OpenBSD: The proverbial thrill of victory ... and the agony of defeat
So giddy was I that the OpenBSD CD agreed to boot on my converted Maxspeed Maxterm thin client (with a VIA C3 Samuel processor that wouldn't allow the install of FreeBSD, NetBSD, DesktopBSD or PC-BSD) that I immediately launched into an install today.
Whoa.
I can't remember an installation process that was this geeky. You MUST have the instructions in front of you, or you will get nowhere fast.
I did OK. I even got my network configuration right. The option to dual-boot (with Windows, anyway) is covered, but I wiped out my CentOS 3.9 drive just to make things easier. On something so foreign, I didn't want any more complication than necessary.
Once the installation got under way, I realized why DesktopBSD and PC-BSD exist. Even FreeBSD offers more than OpenBSD in its raw install. I selected every package offered on the CD, and I ended up with:
The base system
X
That's it. No window manager -- not even Fluxbox. No apps to speak of. I had xterm and xclock -- the docs said that the text-based Lynx browser was part of the base install, so I opened up an xterm window, typed lynx at the prompt ... and got lynx. I entered a Web address, and the site came up in all its text-only glory.
So next I figured that I would get the ports tree. It's lucky I know what a ports tree is from my experience in DesktopBSD, during which adding ports didn't really work ... but I learned enough, at least.
So I've got a base system and rudimentary X -- and if I want a traditional desktop install, I'm gonna have to build it piece by piece from PORTS?
Oy.
I followed the instructions for awhile. I got the ports tree from the FTP site. I even installed fluxbox. Not that it would run afterward. Let's see ... I had a window manager, albeit one I couldn't load; now it was only a couple hundred pkg_add commands before I had something I could work with. ...
You need a good book with specific instructions on building a desktop system opened right in front of you. If such a thing exists. ("The OpenBSD 4.1 Crash Course," from O'Reilly has a chapter on desktop use ... but I'm not holding my breath.)
If you're a completely formed Unix geek, want to go beyond the traditional Linux distribution, know exactly what you want, package by package (or port by port), have wrung all you can out of Slackware, Gentoo, Debian and Red Hat, are an absolute fanatic about security and want a locked-down server, OpenBSD might be for you.
And if you're that sort of person, you don't need me to tell you ... anything. You know way more than I do -- by orders of magnitude. I'm not worthy, just as OpenBSD is not worthy of functioning on the desktop for all but the most ardent, skilled users who like to start from scratch and build exactly what they want from the command line.
The question that remains: Why would you want to?
Honestly, getting Debian and Slackware up and running is about 100 times easier than this. Even Gentoo, with its step-by-step process for building a system from the ground up, seems more doable. And when it does load, FreeBSD was quite a bit easier to deal with. Of course, PC-BSD and DesktopBSD have way better installers, but my luck didn't hold after the systems were up and running.
Thus far, on my Gateway laptop (which, unlike the VIA box, will boot and install all BSDs), I've had PC-BSD load up pretty well, even though many of the easy-to-install PBI apps were either out of date or didn't work all that well. I've seen my DesktopBSD system die when the ports I installed didn't work, and the promise of FreeBSD was unfulfilled when I didn't allocate enough disk space (surely the installer could've told me this BEFORE I was 4/5ths of the way through the install). None (except PC-BSD 1.3, not 1.4) managed my Gateway's fan.
I really don't want to be in the position of slamming BSD, but to mention it in the same league as Linux -- it's just not ready. All the talk of adults being in charge, a less-chaotic development system and any other supposed stability fades quickly in the face of actual BSD use. The BSDs may be good in the server room (I say may because I'm not a sysadmin), but Linux -- in its hundreds of distributions catering to every kind of user -- has the kind of momentum on the desktop that BSD is nowhere near tapping for itself.
5 Comments
Leave a comment
About this blog
OpenBSD is certainly not for the timid, but for someone really curious and willing to learn it's one of the best systems out there.
Once OpenBSD is set up its rock solid, has a great packages and ports tree, and has capabilites out of the box that many systems do not.
Using OpenBSD as a secure server, firewall, or load balancing device is a great choice.
But if you were to tell the developers that you'd like to install it on your desktop or laptop PC, the first question they'd ask is "why?"
Wrong, OpenBSD comes even with multiple window managers: cwm, fvwm (which is the
default) and twm.
If you're not able to read the manuals and FAQ you should reconsider writing an
article about it or just contribute what you think is missing to the project, in
stead of spreading uneducated, wild guesses.
Also you're clearly missing the packages.
Ok, if you're gentoo-obsessed and want to compile everything yourself, no-one st
ops you from doing that, but again then, THINK, READ and UNDERSTAND before you t
ry to comment on your own faults.
I really don't want to be in the position of slamming blind, whiny chickens but
to mention them in the same league as thinking people -- they're just not ready.
Chickens may be good in the kitchen room (i say ``may'' because i'm not a cook),
but people -- in their hundreds of different characters -- have the kind of mom
entum on the brain that chickens are nowhere near tapping for themself.
All I'm asking for in an installer is the ability to easily add a usable desktop environment without spending a week at the console.
Sorry to be a "blind, whiny chicken," but that's what I am.
When you install Slackware, you can opt for a GUI-less server or a full KDE desktop. Same with Debian.
But in BSD (Open or otherwise), all you get is fwvm and an exhortation to RTFM?
All the talk about how "mature" BSD is just doesn't hold water when an installer can't supply me with a rudimentary application menu and maybe a GUI Web browser to get things going.
If there were no desktop-oriented packages or ports available for the various BSDs, I would understand not allowing a more usable environment to be created in the installer, but a look at the ports tree for OpenBSD or FreeBSD shows a HUGE number of applications. Everything is there.
I guess by saying that BSD is only for non-"whiny chickens" and not for the desktop excuses the OS from realizing any potential it has to be a credible player in the enterprise, the consumer marketplace and elsewhere.
Slackware could be this hard, but it isn't -- by a long, long longshot. Why? Because the developers want people to USE it. The developers of the various BSDs don't seem to care. Sure there is DesktopBSD and PC-BSD, but until now I didn't realize how valuable those projects actually are. Without them, I imagine, there would be fewer BSD users by huge orders of magnitude.
Probably the only way I'll ever figure out OpenBSD is to install DesktopBSD and learn in that environment how it's structured, how ports work and how the different shell operates.
Or I could just stick with Linux and forget the whole damn thing. In other words, is the pain worse than the gain?
You can get KDE by doing
pkg_add ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/4.2/packages/i386/kdebase-3.5.7p0.tgz. (That's assuming you are on i386 architechture and are running OpenBSD 4.2.)
It's not a GUI, but it is pretty simple. When I first started playing around with OpenBSD in 1997, it took a little adjustment for me, but that's because I was used to rpms from the command line. (http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/ is the URL for packages.)
When I do a fresh install of OpenBSD, I usually install bash, startx, install firefox, bring up that page, and just copy the URL of where the package is.
Marty, that's a good idea. All I need is a pkg_add command that will at least get me going without having to do dozens of lines just to have a usable desktop. I'm going to try it soon.
Thanks.