Re: Seeking GUI refuge
Have you considered a thought that XFCE may be easily customizable? The non-existing program entries can be removed and the UI customized to your liking? >From what you describe it doesn't seem you require pretty graphics. I would >suggest trying out the light window managers. Customizing a window manager to >your liking is pretty straightforward with the light variants (not gnome and >kde - these are SAKs - Swiss Army Knives). You may possibly find one that >exactly matches the job... -ag -- sent via 100% recycled electrons from my mobile command center. On May 24, 2013, at 5:39 PM, "Patrick Mc(avery" wrote: > Hi Marti > > Thanks so much for your rapid and helpful response. > > I will still consider Mac OSX but it's just that it is the worst of two > worlds for me. Labs use Windows only. If I ship something that works on > windows, I don't have to swim against the current with this topic. I am > willing to swim for free software but OSX is not free either :( > -Patrick > > > > > > > > > > > > On 13-05-24 06:59 PM, Marti Martinez wrote: >> Gnome isn't bad on OpenBSD, but depending on what you don't like about >> linux, that may not live up to your expectations. >> >> Frankly, though, as an almost life-long Windows user both personally >> and professionally, if I had GUI concerns I'd seriously consider >> whether OSX was a viable option rather than Windows. With that said, I >> wouldn't target either platform for X11. >> >> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Patrick Mc(avery >> wrote: >>> Hi Everyone >>> >>> My name is Patrick, this is my first post here. >>> >>> I switched my primary computer from Windows to Linux about 9 years ago. >>> >>> I service scientific instruments. About 12 years ago I became aware of the >>> brutal conditions scientific software is sold under. I have been slowly >>> writing my own application to work with these instruments, it's taken a long >>> time because I have had to learn to code. >>> >>> I had always planed on deploying on Linux. >>> >>> While about 7 out of the 9 years with Linux have been good, the graphical >>> experience on Linux has plummeted for me. I don't really want to send >>> prospective customers to Linux any more. I am fearing that Windows may end >>> up being my only option. >>> >>> It looks like OpenBSD is all about software correctness and I am sure it >>> will be great to work with, in a sort of "back end" way but is there a >>> desktop manager to work with it that can match the reliability of OpenBSD? >>> >>> I tried to load Fluxbox and was disappointed with it. It had several >>> menubuttons for application that were not yet installed. >>> >>> Any help would be very much appreciated, I feel trapped and it sounds weird >>> to say this but I am really a bit depressed about the idea of heading back >>> to Windows.
Re: Don't read this - OpenBSD: Not Free Not Fuctional and Definetly Not Secure | BSD, the truth - as author rewrites your comments and can't spell
I doubt if anyone on this list will believe that it was actually you who posted
it in its current form.
Besides, thanks for passing it along - it is an excellent light reading over a
weekend - tickled me to death!
-ag
--
sent via 100% recycled electrons from my mobile command center.
On Aug 10, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> While searching for 'OpenBSD "bad package" CONTENTS' I somehow came
> across this and got sucked in when I shouldn't have.
>
> OpenBSD: Not Free Not Fuctional and Definetly Not Secure | BSD, the
> truth
>
> http://aboutthebsds{dot}wordpress{dot}com
>
> Well I had a go at educating the author of this thread but I guess
> without a response he modified my comments into utter lies and left them
> under my name. I guess the old adage that you can help the stupid but
> not the willfully ignorant is true.
>
> I knew he was an arch linux user and so I was expecting comment
> deletion in the case of moderator disagreement to the arguments (similar
> to the Arch Linux mailing lists where a moderators task being meant to
> have nothing to do with taking sides is ignored and is even more
> annoying when what you said was proven right by upstream a little
> later). Incidentally I expect similar to Lennart's pages as they are
> comment free.
>
> Sorry to be wasting your time or even mentioning this useless blog but
> I just wanted to put the record straight and to save time for anyone
> who stumbles across it and hope may now also see this in a Google
> search where it appears.
>
> Bear in mind these are counter points to his blog and not things I want
> to bring up.
>
> _
>
> I posted
> _
>
>
> It is extremely one sided!
>
> How about Linux allowing modules like Nvidia and far worse like Sony to
> be easily installed under the safe and free flag of their repo.
>
> I can tell you OpenBSD would not allow this and allow no binary blobs
> and with modules disabled by default, unlike FreeBSD and Linux allowing
> and even including by default binary blobs that does unknown things
> posibly with good intentions but full of exploits. You can take BSD and
> do freely whatever evil you want but you cannot abuse the trust users
> have in OpenBSD devs by flying your dodgy code in under their flag and
> so users radars.
>
> This is because BSD only precludes plagiarism and so using OpenBSD as a
> selling point when it may have been modified. There are many products
> using OpenBSD but this cannot be revealed directly.
>
> Linux try's but can't afford to sue Nvidia giving users a false sense
> of security but also well running games (I shall admit as I do give
> balance to my thoughts), but now they (Intel/AMD) are going open source
> which is extra great for the CAREful OpenBSD.
