On Apr 4, 2014, at 18:06, Martin Braun <yellowgoldm...@gmail.com> 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.. whiiiich 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". > Modern releases of OpenBSD are pretty easy and fast to update, especially with sysmerge. I used to have a pretty custom setup, and upgrade time wasn't my favourite (and so I skipped many releases...) But it is a lot easier these days. You don't get precompiled patched kernels, though. This is the part that takes the longest for me (assuming there are patches that require kernel compiles) because my edge box isn't particularly fast. The package updating wasn't much different than running apt-get. It seems to me that the difference between Debian and OpenBSD (and I've used both just as recently) is that one you update to reboot, and the other you reboot to upgrade. time and effort seems about the same, these days. -- jdv
