List of all software present on OpenBSD 5.2
Where can I find all the software that comes in install52.iso? I've tested, as an example, with tar: # tar --version tar: unknown option -- - usage: [..] 'pkg_info -A' shows nothing.
Re: List of all software present on OpenBSD 5.2
On 26/12/2012 16:57, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote: install52.iso is simply the install medium. To take a peek inside, mount the iso, cd into it and do something like I see, but any chance to know what version of 'tar' is included in base52.tgz? I guess, like all operating systems, OpenBSD uses versioning for its software, or is just a continuous snapshotting system where there are no versions?
Broken link on faq14
On this page http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq14.html at see the Setting up disks part of the Installation Guide The link redirects to faq4.html#Disks which no longer exists.
Compression is broken on (S)hell booting install52.iso
When using (S)hell from live cd installer, # gzip something > file.gz gzip: compression not supported # tar -jcvf archive.bz2 something tar: could not exec bzip2: No such file or directory Is this intentional?
Request improvement for faq 15.2
I think 15.2.2 should go before 15.1.1, since if there's no point in running pkg_* when the PKG_PATH is empty, which is after installing using the interactive method. Furthermore, using 'export PKG_PATH=' sets a volatile variable, which in blank again after restarting. I think the faq may include the guideline to make it persistent as well.
Re: List of all software present on OpenBSD 5.2
On 27/12/2012 14:06, Stuart Henderson wrote: This isn't like a Linux distribution where the whole system is installed from a collection of different pieces of packaged software. The base operating system is a consistent whole; pkg_info lists only packages of third-party software which are not part of the base OS (software from packages is located primarily under /usr/local, with some files ending up in other places like /var - software from the base OS installs into /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin etc). I understand, that in this case, tar is really bsdtar (not gnutar, or star) and that is part of the core while linux distros don't have a "core" tar and use the external gnu version. I see as well that binary packages use versioning, because are external, like nano or lftp.
Re: Request improvement for faq 15.2
On 27/12/2012 16:16, Yusof Khalid - FreeBSD / OpenBSD wrote: Hi, As stated "It's usually a good idea to add a line similar to the above examples to your ~/.profile." The above line should be ok to understand.. IMHO :) or did you miss the line ? Yes, actually I missed the point. And I still keep thinking that 5.2.2 should go before 5.2.1.
Re: Request improvement for faq 15.2
On 27/12/2012 16:38, Maxim Khitrov wrote: I went through most of the FAQ this weekend and didn't see any mention of /etc/pkg.conf as an alternative to PKG_PATH. Might be better to document the use of this configuration file, which I think is created automatically if you install the system from an ftp or http mirror. Would be a good idea, for the interactive installer (install52.iso) to ask as last step for a packages server, even if you chose the cdrom in a first place.
Re: Request improvement for faq 15.2
On 27/12/2012 17:25, Chris Bennett wrote: You are assuming that someone will never just run base. Base includes a lot of useful software all by itself. Apache, PF, a working file system, lynx, vi, working X, ntpd, mkhybrid, cdio, sftp, ssh, sendmail, mg, tons of perl stuff, manual pages, etc, etc Well, asking to set PKG_PATH to an ftp server after cd install is just that, I'm not assuming that the user has to immediately 'pkg_add something'. Setting the variable to cd path is not useful, because all file sets are unpacked by default so you don't need it anymore in terms of installing additional packages.
A point about the BSD license I'm feeling edgy about
The BSD license says that * Copyright (c) * * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the * above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all * copies That says, under my interpretation, 1) That distributing only object files complies with the license, 2) That any derived code must retain the exact notice, and for that reason, 3) The copyright holder of the object files is the original author even if the compiler is a third party person
Re: A point about the BSD license I'm feeling edgy about
On 29/12/2012 2:28, Andres Perera wrote: Consider GNU autoconf. the output isn't derivative work of the source files, regardless of how big their BSD headers are. That's the biggest problem with autoconf, imo; not the idiosyncrasies of the language. Since when documentation is a derivative work of something that is not documentation? Obviously, I consider a derivative work, to something that if you do reverse engineering or decompile ont, you can get more or less to the original code, which is not the case.
Re: A point about the BSD license I'm feeling edgy about
On 29/12/2012 4:31, Matthew Weigel wrote: And this is exactly what everyone is doing, and no one has found a way to sue over it yet... which at least suggests your concern is misguided. Which concern is misguided?
Re: A point about the BSD license I'm feeling edgy about
On 29/12/2012 16:50, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote: If all you've done is compile something, you did not contribute anything copyrightable. If you did contribute something copyrightable, you are free to add a copyright notice of your own, in addition to simliar notices from previous contributors. The point I want to reach here is, I get some BSD code, for example nginx, I improve it and add my copyright besides the original one. And I distribute object code only. I don't see how does this help nginx, It only helps me.
Re: A point about the BSD license I'm feeling edgy about
On 30/12/2012 3:38, Jiri B wrote: My understanding of GPL after a presetantion of a company selling products based on GDL code is that is is also a good for business - if you use GPL you somehow restrict your competitors that use this code in their products without giving their improvements back to public, so using GPL you try to beat your competitors... This is my interpretation of GPL based business for enterprises. Well, not necessarily. Android, for example, is under Apache license for the reason I exposed before: third party manufacturers can release binary only code based on the original one and improve it. Furthermore, it sets the basis for allowing third party applications or mods that can be completely closed source. I can't think of this model being such successful using a GPLv3 license. The thing here is that Google has such a good tech that can keep the lead on it, and even if other do that Google gets money because they are a services based company.
Re: Running OpenBSD on Raspberry Pi
On 31/12/2012 1:32, Johan Ryberg wrote: DNS, dhcp, firewall on a stick, vpn terminator. Sure, it would be more easy if it had 2 interfaces but with VLAN you can do a lot of cool stuff with rbp If you use the model B, besides 512 MB of RAM, you have 2 USB 2.0 ports. You can put a hub on one of them, and buy some USB 2.0 to RJ45 that can be found pretty cheap on ebay.
Re: A point about the BSD license I'm feeling edgy about
On 31/12/2012 2:06, Martin Schröder wrote: 2012/12/31 Live user: The thing here is that Google has such a good tech that can keep the lead on it, and even if other do that Google gets money because they are a services based company. No. Look at a chinese phone with Andoid and Baidu and tell us where Google gets money for that. In this case I don't know, only hardware manufacturers. There are forks of android like Aliyun, that Google rejects because weaken the ecosystem, and it's normal. Furthermore, Google can ban any non-official rom from accessing Play Store, except that is not doing it actually for good faith roms like Cyanogenmod, but could do if necessary. As I said before, it's just matter on developing in a way which is unpredictable but better, I doubt any chinese fork of android will surpass the official in terms of capabilities and Q&A.
Re: A point about the BSD license I'm feeling edgy about
On 31/12/2012 14:33, Martin Schröder wrote: But that will only hurt chinese telcos if they need the apps from the Play Store. AFAIK Google has exactly this problem in China. Developers resident in some countries, like China, are not allowed to publish android applications. There must be a reason. Think that Google uses its cloud services, which is a very serious privacy issue. Google just can't allow any random chinese developer access a US or European resident private's date if you don't trust. They don't meet the Q&A. https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=138294
