[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
No books! You're nuts (was: Help)
- To: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: No books! You're nuts (was: Help)
- From: Chuck Yerkes <chuck+obsd_(_at_)_2003_(_dot_)_snew_(_dot_)_com>
- Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 18:07:59 -0400
- Mail-followup-to: Chuck Yerkes <chuck+obsd_(_at_)_2003_(_dot_)_snew_(_dot_)_com>, misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
Quoting Darren (darren_(_at_)_dazdaz_(_dot_)_org):
> There are 0 books out at the moment on OpenBSD, so to claim it is
> *well documented* is wrong and misleading.
Well, OpenBSD is unix (in the non-SCO definition of Unix).
It's a direct descendant of berkeley's unix, the child of
NetBSD in many ways and a cousin of FreeBSD. Is not so far
off from Solaris, OSF/1, Linux, or other unixes (AIX is that
cousin from way up north in the woods who doesn't get out
much and we think it's parents were brother and sister, NextStep/
Darwin is the cousin who works as a designer in New York and
has some wacky, sometimes good, ideas - but is just "different").
What books do I make my Jr. SA's have:
Evi Nemeth, Trent Hein et al's books Unix Sys Admin Handbook.
Unix in a Nutshell is handy to have on a shelf.
A couple books on some shells (cshell handbook, sh and bash books).
The BIND book is around to share, along with others.
If they get interested, the Leffler/McKusick/Bostic 4.4 book
is an outstanding basis for BSD kernels as is the source code.
For the OS unique features, well, it's right there:
When someone has some cycles, I suggest they print out and
run through the init scripts for Solaris and the rc scripts
for OpenBSD. They are just shell scripts.
Need to figure out IPSec (the setup unique to OpenBSD,
and now FreeBSD (thanks mr leffler))? RTFM. With an
emphasis on FINE manpages.
So I'd suggest that there are MANY books out there that pertain
to OpenBSD. I'd also suggest that dead trees are poor choices
for primary docs on an OS that is under development. I've got
books with Solaris 2.6 kernel tuning that's moot for Solaris "8"
and "9" (SunOS 5.8 & 5.9).
If you finish writing a book NOW (a many month process), it will
likely actually hit shelves sometime next December or so. Do *you*
know what 3.4 will bring?
Books covering Photuris and IPFilter use in OpenBSD will be
less useful for setting up IPSec and filtering than the man
pages. This is not a project of HOW-TOs.
> Yes, there is a good
> mailing list and FAQ..
> And yes, I know the date for Absolute OpenBSD is June 2003.
And it will cover 3.2 nicely.
> The installation process is in my opinion still quite confusing for
> people starting out compared with Linux, in fact the installation process
> is what puts most people off. I've never seen figures, but I know
> many people who have started out, and given up due to confusion at
> this stage of the OpenBSD installation.
Really! Most people praise OpenBSD's straightforward install process.
Intel boxes bring their own messiness with "partitions" that aren't
traditional partitions, but that FDisk crap, but I found that Linux
could mangle that. Hell, all the BSD's use one FDISK partition,
and then slices within that. Far clearer, to me, that Linuxes
use of extended and other partitions that make people lean towards
one large file system.
> It's only through spending time banging my head against disklabel etc
> that it's made any sense. It's only because you've done this
> many times that it's easy. Try to think back to the first time.
Yup, SunOS had a lovely tool. That let me overlap partitions.
OpenBSD has "disklabel -E" that makes adding partitions easy.
Gee: really hard:
add a 32 40m
add b <RETURN> 500m
add d <RETURN> 300m
add g <RETURN> 900m
I've created a 40m root, a 500m swap and 300m I'll use for var, etc.
> For the record, I like the end result of OpenBSD, the enhanced
> security available.
And I like the ease of use and, for most of my inside machines,
don't really care about the security (some of the machines have
no root password)
> >> If you want to know how everyday unix services work, OpenBSD is not
> >> for you at this point in time. Linux would be more suitable to start
> >> out with.
This is the key:
If it's too hard and you're not willing to climb that learning curve,
then go away. There are other projects that will anger you less.