BSD Thread
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
General BSD thread, what BSD do you like to use and why?
I like to use FreeBSD because I'm comfortable and familiar with it due to my usage of FreeNAS. FreeBSD makes an excellent desktop operating system with a little bit of work.
>>51724709
>mac os x
That's a stretch...
Anyway, that's the one I'm using. But wouldn't call it a BSD. BSDs are UNIX by heritage, OS X is UNIX by certification and only has some FreeBSD code sharing.
>>51724746
>FreeBSD makes an excellent desktop operating system with a little bit of work.
mfw
it's rather unfortunate that most BSDs were relegated to the research operating system department
I use OpenBSD as a mail server and on my SPARC box. For the mail server, it's damn near bulletproof and very easy to keep stable and secure. For the SPARC box, OpenBSD is the best sparc64 OS that isn't Solaris in terms of port quality and package number.
What's harder to install? BSD or gentoo?
>>51725780
Gentoo/FreeBSD
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_FreeBSD
>>51725780
OpenBSD install is literally 5 minutes and pressing enter a few times. It's on youtube if you're interested.
>>51725780
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSEr6wGxGwI
Even comes with X11 in the base system if you so choose.
>>51724756
OS X isn't much of a stretch. It uses the freeBSD manpages actually.
>>51726111
>uses freebsd manpages
This board surely is full of posers that pretend they know what they are talking about.
>>51724746
>FreeBSD
>excellent desktop operating system
Nice joke.
>>51726360
>>51724779
What's wrong with FreeBSD?
>>51726385
It's a poor choice for a desktop OS unless you have very modest needs. Much of it has nothing to do with the OS (which is great), but the fact that many open source software is written with Linux in mind.
OSX because it just works desu.
>>51726169
i mean it does
>>51726385
>What's wrong with FreeBSD?
Nothing
But running it as a desktop OS (aka PC-BSD) is just the biggest timesink ever. People complain about how much waste of time it is to run Linux because nothing works and everything breaks etc. Linux desktops are infinitely better supported than FreeBSD desktops.
>>51726111
>using man pages = being freebsd
fucking wot?
>>51726561
How the hell does that make it FreeBSD?
I can install cygwin and download GNU man pages on Windows, it doesn't fucking make my OS GNU/Windows.
>>51726385
It doesn't respect your freedoms.
>>51726617
but most of the cygwin userland IS GNU
>>51726655
I don't think you understand what a userland is.
I don't think you even understand what an OS is.
what are the BSD shells such as korn for OpenBSD or Bourne for FreeBSD like compared to Bash? Is bash worth installing for anything other than to use screenfetch?
>>51726617
well for one it was based on freebsd for one
>>51726690
Bash is almost like Bourne shell
>>51726690
not really imo unless you absolutely need bash extensions
if you write shell scripts you should always make sure they at least work with standard sh so its portable as possible
>>51726731
how hard would it be to port screenfetch to ksh?
>>51725780
Gentoo. By a longshot. FreeBSD isn't all that hard, but it is a pain in the ass. Mainly though if you want a desktop. Get X working correctly just fucking sucks. If you don't want a DE, then it's a breeze to setup.
OpenBSD on the other hand is about as simple as it could possibly be, and considering that it's installer is text based, that's saying a lot. The only thing that might throw you off a bit if you're new to it is partitioning your system, but you can opt to let it be done automatically as well. It's actually not difficult to do manually it's just a bit unintuitive at first. It's something that could definitely stand some improvement.
You can opt to install X as part of the base. In fact it's selected by default. Since this is done automatically that literally takes away like 99% hassles of getting a DE setup. All you need to do from there is edit some files here and there, and install whatever DE/WM package you desire--XFCE4 works very well, and I've heard KDE does too. Gnome on the other hand not so much.
As far as it goes OpenBSD is superior to FreeBSD as a desktop. FreeBSD is a server OS, and the devs have little interest in improving the desktop experience. They are all Macfags, which is what they develop FreeBSD on.
