OpenBSD 5.1 Released

[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.

[LightBit]

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

[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]

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]

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

I never tried it thats true.

http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=2&chap=1

[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.

[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.

[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]

My likeness or hatred towards something comes from reality.
Portage is written in Python, this makes it bloated and less reliable (if something is wrong with Python). Also compiling X11 or Firefox ... is not really interesting.

The example with Gentoo was about ability to tune your system how you like. There were also another example - LFS and there's nothing that can beat it. Arch Linux is somehow similar to Gentoo, but you don't have to compile anything.

[kraftman]

No, I don't think so.

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

Non-standard functions in utilities are bloat, since portable scripts should not depend on them. Why two parameters for same thing like "-A" and "--show-all"?
cat utility is not IDE.

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