OpenBSD partitioning scheme

Why is the OpenBSD partitioning scheme such a fucking joke?

Attached: Capture-3.png (722x402, 15K)

What's wrong with it?

What's the point of separate partitions for all those /usr subdirectories

easy recovery

Didn't you like traditional UNIX, Jow Forums?
Well, there is. Traditional UNIX partition layout.

The reason they suggest using so many separate partitions is to control the impact of someone spamming a directory full of large files, and also to prevent the entire filesystem becoming corrupted if something goes wrong. You can just use one filesystem if you prefer, as long as it is partition "a".

There are however some weird quirks in the way the partitions are labelled (with a, b, c, etc.), as partition "c" isn't actually a partition and instead always represents the entire disk, kind of like "/dev/sda" in linux as opposed to "/dev/sda1". Also, all OpenBSD partitions are within a "BSD disklabel", which is OpenBSD's own partition table which lives entirely within one real MS-DOS partition. All the other real partitions however are still accessible, but they start at "i", or otherwise the next available letter. So "a", "b", "d", "e", "f", g", ... are all partitions within the BSD disklabel, while "c" and "i" onwards (unless "i" is already taken by BSD partitions) aren't.

Why they keep that annoying scheme?

Not a clue. But they can't exactly change the naming convention for block devices without breaking things. It's probably the case that historically only the BSD disklabel was used for partition lettering and they somehow had to kludge in support for reading other partitions on the disk outside the disklabel.

security reasons among the other ones mentioned above

how else are you gonna use wxallowed

Historically you would do that so you could keep them on separate drives or NFS mounts (4GB in a desktop was a wet dream when they designed it). Also, it lets you easily reinstall or update without risking the rest of your files.

OpenBSD is a meme
>Filesystem
default FS doesn't even support SSD TRIM, and I don't think OpenBSD supports anything modern like ZFS or BTRFS.
>Security
"Only two remote holes in the default install!!!!!!!"
Yay!
I hope you realize that this literally only applies to a base system install with absolutely no packages added. In other words, not exactly representative or meaningful towards... anything really
>Sustainability
A few years ago, OpenBSD was actually in danger of shutting down because they couldn't keep the fucking lights on. How could anyone see this as a system they could rely on, when it could be in danger of ending at any time?
>Standards-compliance
"B-But OpenBSD is written in strictly standards-compliant C! Clearly that's better than muh GNU virus!"
So you're not allowed to create extensions to the standard? You should only implement the standard and nothing more? Keep in mind that this is nothing like EEE, as the GNU extensions are Free Software, with freely available source code, as opposed to proprietary shite. People should be allowed to innovate and improve things.
If you're gonna be anal about standards-compliance, then why let people make their own implementations anyway? Why not have the standards organizations make one C implementation and force everyone to use it?

Attached: thicc.jpg (442x293, 28K)

every single day

Never more true user.

"I think the OpenBSD crowd is a bunch of masturbating monkeys"

Attached: 92584-37796-i_rc.jpg (416x234, 13K)

what grinds my gears is /usr partition being too small by default

Shitty extensions by gnu (like in GCC or most of the coreutils) are clearly EEE. Most of the time there is no indication that they are extensions, so people use them unknowingly which breaks portability.
Of course other implementations could copy them, but a lot of the time they have ideological reasons not to, it's not just a matter of being able to.
I wouldn't be so mad at shitty GNU extensions if they made it clear what is standard and what is not.

So much bullshit in on single post, kys

Point me to what are GNU extensions in any of the coreutils just by looking at the manpage.

is it at least LVM or is there an option to do this

>BSD
>code for free, someone else steals your work
>GPL
>code for free, you still own the code AND make it hard for big companies to steal your work
BSD is a cuck license because someone can take your code, close it off and profit from it without you gaining anything

Attached: being a cuck.png (1720x4985, 471K)

>providing a licence file is stealing
dumbass

>you still own the code
Hahahaha. Tell that to the author of libreboot.
Once it was part of GNU, he lost all the right to his code. It belonged to GNU now.

Those fuckers are more than glad to appropriate your code if they want it.

BSD is the better licence.

Other compilers are shit, GCC offers extensions and you come here crying? Kys faggot

It's mostly fine, except that separate filesystem for X11. Why would you separate X11 into its own filesystem?
As a Linux admin I'd also create a separate /boot, but apparently OpenBSD just puts the kernel binaries straight into /. Which is interesting because it makes me question how they booted on PCshit hardware 20 years ago.

