I also had some spare servers set up as distcc-pump servers, so very little got compiled on the pi.
If this sort of thing pleases you, more power to you. We need those people and these write-ups to keep everything moving forward, or it's apple all the way down...
I've been using various unices for about 20 years now, ranging from Slackware Linux to OpenSolaris to FreeBSD to Kubuntu. I gave openbsd a try a few years back, and found it utterly complicated to setup and use.
And when you ask for help, you're treated like an idiot and the only reply you get is basically "rtfm". No joke, one of the guys said "Grey Unix beards are formed in suffering".
Granted, a lot of stuff is in the documentation. But also a lot of stuff isn't. Your edge case from laptop X isn't documented, and you're still considered an idiot if you can't solve it.
Even the title of this article reflects that mindset.
Yes, a certain few people on the official mailing lists can be a bit vocal and stingy, and that also goes for one or two asocial a**holes on the inofficial IRC channel (#openbsd/libera), but these people are few and by no means representative of the community. For the absolute majority of occasions, people seeking help on these two venues are met with generous and thorough reciprocation.
If you've used unices for 20 years, and in particular if you've installed the Slackware of old, I cannot imagine why you would feel OpenBSD is complicated to set up. It's technically the neatest, tidiest and least convoluted of the UNIX-likes out there, coupled with the best documentation available. Could it be that you approached it as if it were a "Linux-like"? I see this regularly with new users asking for help in #openbsd/libera, trying OpenBSD out with a bit of Linux in their backpack resulting in some common and entirely logical misconceptions.
I don't think so. I had similar experiences to what GP is reporting.
Edit: I must add, this was many years ago (at least ten)... I then let them on their own playing their games, kept studying gnu/linux and I regret nothing, frankly.
Maybe the fact that there are so many manual steps to have a usable, "production grade", setup? Sure, you just have to follow documentation, but you're in for hours of work and learning tons of concepts before having anything secure if it's the first time. Also, if you make a single mistake along the way, all the help you'll get is a "Yeah, you did something wrong. RTFM".
That certainly isn't the definition of simple to me.
In my experience that's not what the OpenBSD mailing lists are like. Most people will go out of their way to help, but it's also expected that you do your own due diligence first. It's not a commercial project, and not every combination of hardware is going to work perfectly, or is going to be documented.
> Even the title of this article reflects that mindset.
I think you're reading too much into it, and really stretching it for that interpretation. You've gone in with a negative opinion of the OpenBSD community, which I think is an undeserved one, and are viewing it through that lens.
"The complete idiot's guide" is a well-known series of books that cover a variety of topics for beginners; the title is a play on that. It's not an insult.
Nice write-up though, kudos to him.
I've used OpenBSD since 2000. I own a PinebookPro. The tired and lame title makes me think the author is a joke (right or wrong) and I end up not wanting to bother giving this a try.
Even the title of this article reflects that mindset
There's cultural history about that very phrase. There was a series of books written with that exact title. They were intended to "provide a basic understanding of a complex and popular topics. The term 'idiot' is used as hyperbole". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_Idiot%27s_Guides
Edit: I want to add that apparently the author put a lot of effort into writing a fairly comprehensive document. It will probably be quite helpful for someone attempting that install.
The document shouldn't be dismissed just because of the title.
I don't have any experience with OpenBSD or its community, but I'm in several (Linux-related) communities that would also tell you to RTFM if you were to ask a question that we expect is answered in the FM. And we would be happy to be corrected if you came back and told us it wasn't there, or even better if you told us when you initially asked your question that you did read such-and-such parts of the FM and did not find the answer. You could even become the one to update the manual to add the missing info for the next soul who has the same problem.
Basically what I'm getting at is that lots of small communities don't have the resources or inclination to answer the same questions over and over again. Yes the response may not be polite, and if that puts you off of using the software then so be it, but some level of self-help and doing-your-homework is expected before asking questions.
I said "edge cases for laptop X". Of course I read the FM. Of course I did my homework before asking question.
But that's it, right there: just considering that, by default, newcomers are incapable of reading the documentation. You just did it.
Another example might be when startx stopped working for non-root users - a "change / why / what to do now" explanation would have been handy.
But OpenBSD isn't aimed at Unix newbies so it's entirely understandable why that level of hand-holding doesn't exist.
Also, I installed Kubuntu the other day, and I just kept pressing enter.
There was even a checkbox for FDE.
Granted I didn't actually ever need to ask for much help because OpenBSD was so utterly simple to set up.
>And when you ask for help, you're treated like an idiot and the only reply you get is basically "rtfm"
You don't get a "man afterboot" advice for nothing.
Also, the developers assume that they, themselves are idiots that can't maintain complex software, so they rip out as much unnecessary complexity as possible.
Sorry you had a bad experience with someone.
Nobody called anyone an idiot. You just missed the direct and obvious reference to the "Complete idiot guides to" series of books which are themselves a reference of the "for dummies" books.
You’re right though, it’s really tricky getting the partition sizes right. The auto layout is sensible, I just feel that it set aside to much space for home and to little for var.
Linux has all the tools to make use of partitions, but many distros still just go for one big partition. It seems counter intuitive.
This wasn't great in practice. One partition layout certainly doesn't fit everbody, and there is a world of difference between the use case of a laptop, a database server, and a small web server. Most people outgrew the default setup rather quickly.
Over time installers tended to get the simplest use case as default, while allowing users with knowledge to choose their desired file system setup.
Since more than a decade ago it's not necessary to choose since all major file systems have online resizing capabilities and you can change the setup without downtime. There's also no need to be limited by the age old partitioning format. That made the simple default even more appropriate.
Seems like an attempt to make it should Apple-like in naming. Why the need to try and piggyback off Apple? I take it less seriously because of the obvious attempt at invoking Apple. A gimmick name.