OpenBSD is also a server, but the devs use it as a desktop. OpenBSD is developed on OpenBSD, and they've put a lot of effort into improving the experience. They have the best developed graphics stack of any of the BSDs, whereas FreeBSD has one guy who works on theirs, part time.
OpenBSD also uses their own version of X (Xenocara), and in my experience it's less of a bitch to manually mess with than is typical everywhere else. This is because it's stripped down, and more or less rewritten to meet OpenBSD's security and code correctness standards.
>>51726755
no idea, never bothered looking through screenfetch or even the intricacies of ksh
>>51726690
It doesn't matter, you can install any shell you like. I run zsh on openbsd.
I've been playing with FreeBSD for about a month and there were two times when I needed to compile programs from sources because they either didn't have a port (Gargoyle interpreter) or the port was old as fuck (Code::Blocks). Gargoyle compiles fine after adding BSD specific rules to its makefile, but refuses to work because of the Linux specific code (readlink("proc/self/exe")). Code::Blocks also compiles fine, but throws a segfault.
>>51724709
FreeBSD.
Work on my old toaster.
Work on my router.
Work on my desktop.
>>51726762
How does FreeBSD compare as a server OS to the common Linux server distros?
openbsd master race
dat security
dat minimalism
dat based theo
>>51726718
I'd hope so since its bash is "bourne again shell"
>>51727729
FreeBSD has some workstation/server features gnu/linux doesn't.
>Jails for sandboxing software
>ZFS for storing and archiving large amounts of data
>Dtrace for diagnosing and fixing problems in the OS or applications
FreeBSD also has a Linux compatibility layer called Linuxulator for running Linux-only binaries.
For a casual user there's not much need for FreeBSD aside from curiosity.
>>51727165
>I needed to compile programs from sources because they either didn't have a port (Gargoyle interpreter)
You can write port for yourself and send pr on bugzilla it's easy as fuck:
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/quick-porting.html
>the port was old as fuck
Write patch send pr or just send pr with request for update.
https://freshports.org/devel/codeblocks/
>but refuses to work because of the Linux specific code
Ask developer of your program for fix.
> Code::Blocks also compiles fine, but throws a segfault.
Write pr on bugzilla.
And not forget you can just use package via pkg.
>Using BSD at all
>Not using OpenBSD
Honestly, if I'm my computer's not going to work with any of my games, might as well go full retard and use the most secure BSD.
I would use BSD on every device if it had more support. It's too bad its support sucks since they were fighting a lawsuit over nomenclature and Linux overtook them. BSD would be objectively superior if the two had the same software support.
How's gpu driver support amongst the various BSD's?
>>51728815
roughly in order: openbsd, dragonfly, freebsd, netbsd.
that's for intel/amd. nvidia is only really supported on freebsd (proprietary driver).
>>51725039
But they weren't, that's what they always were made for, and what made them free to begin with.
>>51725780
>>51726762
OpenBSD may be a superior desktop OS in the sense of building a working desktop, but it stops there. Their ports/packages list aren't anywhere near as vast as FreeBSD, and they keep programs outdated for security reasons. You have to be pretty tinfoil to make those compromises, and if setting up a desktop is really that hard, I'd go with PC-BSD or GhostBSD.
inb4 b4awesome
>>51729123
>and they keep programs outdated for security reasons
For example...?
>>51729256
I'm just saying what I've heard. It makes sense though, the don't want to deal with maintaining extra vulnerability bugs in newer patches, so they keep it at that.
>>51729326
>I'm just saying what I've heard.
I thought as much.
>>51729326
>I'm just saying what I've heard.
Not disagreeing, but that is horrible reasoning you fucking parrot
>>51729326
holy fuck faggot
Do you just advocate all bullshit your mind thinks "makes sense"?
Where's the guy that always bitches at openbsd in these threads for "meme auditing" and not having jails and then backpedals at pledge and chroot?
BSD certainly is ready for desktop use that is if you are still using a pc from 1999
>>51732500
nice photoshop
>>51726111
I installed the GNU Coreutils on my FreeBSD system so now it's a GNU/Linux distribution!!