And GNU is garbage software that will limit legitimate use-cases just to prevent potential proprietary software (cf. emacs gcc debacle). Luckily GNU will sooner or later fall into irrelevance.
clang already trounces gcc in extensibility

There is a big difference between licensing your code as gpl and giving away your copyright to gnu

Fake news

use ISC
clang is not shit

>clang already trounces gcc in extensibility
oh wow, it's almost as if gcc was made monolithic on purpose because of RMS's politics

>ISC
shit license

>clang is not shit
it is

wow, careful there, you can cut yourself being so edgy

not an argument

Well, code was under GPL, but after joining GNU it was suddenly not his code anymore.
So much for "free software". When Stallmann/fsf/GNU need something, they use the proprietary tactics. Fuck them.

Also, I completely agree with . I was happily using MUSL and would have gladly continued, if so much shit made by Indians wasn't compiled exclusively against glibc.

not an argument

compilers need extensions because languages aren't designed against real CPUs and especially C since it was designed against 16bit toaster

>is almost as if he signed the license transfer

Attached: 1zl41p.jpg (564x460, 29K)

blocked :)
what issues are you having with musl? been using it on my desktop and servers for half a year now

That doesn't make it any good. In fact, having politics dictate the architecture of your software is retarded.
It's especially funny since the GPL does nothing against software being used in servers for proprietary purposes which is the dominant use case these days.
>l-lol so edgy

Are we talking about the same guy who got the license back by Stallman himself?
Are we talking about the same guy who got back to GNU after accepting he was wrong and he was manipulated by his friend?

>what issues are you having with musl?
Panasonic usioes binaries as part of my printer's drivers.
I literally can not print documents while using MUSL.

Plus small annoyances like segfaulting mypaint(I've opened an issue) and no chromium-widevine.

Once again, so much for "free software".

>That doesn't make it any good. In fact, having politics dictate the architecture of your software is retarded.
I know. I was just pointing out that clang being extensible isn't much of an achievement when its biggest competitor is crippled on purpose.

>implying you can't fork GPL code
>implying you can fork back MIT/BSD proprietary forks

Are you whining about a license carrier having the rights?

Dude, HE signed the license transfer

why would you ever make your code open source in the first place?

t. BSD cuck showing his true face

What's the matter cuck, can't win the argument and you use your last resort?

>You have to work your code, because it's no longer yours
Sweet.

In this case, yes.
Either your true goal is "free as in freedom software" or control over IP. In the latter case you may as well use proprietary licence.

>Nobody has ever been coerced/fooled into signing something they are not comfortable with

You are implying a load of bullshit. Low level bullshit. Can I assume all BSD cucks love to tell lies and seed discord?

Attached: cuck.jpg (812x686, 150K)

>lets accuse something really bad just for the sake of it

So, if the GPL grants the owner rights is bad, but if BSD/MIT lets big companies steal work is ok?

>steal work
>Open source
Are you retarded?

Not an argument, he did resign to the ownership. And even then, Stallman was a cool guy and asked the other people to give him back the ownership.

In your words, not mine. But again, you are implying a lot of bullshit anyway.

Is all bullshit from the BSD cuck since a couple posts. Is probably a good idea to not take the bait.

Attached: 1issnv.jpg (620x348, 33K)

>Not an argument, he did resign to the ownership
Sure, people make mistakes.
>Sure was a cool guy
Only after the dev made a huge fuss about that.
But yeah, that was good on his part, not going to deny that.

I never said "steal".
But yeah, under BSD your code is actually free and you are free to do with your code as you please.
Under GPL, as it turned out, not so much.

Don't respont to the cuck.

For nosuid, noexec, nx enforcement security, and to easily manage and prevent tmp and logs issues.

How many people use BSD on desktop pc?

the saddest part is is that this is copy and pasted by this one retarded neet every time, this isn't a bot. imagine being like this? what makes someone this retarded?

i'm a big fan, works great.

Is ksh93 better than OpenBSD's default pdksh?
What are the differences?
Should I switch to ksh93?

Attached: chitose.jpg (400x386, 33K)

93 tried to be normal programming language and add some new features like associated arrays while pdkhs is very posix (posix = disaster of computers)

Normally you don't have anything in /usr since all user installled stuff goes to /usr/local.
The only "big" folder in there might be /usr/ports if you never clean up after compiling.