On 2020-05-21 09:55, Anders Andersson wrote: >> I am a huge fan of minimal and custom installations >> as I mostly use OpenBSD to host simple HTTP servers. > ... >> I would like to get your opinion on that. > From what I've seen, those goals are not compatible with OpenBSD, as > in: You're just making it harder for you and anyone trying to help > debugging something if you change the default installation. I've seen > some wishes about even getting rid of the whole "sets" thing and just > install everything.
I agree and disagree. I agree with the unsupported compatible side, with a big question of why do you want to? I like having a well considered useful base, rather than a million linux kernel/package options. I disagree with OpenBSD being incompatible. Take bsd.rd or single user and a binary and it could be a very small executer atleast. Anyone that has hosed the root fs and and had to fix the shared cache with ldconfig, probably realises that. No idea, why you would want to go that small and not use something like app engine and go though. I guess you could use pledge/unveil if you have all the networking side sorted. I can't see involatile storage as an issue there or anywhere OpenBSD runs though and it's focus on security means updates are fairly infrequent?? p.s. Even app engine uses a fairly big and useful install, before the deploy stage.
