On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Karel Kulhavy wrote: > The fact that something doesn't run on OpenBSD already proven to be > handy several times. I needed to run Lotus Notes which is not possible > so I had to put it on a Linux server, which is faster. I don't like > the Lotus Notes but I have to work with them. This way it's faster and > Lotus Notes don't crash when I switch virtual desktop. They also don't > take memory and disk and attack a different CPU than mine :)
The fact that you can save local resources by running a program on a remote machine has little to do with weather or not that program can run on OpenBSD, and certainly doesn't really make the fact that it *doesn't* run on OpenBSD a good thing. E.g., if it *did* run on OpenBSD, you wouldn't need to have the Linux server, it could be an OpenBSD server too. > I also appreciate there is no suspend to disk or ram. On Linux it used > to cause problems - the CPU switched to lower speeds, the keyboard in > X crashed, and when one closed the lid and reopened quickly, it took > many minutes to recover from hysterical suspend-wake cycles. Now I > just run shutdown and have benefits like: > - if I wait on platform and a train comes, I just close the lid and > don't have to wait for wake up in the train > - I can switch to external LCD and turn off the internal LCD easily by > putting a chip from old CDROM over the lid sensor. The fact that there are certain situations where *not* suspending is desirable for you, doesn't make suspend an undersirable feature. If the feature was present, you wouldn't *have* to use it, or have it respond to your lid sensor or whatever, if you didn't want to. > Some people whine that on OpenBSD nothing runs, but I think this is > actually an advantage. This way the user is forced to work with the > properly implemented things and doesn't have to waste time with crap. Just because something isn't currently possible in OpenBSD doesn't mean that functionality is inherently crap. For example, reliable hibernation capability implemented in software could be a useful feature for many people. Pointing this out is not whining, but expressing interest in potential future developments to the OS. I agree with your sentiment that what does work on OpenBSD today, works well, is generally very well implemented, and covers a lot of the needs of most of people. I'm just suggesting that rather than declaring everything else unnecessary or crap, there is always the possibilty of working on improvements and new features, implemented in the same tradition of correctness and stability. Indeed, I'm sure this is what the developers spend a lot of their time on. -- jonathaN
