I will defend my "heaviness" argument, though. Sure, you can run OpenBSD on large hardware, but it's not going to be able to take advantage of it like FreeBSD can. Which makes sense if you think about it - FreeBSD optimizes for heavy workloads. Conversely, if you set up minimal installs, OpenBSD will be smaller. Again, that makes sense, since OpenBSD focuses on security over features (plus the only truly secure code is the code that doesn't exist). There's a lot of overlap in the middle, of course.

I wouldn't use OpenBSD for a NAS, and I wouldn't use FreeBSD for a diskless firewall. Not because they can't do those things - they just each have their strengths and weaknesses.

NetBSD is small and simple. It's a lot like an old-school UNIX. It makes a decent platform for small services. I run bind and dhcpd on a NetBSD machine. The source code is very pleasant to read. It uses the pkgsrc software repository. It's my preferred platform for writing POSIX code.

OpenBSD still carries much of the general feel of NetBSD and can fill a similar niche on a network, but the security focus stands out in their documentation, subprojects (OpenSSH, LibreSSL, OpenNTPD, etc.), APIs (see pledge(8)), and policies. It makes for a great firewall. I'd say it also requires the most know-how.

All of them have excellent documentation (especially compared to Linux distros) and the base system is developed alongside the kernel, giving you a very consistent experience compared to Linux distros where everything is developed in isolation. If you write C, it's worth keeping a BSD system around just for the manpages and to make sure you're not letting Linuxisms creep into your codebase.

In the US there's usually a good variety of food from all different cultures available. When I spent two months in Spain, I got really, really tired of the same three seasonings the Spanish put on everything. I craved Mexican food like crazy the whole time.

Spanish food is great, don't get me wrong - I wish we had it here in the sticks where I live - but I'm used to a bit more variety.

I haven't checked to see how that went, but it sounded like the perfect test case for hydrogen's viability.

(I use that VM as my primary public nameserver now and I don't really need a web front end for git so I'll be keeping my current setup. But if it had been available back then, I'd probably have gone for it.)

Military contractors do well when the military has widespread support from the voters. Congresscritters will happily approve tax dollars going to the military industrial complex when their constituents view the US as the global protector of democracy. Wars like this one that aren't popular and make us look like thugs open the floor up to anti-military candidates. So yeah, the companies building missiles do well while the war is on, but the people like me who automate military fuel farms see budget cuts and projects cancelled.

Text inside a computer doesn't need any of that just to signal a newline. UNIX chose to use a single line feed character as a line separator because there was no good reason to use two. MacOS chose a single carriage return for similar reasons. Anything going out to a printer or teletype would run through a device driver that would turn the newline character into whatever the device expects.

Windows copied DOS which copied CP/M which was a very basic program loader for 8-bit machines and didn't really have "drivers" like we think of them today. I'm guessing here, but I imagine they chose the teletype combo because that's what most serial printers understood and printing was a major use case for those machines. That was probably the right choice for CP/M, but I can't imagine Microsoft would choose it if they were developing Windows from scratch today.

I actually wanted a PHEV, since my car is mostly used for local driving but I also drive hundreds of miles for work trips. Unfortunately I couldn't find one I liked.

Maybe he was just naturally fit. Some people are. But he was undoubtedly fit.

Granted, some were pretty cheap, at least by the early 90s.

No, they're not Olympic athletes but they're considerably more fit than the average American.