On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 at 21:41, Dan Cross <crossd@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> The other day, I needed a Linux machine for work. I grabbed another
> NUC and put Arch on it. A vastly different experience: much more akin
> to installing 7th Edition than Windows or macOS. Oh! And I missed a
> step, so I had to pull some shenanigans to fix that.
>

Gentoo is even more arcane, but that's essentially an "I want to do
everything myself" distribution.  I suppose my point is that there exist a
full range of distributions, from the truly masochistic Linux From Scratch
to the most hands-off/static ChromeOS Flex.  I don't believe that any other
"OS" has such a wide range of offerings.  This is obviously both a
wonderful feature and a confusing nightmare, depending on your audience.


> I'd put the FreeBSD install process somewhere between the two.
> Sure, it's textual, but it's pretty straightforward. OpenBSD is probably
> a tad closer to the Arch-like experience -- it's not as colorful -- but
> it's
> not too hard[*]. So the experience varies across BSDs, but not that
> much, while it's vastly different across Linux distributions.
>

I haven't installed FreeBSD or OpenBSD in many years, but I am familiar
with NetBSD's text-based installer.  It almost reminds me of how Solaris
from the console was - if you want to you can manually set partition sizes
and choose which portions of the OS you want to install, but if you just
choose all of the defaults you'll almost certainly have a reasonable
system.  That being said, it does assume some preexisting level of Unix
knowledge if you want to actually understand what is happening, or
understand how/why you would want to change the defaults.


> The ABI compatibility thing breaks down, too. A colleague was trying
> to get the host-side of a Salae logic analyzer working on Arch, and it
> doesn't. They more or less require Ubuntu 18.something, and that's
> not what he runs. As far as most end-users are concerned, your
> distribution of choice is "Linux", and distributions vary in all kinds of
> ways.
>

What I think might be most confusing to the average user is that there is
not really a "Linux 2" or "Linux 4" or what have you with which to
advertise compatibility.  Specific kernel versions are virtually
meaningless to precompiled or closed-source binaries, it's all about the
libraries.  So you run into the situation of "we tested it on Ubuntu 18 and
that works so that's what we're supporting" because it's probably not worth
the time for a smaller company to validate their software against the
plethora of available versions of available distributions, even if the
solution might be as simple as "add this one package and it will work."

Tangentially, this reminds me of the situation with Solaris and software
compatibility.  For example, the Sun Workshop Compiler 6 was advertised as
only being for Solaris 2.6 and up.  Upon close inspection it turned out
that the only reason for this was that it wanted access to snprintf() and
vsnprintf(), which weren't in the 2.5.1 kernel.  But it turned out that
__snprintf() and __vsnprintf() were, so if you created a very simple shared
library and forced it in the environment with LD_PRELOAD, everything worked
just fine.  Sun later appeared to wise up to this with the introduction of
dependencies on internal shared library versioning.


> I ran into some weird behavior in their bootstrap, though; I traced this
> to something slow in the BIOS, did a fix locally, sent a bug report along
> with a patch, and got told, "go use UEFI." Meh. Ok.... So I went back
> and used UEFI, and the same thing was slow (unsurprising as almost
> certainly the BIOS and UEFI flows share common code), wrote back,
> and got silence. I pinged again the other week and still haven't heard
> anything. Very discouraging. I suspect it's that kind of thing that turns
> people off of at least some of the BSDs.
>

I've submitted patches to NetBSD and this was definitely not my
experience.  It's disappointing to see OpenBSD's "user hostile" stereotype
borne out in reality.

-Henry