>>51724709
>>51724756
>>51726111
Darwin/BSD was legit BSD
the problem now is Apple refuses to release the source to major parts, like the kernel.
it was going to be an awesome system with a huge company like Apple spearheading development, but it's effectively dead now.
Is OpenBSD actually more secure than other BSD variants or is that just a meme?
Also, how does BSD in general stack up against Linux? I'm interested since I keep hearing all these good things but I'm concerned with stuff not running.
>>51725820
Have any of you actually used this?
>>51732597
They still release all the same stuff with every OSX release.
>>51732647
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBSD_security_features
>>51732552
Not really, though. it doesn't have the Linux kernel, so it's hard to be a linux system. As for a distribution, you're not really giving it out and maintaining it, so it's not that either.
>>51732676
show me where I can download the Darwin kernel used in OS X 10.11
http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/apple.htm
>>51728699
genuine question: which is more secure OpenBSD or Hardened Gentoo?
>>51732647
>Is OpenBSD actually more secure than other BSD variants or is that just a meme?
It is generally more secure. Some links: http://www.openbsd.org/papers/ru13-deraadt/ (mentions the freebsd status), https://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-pkg/2015/07/18/msg015276.html (netbsd devs coming up with weak excuses to not implement basic stuff like stack protection and pie by default). Plus lots of privsep and chroot and pledge throughout the system, package daemons always have their own user so they never need root...
>Also, how does BSD in general stack up against Linux?
generally if it's open source then it works on bsd. (e.g., openbsd has up-to-date firefox, chrome, gnome, mpv, and lots of games/emulators) Also graphics performance is decent enough if you're ok with open source drivers. if you want proprietary nvidia then freebsd is the only one supported, but other chipsets are generally better with openbsd or maybe dragonfly.
the real nice thing about bsd is how simple it is to configure (and how much less of it is necessary). documentation is centralized on the website and in the manpages, so googling years-old forums/wikis/blogs is not the norm, unlike linux. bsd-grown software generally has a much nicer interface (compare pf to iptables, or openbsd's httpd to apache), and the systems are generally lighter weight. also licensing, if you care about that stuff.
>>51732647
Yes, Open is much more secure than Free, which doesn't audit anything in their base system, packages, etc.
>>51732777
>generally if it's open source then it works on bsd. (e.g., openbsd has up-to-date firefox, chrome, gnome, mpv, and lots of games/emulators)
>>51732734
If I had to guess, it'd probably be OpenBSD. I haven't read enough on both to say for sure, but if I had to venture a guess, it'd be OpenBSD, since I've heard it touted as the ultimate in security.
Is there a Wine equivilant or something that I can use to play games? BSD sounds like it's better than loonix in so many ways. I'd switch if I didn't think the software I'm missing on Linux wasn't already crippling enougj.
>>51733133
freebsd does have wine. openbsd doesn't.
freebsd also has linux emulation (basically what wine is for windows) but i doubt it would work as well as wine for gaming.
>>51733231
OpenBSD also has Linux emulation
>>51732734
that's kind of a difficult question because it will always come down to configuration, openbsd edges it out in a lot of factors due to the fact that the distro's entire ideology is rooted in security, whereas with gentoo, that is just one of many paths to take. that being said, a properly configured hardened gentoo server with grsecurity, proper privileges/ACLs, and smart package selection can hit the same level of security as a good openbsd setup. they give you the tools to protect yourself, but it's ultimately you that dictates how secure you actually are.
>>51733231
>freebsd does have wine. openbsd doesnt.
I wonder why. Maybe I should ask the devs why it doesn't.
>>51733236
>OpenBSD also has Linux Emulation
>Emulate Linux
>Run Wine
>Run gaymes
>shitty performance
>???????
>PROFIT
What could go wrong?
>>51726679
I don't think you understand what sex is, neckbeard.
>>51733359
>brings up sex in unrelated discussion
>calls someone a neckbeard on /g/
>posted >>51726655
>>>/out/ !!!
