documented, what was done to > produce this image is not. In fact, it's about as safe as installing > OpenBSD from some ISO pulled from a random site. Have a read for > yourself, straight from the FAQ: > > http://openbsd.org/faq/faq3.html#ISO > > "The source of an unofficial image may or may not be trustworthy; it > is up to you to determine this for yourself." > > So, by my own determination, I choose not to trust it. You can find > no fault with that logic, especially considering the purpose of your > project. > > > the packages are from the ports tree - are you saying they're somehow > > less trusted because you didn't install/build them yourself? The boot > > script is there for anybody to peruse who wants to; no "trust" is > > required - or at least, no more than is required for, say, flashdist > > or any other project based on a modified OpenBSD install. There's no > > secret sauce, no binary blobs, no closed source or NDAs. > So, if it's just a group of ports and a boot script, the kernel was > left untouched? I did notice some .dist files in /etc.. perhaps > 'diff' is all the documentation required. The flashdist script isn't > applicable, they don't hand out images of OpenBSD but show you how to > 'roll your own' and provide a script. Sure, documentation there is > loose as well, but it's more than the sparse peppering of a > description provided by Anonym.OS. How do you plan to keep this > patched? How are vulnerabilities handled? Errata? > > > As far as "unwilling or unable to use OpenBSD in its native form", > > keep in mind the purpose of the project and their target audience. Not > > everybody has the luxury of their own laptop, and it's always nice to > > have something relatively secure to fall back on when stuck with a > > less-than-sanitary public-use PC. > Agreed, somewhat. This topic has been bludgeoned to death on misc, > your reasoning fails -- search the list archives. > > > Let's not denigrate unnecessarily; we should be encouraging wider uses > > and derivative projects, not biting the heads off of developers when > > they release new OpenBSD-based projects. If it's a waste of time, > > nobody will use it and it will disappear with no need for vitriol. On > > the other hand, if it's a good project, well, that kind of development > > is always a Good Thing. > Copying a free OS and adding a few packages hardly constitutes the tag > 'developer', perhaps .. installer? scripter? I'm quite certain > OpenBSD developers really could care less if their project is taken > from its natural habitat and bastardized for the consumption of a > wider audience. By your own words, this project is really not much > more than a HOWTO, sans end-user effort and the actual HOWTO document. > Or did I miss something? > > > This: > > > It reeks of a clumsily-staged publicity stunt. > > definitely comes off more like sour grapes than any kind of valid > > criticism, IMO. Perhaps you didn't intend it that way. > I never claimed it as valid criticism, it's my opinion and I've a > right to it. This is *yet another* (failed) attempt at positive PR > for this script+package project. Sour grapes would imply that I am > pushing down your project to further my own agenda. I won't lose > sleep over that one until I decouple myself from OpenBSD; until then, > good luck with your PR campaign! > > Despite our philosophical differences, here's my constructive criticism: > > 1) If you're going to produce a bootable ISO image, also produce a > siteXX.tgz file and make it available via your website for download > during a 'regular' OpenBSD installation. > http://openbsd.org/faq/faq4.html#site > > 2) Consider, perhaps, even a script that will generate the bootable CD > ISO from that siteXX.tgz customization as well. > > 3) Documentation
I mailed the guys responsible for Anonym.OS in private and I was told that they actually are working on documentation right now. They will release it once it is cleaned up. Regards, ahb
