scratchandgame

It doesn't make any sense.

Why staying on old package for unnecessary stability (that stability is for highly "mission critical" things).

I think it would save you someday, when there is nothing writing in /usr so the writing in /home would not cause much damage. On a system with a huge root partition, an incomplete writing might damage the whole filesystem.

Fsck would be faster. newfs (mkfs) would be faster. I found NetBSD spend so much time when it do newfs a 32G root partition (installing NetBSD in hyper-v).

Also for the /tmp partition, we can use memory filesystem (tmpfs) if we have 4G of RAM or more, instead of physical disk to store things that are cleaned on reboot.

It isn't possible :)

Windows' filesystem is different to unix, and it is much flawed.

Partitioning have benefits. It is quite easy to set up "modern gnu/linux" since they all use a graphical installer. For sizes you can refer to openbsd's disklabel(8) man page.

It increase stability and security. Not only for enterprise.

I think it is better to partition /usr (and /usr/local) too, for stability and security

Qubes os does not run xfce in a vm I think?

It actually run everything in a vm, not a container.

Why not put everything in one big partition

https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=154054091026039&w=3

A comment: The guy who make that video might be a troll, I reviewed his videos' titles.

And such bullshit is much more accessible in plain text form.

so few good explanations

What a lack of documentation. On BSDs we didn't suffer that.

I just want a tldr

BSD is an operating system. It diverged into FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD.

The BSDs don’t have the dev resources of Linux simply because Linux has a much larger install base.

Really?

I don't think OpenBSD is as funded as Debian but it could maintain software like OpenSSH (even the portable version for Linux and Windows); LibreSSL (still not much used, but funded because of this), OpenSMTPD.

But OpenBSD can maintain its ports which in my opinion is relatively large (no update for -release, sorry :) ). And base. For so many hardware platform. Even VAX until 6.9

Current distros doesn't support many hardware platform, despite being very well funded. Compared to OpenBSD. (NetBSD is too much, right? and it is not really usable.)

Fedora: Only run on amd64, arm64, arm, ppc64le, s390x

Debian: i386, amd64, arm64, arm, ppc64le, mips64le, s390x, riscv64 (testing).

Alpine: same as Debian but no MIPS support

Add your own here.

There isn't sparc64 support at all!

https://www.openbsd.org/sparc64.html The other architectures that OpenBSD supports have benefited because some kinds of bugs are exposed more often by the 64-bit big endian nature of UltraSPARC.

https://www.openbsd.org/want.html It is important to spread sparc64 around the development community, since it is the most strict platform for detecting non-portable or buggy code.

OpenBSD: alpha, amd64, arm64, armv7, hppa, i386, landisk, loongson, luna88k, macppc, octeon, powerpc64, riscv64, sparc64 (all equally supported except Alpha)

(VAX is discontinued after 6.9)

It’s also lighter weight at its core, which is a big plus for servers.

Really? Busybox is more-or-less feature equivalent to a BSD userland (FreeBSD userland can be a bit more bloated, see the ls man page), but how many people have picked that up? Still using GNU coreutils, haha.

I saw many *BSD developers told Linux kernel developers to hang their work for a while and fix quality problems.

Tell me about how you chose a specific distro because you thought the name was cool or because it ships with some completely unknown utility no one uses.

Alpine Linux: musl, minimal, fast

OpenBSD: correctness, simplicity, easy to use