>this whole thread
nice thread, here's a kitten
Why with BSD specifically do people pretend to know what they're talking about, I'm talking about people who do not use BSD speaking as if they're experts on it despite being emphatically wrong. The same goes for OS X too, as if everyone is some historian because they read someone on a bbs one time and are now parroting this misinformation.
Neither of these things are mythical things, you can actually fact check yourself before making these posts, holy crackers. I feel like these are the same people spreading FUD about GNU.
>>51726762
Getting a FreeBSD desktop setup is about the same experience as getting an Arch one, if people don't want it to be a pain in the ass PC-BSD does exist for them. It's as simple as installing Xorg, xinit, and openbox for me personally to get up and running.
>>51733438
Are you talking about MS shills spreading FUD?
>>51733491
I don't know who's doing it but it's stupid. Like why would you just post something without knowing if it's true or not. I heard OS X is actually Solaris, Bill Joy himself worked on 3/4ths of it and did it all in 2 months, there's no way to disprove what I'm saying, Google and Wikipedia do not exist.
>>51733549
Sometimes I think they do, but for what purpose.
>>51733491 cause I used Debian (2004-200?) and Slackware (200?-2010) for a while, and I'm curious about the BSDs and haven't gotten around to experimenting them much, due to various inconveniences in my real life.
But, I don't ever have much to add about what I know very little about, and don't ever parrot others, or have anything to say about what I know absolutely nothing about. For example, I haven't come to any conclusions regarding which BSD I like the best, and still am not really on a particular side regarding GPL vs BSD licenses, I think both are alright. I have been something I have thought of as 'noobification' (things like gnome3/systemd/wayland that will make most gnu/linux distros more windowsy), but have been curious about the BSDs since before that was even clear to me, it started when I got curious about the history of unix.
I have stated in these threads, that I'm opinionated in regards to AT&T getting all DMCA-like and taking legal action over it when, I thought it was neat that someone kept working on their fork of unix anyways. I don't bullshit, I would say it if I liked what AT&T did back then. Also, I was sitting, completely alone, when I was maybe about 17 years old, when I considered this, and formed this opinion.
>>51733512
>I don't know who's doing it but it's stupid. Like why would you just post something without knowing if it's true or not.
It sure as fuck isn't me. To the best of my ability, I like to avoid being wrong. Do you mean the meme about OpenBSD's security being a meme? I think that's some FreeBSD vs OpenBSD trolling, and I don't think I can really be sure of who's right, though from what I've seen, I'm having an easier time taking the ones who argue for OpenBSD seriously.
>I heard OS X is actually Solaris, Bill Joy himself worked on 3/4ths of it and did it all in 2 months, there's no way to disprove what I'm saying, Google and Wikipedia do not exist.
Sounds like bullshit, but I guess that's the whole point.
>>51733645 and yet, while >>51733512 sounds liek bullshit, it just may be right.
fugggggggggg (I come to /g/ to get 'trolled', to hear anything I don't want to believe so there's some deniability, and then, look to see if it's true when I can deal with it)
>>51733645
>gnome3/systemd/wayland that will make most gnu/linux distros more windowsy
I get the first two, but why include wayland in this? It's primarily an effort to unfuck the state of the Linux display server.
>>51733512
At the worst, I'm pessimistic enough to have been trolled by people saying Eric Schmidt was the boss of Oracle, and didn't look to see if they're wrong, because, I didn't want to find out they're right.
BSD is in a sorry state of existance, being forked into different projects that fight amongst themselves, and maybe a bit obscure outside of being used for servers. (I just want a good OS to program on.)
>>51733682
It doesn't even seem that fucked to me, and I'm pissed that everything I learned before is going to be obsolete info later, and wayland's existance seems pretty pointless. But whatever.
>>51724756
No, OS X is a legit BSD. The kernel[1] contains a BSD subsystem and the core utils are all derived from FreeBSD.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU
>>51733645
I don't mean you personally, I just always see the same posts on the same topics that are factually wrong, I just want to know where the information is coming from, it honestly reminds me of people talking about GNU/Linux in the early 2000's.
