I would love to see portable OpenBSD cron. Features like random ranges with steps (https://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article;sid=20230507122935) and `-s` (https://man.openbsd.org/OpenBSD-7.2/crontab.5#s) put it ahead of almost every other. It could replace many uses of systemd timers on Linux.
Edit: Added doas ports.
Sure, they are listed here
https://github.com/ligurio/awesome-openbsd#portable-openbsd-...
The nholstein repo clearly states: This repository temporarily unmaintained.
And the slicer69 project has had some insecure code added in the past: https://xn--1xa.duncano.de/slicer69-doas.html
The awesome-openbsd repo only links to the Duncaen OpenDoas repo: https://github.com/Duncaen/OpenDoas
Ouch... surely no distribution would package this garbage, right?
Also, OpenBSD really doesn't have a huge install base. It's a fairly niche project and the people that work on it really don't care about Linux at all. You'd have to find someone with the skills to be able to translate between the two, the time to do it, and the desire to do it. I have the skills and most of the desire but not the time otherwise I'd be working on projects like this. I've been getting pretty sick of the Linux eco-sphere for a while now so it'd be nice to have some saner production tools. Unfortunately I have to have a day job and no one at work even knows about OpenBSD.
Maybe true for the core OS, but they provide portable OpenSSH, OpenSMTPD, OpenNTPD, LibreSSL and a few others.
I don't think you're wrong about anything. It's true that one may need to pore over kernel code, and yes, often you have the "duty of knowing how the specific Unix was implemented". I just that that you're over-emphasizing the difficulty.
Life is hard (including programming), but that's where we calibrate our zero setting.
But I don't think a total lack of a standard was what should have replaced Unix standardization efforts.
I think my real issue with Linux is that it is increasingly complicated (both the kernel and most distributions). It doesn't feel as "open source" as some of the not even quite open source Unix's, because you need to be a domain expert in a particular area for you to be able to modify it correctly. When you've got a team of people responsible for the whole OS as a single package, there is some incentive to keep your area maintainable. You never know who is going to be switching teams or knocking on your door. With Linux the incentive structure is to make a name for yourself as "the <particular subsystem or utility program> guy", which opens up a lot of potential for feature creep and overengineering.
EDIT: Sorry, I'm a dum-dum, it's written in the README:
> No support for Unicode / UTF-8 / wide character display
> Multibyte support is planned, but is unfortunately non-trivial, […]