>
> And yes this CARE means it cannot go as quick as Linux thankfully as
> Torvalds can no longer check before OKaying potentially evil or
> insecure code (admitted himself).
> _
>
> The blog author posted anonymously after 'archlike moderation'
> _
>
> BSD allows modules like Nvidia and far worse like Sony to be easily
> installed under the safe and free flag of their repo.
>
> I can tell you OpenBSD freely allows this including non-free firmware
> and with modules enabled by default, like FreeBSD allowing and even
> including by default binary blobs that does unknown things posibly with
> good intentions but full of exploits. You can take BSD and do freely
> whatever evil you want including abuse the mindless trust users have in
> OpenBSD devs by flying dodgy code in under their flag and so users
> radars.
>
> Look at what Richard Stallman said about them.
>
> BSD encourages plagiarism and so using OpenBSD as a selling point when
> it may have been turning into proprietary software. There are many
> proprietary products using OpenBSD but this cannot be revealed directly
> because the code this now thiers.
>
> Linux impedes Nvidia from giving users a false sense of security but
> also well running games (I shall admit as I do give balance to my
> thoughts), but now they (Intel/AMD) are going open source which is
> extra great for the CAREful Linux. BSD devs don't care for open source
> drivers (Intel/AMD). So they continue to suck proprietary cocks.
>
> Also, Linux thankfully has Torvalds to check before for any potential
> evil code before it is included in the source tree.
>
>
>
> I posted about his systemd page.
>
>
> Bane of BSD, it's hardly even mentioned on the OpenBSD list atleast,
> maybe two very short threads stemming from things like Gnome. Even
> Redhat devs have said it has ve
Re: UEFI
> On Nov 5, 2013, at 10:49 AM, pe...@bsdly.net (Peter N. M. Hansteen) wrote: > > sven falempin writes: > >> My laptop has <> BIOS. >> What do you recommend to get openBSD on it ? > > It's not entirely uncommon to have a (sometimes quite well hidden) > option to choose 'legacy mode' or similar over UEFI mode. > > But you should be prepared to dig out the long form user or service > manual for your device to track down just how to enable it. > > - P > -- > Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team > http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.bsdly.net/ http://www.nuug.no/ > "Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic" > delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds. > [...] +1, laptops do have legacy mode for older operating systems. Did the same thing for my X230. -Amarendra
Re: UEFI
On Nov 6, 2013, at 7:53 AM, sven falempin wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 09:49:44AM -0500, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: >>> just install another 'os' like ubuntu-desktop on your laptop first. >>> openbsd will install on it flawlessly after that, it did on mine. >>> and yes, there was no need to change any options anywhere. >> >> On my daughter's brand spanking new Lenovo Ideapad $something Touch, we >> needed to set the BIOS to 'legacy mode' in order to have it boot into the >> Ubuntu installer and then choose some obscure linux kernel parameter for >> it to switch to a usable graphics mode for the installer to complete. >> >> For some reason she wanted her laptop on Ubuntu and to use it herself from >> that point on. >> >> - P >> >> -- >> Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team >> http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.bsdly.net/ http://www.nuug.no/ >> "Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic" >> delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds. > > Why you people are talking about your Lenovo experience ? are you salesman ? > > *facepalm* > > [...] Oh damn right - you see Peter is Lenovo's Taiwan head, Mayuresh manages their APAC sales and I handle North America sales! ROFL. For your laptop, did you probe BIOS options as Peter suggested? The answer is a simple yes or no *hint* -ag -- sent via 100% recycled electrons from my mobile command center.