>lol no software
>lol no drivers
>it's too hard to use
People spout it then other parrot it for years, I don't get it.
The stuff with OS X too as if you can't read up on the history of it yourself, people just argue over the same incorrect statements. Waste of time. Like I get arguing over opinions, whatever but these are facts in history there shouldn't be any argument. I don't know why this topic in particular draws these people.
The stuff about Bill Joy I made up on the spot and it was supposed to sound like bullshit.
>>51733683
>that fight amongst themselves
Shit like this, where are you getting this impression? That's simply not the case, even the origin of OpenBSD isn't as dramatic as people make it out to be and even if it was that was in 1996, OpenBSD sure as hell isn't fighting with NetBSD for almost 20 years. The few BSDs are about as friendly with each other as GNU distros are.
>>51733704
>Shit like this, where are you getting this impression?
Just from all the trolling on here, and I am a pessimist, so when I assume things, it tends to be negative.
>That's simply not the case, even the origin of OpenBSD isn't as dramatic as people make it out to be and even if it was that was in 1996, OpenBSD sure as hell isn't fighting with NetBSD for almost 20 years. The few BSDs are about as friendly with each other as GNU distros are.
Okay, thanks for correcting me.
>I don't mean you personally, I just always see the same posts on the same topics that are factually wrong, I just want to know where the information is coming from, it honestly reminds me of people talking about GNU/Linux in the early 2000's.
>all that shit in greentext
>People spout it then other parrot it for years, I don't get it.
I think that's MS shills spreading FUD.
>The stuff with OS X too as if you can't read up on the history of it yourself, people just argue over the same incorrect statements. Waste of time. Like I get arguing over opinions, whatever but these are facts in history there shouldn't be any argument. I don't know why this topic in particular draws these people.
Apple fanboys.
>The stuff about Bill Joy I made up on the spot and it was supposed to sound like bullshit.
Okay, good.
>>51733693
X isn't going away for awhile, but it needs to go. It comes from an era where its intended design was to be run over a network. Linux and hardware has changed a hell of a lot since its inception, and it seems to have less and less of a place as time goes on. It's not like the init system wars at all, like this actually should happen.
>>51733741
I don't mean to come off as some kind of asshole but you really shouldn't say things like that if you don't know the truth.
>BSD is in a sorry state of existance
Is a pretty harsh claim to make without actually knowing the real picture and others will read it and repeat it despite the fact they don't know the truth either which leads to more of this same problem. This kind of thing is true generally not just in this context.
I still like this
>>51726385
It's not good.
No support from anyone, hipster outdated shit.
>>51733780
>It Just Works™
>>51733765
You're right, that was just my perception, based on the pessimistic assumptions I tend to make about pretty much anything. I don't want people to parrot that if it's wrong, which it very well might be, being my pessimistic assumptions. The exact levels of paranoia I'm capable of is kind of funny in hindsight.
>>51733757
Maybe, I never really learned a whole lot about X, just how to configure it, so maybe there is a whole lot wrong with it that I don't know about, though it never gave me any serious problems.
>>51733787
you know when you use hipster as this weird catch all derogatory term for anything that could slightly be considered niche that it sounds really embittered, makes people disregard your opinion entirely, and makes me think that you're under the age of 18, right?
>>51733787
>an enterprise oriented no nonsense OS primarily aimed at server
>hipster
This is like calling some 80 year old CEO a hipster while he's putting on his tie and belt at 5AM on his way to work. Grandpa aint hip nigga, he aint fresh.
>>51733810
It's okay, I shouldn't get so uppity about it, as if people don't post like that about everything everywhere on the internet.
>>51729123
I don't need all software to work. Just what I need/want to use, or some alternative to it. So far with OpenBSD I've never gotten stuck and had to install another OS just to move forward.
And yes ports aren't kept current. That's because you should be using packages. The ports exist to help developers create packages more easily, and not because you think that your life isn't going to be complete without a custom built version of nano. The FreeBSD and Gentoo people are retarded for wasting their time compiling everything. No need to reinvent the wheel every time you want to go for a drive.
