OpenBSD Finally Adds Guided Disk Encryption To Its Installer

[aht0]

You can use VeraCrypt port in OpenBSD when needing encryption, Jesus. So much drama

[elatllat]

Now if only the Debian installer could offer a one click luks/btrfs option.

[Estranged1906]

Don't know why the none of the BSDs will implement an installer on par with what Archinstall offers, not even speaking of the GUI installers that Ubuntu, Suse, Fedora etc offer!

Why isn't it standard to be able to do things like disk encryption or setting up an installation of X.org + lightdm + Xfce? When I installed NetBSD a while ago in a VM I even had to set up the correct package repo, I just don't understand why this isn't all automated by default.

[kn00tcn]

Don't know why the none of the BSDs will implement an installer on par with what Archinstall offers, not even speaking of the GUI installers that Ubuntu, Suse, Fedora etc offer!

Why isn't it standard to be able to do things like disk encryption or setting up an installation of X.org + lightdm + Xfce? When I installed NetBSD a while ago in a VM I even had to set up the correct package repo, I just don't understand why this isn't all automated by default.

i actually prefer arch's manual way, in fact i was surprised alpine strongly pushes towards an install script (which made it very confusing trying to figure out how to install it without overwriting data.... arch is simply a strap then a bootloader, which i also managed to do with debian's debootsrap skipping their installer entirely (stop forcing recommended packages! next i need to figure this out for fedora))

i also like starting the DE manually just in case there's an issue during boot/login, plus i have no need for a login manager if i'm the only user

generally you just need to install packages to have a DE ready, but xorg seems to need the right config or a specific command to start rootless which definitely should be automated or part of a standard guide (like you, i was trying out distros in VMs, somehow openbsd with its option to install xorg still resulted in not being able to start unless root, had the same issue in alpine, think i'm close to figuring it out thanks to yet another distro's (void's) guide)

[aht0]

Don't know why the none of the BSDs will implement an installer on par with what Archinstall offers, not even speaking of the GUI installers that Ubuntu, Suse, Fedora etc offer!

Why isn't it standard to be able to do things like disk encryption or setting up an installation of X.org + lightdm + Xfce? When I installed NetBSD a while ago in a VM I even had to set up the correct package repo, I just don't understand why this isn't all automated by default.

Unappealing basic installer is by far the best filter for keeping whiny Linux teenagers far far away. Cold, brutal but nevertheless true.

You can install whole set of offline manuals and have access to terminal. You dont really need much else besides patience.

Immature individuals fail right about there.
Easier than admining forum where they'd endlessly "request" this or that (so it could be like Linux). Dude, contribute it, wait or use Linux...

Oh yeah. SUSE.. downloaded Leap 15.4. GOT literal shitton hash errors during install. Tried different blank, verified all the files post-burn.. still same issue (full ~4GB iso, in k3b, then Wins BurnAware Free to make sure).

Still need to install it, SUSE's one remotely dumbuser friendly distro I can install National ID flatpack on (official one is Ubuntu from binary 3rd party repo (,gov owned).

[Estranged1906]

Unappealing basic installer is by far the best filter for keeping whiny Linux teenagers far far away. Cold, brutal but nevertheless true.

You can install whole set of offline manuals and have access to terminal. You dont really need much else besides patience.

Immature individuals fail right about there.

I guess you're right about OpenBSD (which this thread is about after all) - it's never going to be more than a toy for a few nerds who feel too cool for Linux or FreeBSD.

[aht0]

I guess you're right about OpenBSD (which this thread is about after all) - it's never going to be more than a toy for a few nerds who feel too cool for Linux or FreeBSD.

Don't like Linux for other reasons than 'coolness'. Which in itself is as stupidly childish reason as can be.
OS is a tool. When it makes use easier for dumb-user: I've got no problem them using it.
At some point that makes use 'easier' is hitting point of negative return and I am behind that. Cant be arsed to relearn shit every time devs reinvent their sh## in Linux, no such worry with BSD's.
Imagine them BSD's as tool of another, more traditional brand.

[kylew77]

I guess you're right about OpenBSD (which this thread is about after all) - it's never going to be more than a toy for a few nerds who feel too cool for Linux or FreeBSD.

Full disk encryption not withstanding, getting a desktop up and running in OpenBSD is easier than in FreeBSD, assuming you don't have Nvidia that is. FreeBSD the very first time I used it back in the early 2000s around Version 5.0 could be wrong, FreeBSD offered a X server install with the OS too just like Open and NetBSD. NetBSD defaults to the ctwm wm from the ancient TWM it used to ship with as the default and OpenBSD installs fvwm, twm, and cwm and defaults to the first.

I don't remember the story completely but I was reading that when FreeBSD pulled down the Linux DRM it pulled something it shouldn't that wasn't dual licensed so that is why modern Intel and AMD drivers reside in ports instead of being baked into the OS kernel and have to be installed and loaded at boot.

[aht0]

Even in FreeBSD getting desktop going means executing few commands (there is semi-automated script you'd give your choices in FreeBSD ports)