Re: Contributing
> On Nov 14, 2014, at 4:24 PM, Ted Unangst wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 18:37, ian kremlin wrote: >> If you are fluent in two or more languages you might be able to help >> out with translations. Bug-hunting (with proper reporting habits!) is >> always appreciated too. > > I think the translation effort is dead. Better to help out by teaching > English to those who don't know it. :) Yeah, that nicely sums up the l10n efforts. No offense to non-English speakers (I am too), but I feel the time spent in i18n and l10n efforts can be better utilized someone else. Heck, it's easy to learn English than aim for all language support. > >>> I very much believe the OpenBSD is important and needs support. I am not a >>> programmer, and I do not have money to donate. What other ways are there to >>> contribute? >>> >>> I remember the website used to list ways to contribute in various ways, but >>> I can only seem to find monetary donations on the website now. > > Testing. I think people get caught up in "what to test" or "how to > test", but it's pretty simple. Use OpenBSD for whatever you want to > use it for. The more people just using it, the more likely it will > just work for others too. > > Or pick a random program out of /usr/bin. Read the man page. Do you > know what it does or are you confused? That's the best way to start. -Amarendra
Re: UNIX A to Z List RFC
Very interesting. As a note, my daughter around age 3, always made me reboot the laptop as she liked the white on blue scrolling (she actually clapped as the lines scrolled by). I have done it 10 to 12 times at a stretch. Her next step was to make me login and type on the keyboard randomly and get amused as it made beeping noises as well as spew something back at her (she termed it as "working" on the laptop). Liked the list though. Thanks. -ag -- sent via 100% recycled electrons from my mobile command center. On Feb 2, 2013, at 1:59 PM, Chris Hettrick wrote: > Hi Misc, > > I made a list of the most classical UNIX commands / utilities from section > one where there is only one per letter of the english alphabet (it's for my > OpenBSD obsessed five year old son :) ). I know that this subject is very > personal and steeped in tradition and history, so I was looking for your > opinions and suggestions. > A quick note about the list: some hard choices were made concerning letters > such as c, p, m, etc. For instance, kill(1) is not included for two reasons: > it is included in the shell, and it needs ps(1) to be properly used (which > conflicts with pwd(1) which I think is _more_ useful for a UNIX beginner). > mv(1) was not included because a cp(1) and rm(1) can suffice. > > This is the list: > > awk > bc > cp > date > echo > find > grep > head > id > jot > ksh (as a superset of sh) > ls > more > nc > od > pwd > quota > rm > sort > tail > uniq > vi > wc > xargs > yes > zcat > > Any opinions, suggestions? > Thanks! > > Chris
Re: enabling sendmail
In addition to what others have said, default sendmail listens on 127.0.0.1, so you will require configuration to get it going. On that note, also look at smtpd - it's sendmail without the complexity! -ag -- sent via 100% recycled electrons from my mobile command center. On Feb 20, 2013, at 4:29 PM, rich...@thornton.net wrote: > Is sendmail enabled by default? If not, how do I do that?
Re: Help: missing apt-get command after installing OpenBSD.
The first step before you install a new OS, is to go through the documentation, and at least read the relevant sections - installation and initial configuration. You seem to have skipped this critical step, so please head over to http://www.openbsd.org/faq/ And yes, unlike some other OSes, the documentation is actually correct, and accurately describes the system. -ag -- sent via 100% recycled electrons from my mobile command center. > On Jan 15, 2014, at 6:03 AM, Jiya desai wrote: > > Hi, > > I am new baby in this world and basically doing little experiment task to > install apache, perl and foswiki on openbsd > > I am using Microsoft Virtual PC . I downloaded the file OpenBSDinstall54.iso > and installed OpenBSD. > > Now I see that I am not able to get basic commands that i used to get in > ubuntu world, like apt-get. > > So my question is why apt-get command is not available and what should i do ? > > > Regards > Jiya
Re: Only two holes in a heck of a long time, but why?
apt-get though seemingly simple, brings in shit load of libraries with names resembling alien species. Try doing a dpkg -l | wc -l and you'll get the idea. Even a default Debian system can have hundreds of libraries of dubious origins. Would I trust my important data to it? Definitely not. Don't make the mistake of confusing "simplicity" with "minimal work", which I think is what you have been implying all along. OpenBSD is the most simple OS I've ever had the pleasure of working with - as I know I am always in control, as there are very few unknowns. If you are serious about having a internet facing server with important data, then you should try OpenBSD. If it doesn't work, you always have a choice to move back to your favorite OS. Right tool for the job. -ag -- sent via 100% recycled electrons from my mobile command center. On Apr 4, 2014, at 3:06 PM, Martin Braun wrote: >>> I used OpenBSD back in the 3.x days, > >> The last 3.x release was 8 years ago. >> Are you fucking serious? > > Yup. > >>> but eventually began using Debian >>> because it was much easier to maintain > >> Can you please give an example of a maintenance task >> that is easier then the comparable/analogous task in OpenBSD? >> Because I remember Debian kinda sucked when I used it in 1998. > > apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade between versions are pretty awesome. > >> Seriously though, the reason for me (and many people apparently) >> to use OpenBSD is the _extreme_simplicity_ of just about anything. > > OpenBSD is great to use, but BSD's in general are not simplistic when it > comes to package management, hence the reason why FreeBSD is developing the > new pkg tool.. whch is pretty much a clone of what apt does on Debian. > > For me I remember when time was spend updating from one OpenBSD version to > the next. So many hours. Debian was a fantastic relief back then and still > is. However, this is without comparing security issues, but only talking > about "simplicity". > > > 2014-04-04 9:21 GMT+02:00 Jan Stary : > >>> I used OpenBSD back in the 3.x days, >> >> The last 3.x release was 8 years ago. >> Are you fucking serious? >> >>> but eventually began using Debian >>> because it was much easier to maintain >> >> Can you please give an example of a maintenance task >> that is easier then the comparable/analogous task in OpenBSD? >> Because I remember Debian kinda sucked when I used it in 1998. >> >> Seriously though, the reason for me (and many people apparently) >> to use OpenBSD is the _extreme_simplicity_ of just about anything.
