OpenBSD 5.1 Released

[kraftman]

They're not *much* old and he's doing an apples to oranges comparison. Doesn't count.

I agree it's apples to oranges comparison, but it's not me that was comparing OpenBSD to Ubuntu rather than RHEL or Debian.

[kraftman]

I said userland, because glibc is also bloated not just utils.
I would be very interested to see Linux distribution without GNU which would be usable as desktop os (not only for firewalls ...).

I don't see how glibc is bloated. As far as I know it's possible to have usable Linux without GNU. This is one of the reasons I don't like calling it a GNU/Linux.

[LightBit]

I don't see how glibc is bloated. As far as I know it's possible to have usable Linux without GNU. This is one of the reasons I don't like calling it a GNU/Linux.

libc.so (amd64, strip -s):
Arch Linux: 1.7MB
OpenBSD: 793.6KB

Possible, but hard.

[LightBit]

All this means is you don't know anything about Gentoo.

I never tried it thats true.
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handboo...?part=2&chap=1

[LightBit]

It was a rhetoric question. It's exactly like I said.

I guess that was rhetorical answer then.
I tried and it seems you are right. Documentation is a bit confusing.

Is there any way to limit memory usage per process?

Who decides what's standard and not? I prefer GNU way.

Yes, that is a problem. I prefer POSIX way, but that is subjective.
POSIX is accepted as standard by many OSes.

[LightBit]

http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=alpine

Alpine is uclibc/busybox, and can be used as a desktop IIRC. Tiny Core is glibc+busybox. Aboriginal is uclibc+bb, but doesn't do X IIRC. Gentoo can be configured like that. Etc.


I do wonder why, if your target is a desktop, the bloat of glibc and GNU utils even registers; surely the bloat of firefox exceeds their combined bloat 1000-fold? Even the bloat of Xorg is a lot when compared to tinyX, but you still want the acceleration for desktop use.

I did know Alpine Linux, but I didn't know it can run XFCE, Firefox and other desktop required bloat. I will try it.

I want to use same OS for server and desktop.
All web browsers are bloated, because web standards are bloated. And I hope wayland won't be bloated, but maybe i'm to optimistic.
I actually don't need acceleration for my desktop use.

[LightBit]

Linus also said Linux (kernel) is bloated: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09..._bloated_huge/

[kraftman]

libc.so (amd64, strip -s):
Arch Linux: 1.7MB
OpenBSD: 793.6KB

Possible, but hard.

Still, the features and completeness can make a difference.

[kraftman]

I guess that was rhetorical answer then.
I tried and it seems you are right. Documentation is a bit confusing.

Is there any way to limit memory usage per process?

Documentation says "don't overcommit", so it doesn't sound so confusing to me. I never set any limits for processes, but maybe ulimit is what you are looking for.

Yes, that is a problem. I prefer POSIX way, but that is subjective.
POSIX is accepted as standard by many OSes.

Linux and OpenBSD are mostly POSIX compliant, but there are situations where POSIX says nothing and Linux (and probably BSD) has to do things on its own. The one I remember had to do something with real time and scheduling.

[kraftman]

Linus also said Linux (kernel) is bloated: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09..._bloated_huge/

Yes, because when you compare old Linux kernels to the newest one you will notice it has grown a lot! However, it's good, because it gained many drivers, features and some file systems. Newer kernels are much faster in some cases than older ones. It's bloated compared to what it was in the past, but this bloat is mainly related to package size (you still use just few percent of it) and not to parts of the kernel that are running on your box.