>>51727715
>Work on my old toaster.
>Work on my router.
>Work on my Parallels VM.
ftfy
>>51733765
What you are correcting came from someone who also once thought shit like "Maybe.. Google and Wikipedia and other websites are all lying to me, really they locked up all the BSD devs if they ever existed, and AT&T made these forks of it, and retroactively made the mascot a demon, because they've been watching me because I'm on dialup and they can watch anything that happens on the internet, and they know that if I were in that situation, I would have done the same thing and just kept developing my fork of unix anyways, and they intend to punish me somehow with this..." and then thought "wait, that is beyond paranoid, and it'd be neat if I'm wrong". So yeah.
I hope that was at least amusing, because it's pretty funny to me in hindsight.
>>51733856
It's okay, I know my thinking tends to be a bit pessimistic, sometimes paranoid.
>>51727780
>muh memes
>>51728748
>fighting a lawsuit over nomenclature and Linux overtook them
keep telling yourself that
>BSD would be objectively superior if the two had the same software support
that can't happen because of the license
>>51733893
lmaooo
at&t definitely rounded up all the BSD devs and waterboarded them and subjected them to brainwashing techniques to reclaim their source code
>>51732464
>2015
>muh pledge
>2016
>muh hypervisor
openbsd: always innovating!
>>51733929
rofl it's hilarious once I know it's not true
>>51733929
AT&T don't fuck around yo.
>>51732684
opensource.apple.com
I supposse that Apple must inspect and approve the code before releasing it Open Source.
>>51732684
Darwin is the userland which is comprised of different things (some taken from BSD), XNU is the kernel. They're both in here though >>51733970
I think they still have Darwin ISO images somewhere too.
>>51733787
Enjoy you ever changing kernel made by codemonkeys paided by red hat.
>>51733780
When Apple still cared for the Desktop and Laptop...
>>51733991
>tfw you won't be able to avoid red hat's influence forever
>we will eventually succumb to systemd
>>51734009
>systemd is bad
I actually like it, but that suit is becoming so big that when his cycle ends, trying to reeplace it will be complicated as fuck.
Systemd is becoming the X11 of the system management. And that scares me.
>>51734009
>implying systemd is bad
>>51733998
I will never forget the first time I used a PPC Mac, oh my fucking god it was seemingly the fastest thing I had ever used in my life at that point, the performance jump was absurd.
>>51732464
who knows, maybe he got bored and left.
>>51733991
enjoy your no hardware support
>>51733991
>>51734009
Please don't, *nix users should band together not fight.
>>51734040
works on my system :^)
>>51734027
>trying to reeplace it will be complicated
why replace it? just add new features, increment the version number and call it a day; it's not like it has documented interfaces or a stable API anyway
>>51734040
>hardware support
>says the one defending a kernel with a driver API more unstable that a tumblrina in her period
>>51734046
Linux is becoming every day less and less unix-y
>>51734055
>less and less unix-y
good one m8!
>>51734055
>muh stable driver API
>alas nobody writes drivers for this toy os
top cuck
>>51734053
The same thing they said for X11, and well, we still can't switch to wayland and forget that bloated nigthmare.
Eventually the model and architecture of systemd will be exhausted some time and we will need a new solution. But systemd will be so rooted in linux that will be difficult to change that.
>>51734047
>works on my vm
ftfy
>>51734077
>sony is nobody
Kek
>>51734091
>muh sony drivers
anon...
>>51734077
Enjoy your bleeding edge kernel without drivers :^)
>FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all include instructions for obtaining nonfree programs in their ports system. In addition, their kernels include nonfree firmware blobs.
>Nonfree firmware programs used with Linux, the kernel, are called “blobs”, and that's how we use the term. In BSD parlance, the term “blob” means something else: a nonfree driver. OpenBSD and perhaps other BSD distributions (called “projects” by BSD developers) have the policy of not including those. That is the right policy, as regards drivers; but when the developers say these distributions “contain no blobs”, it causes a misunderstanding. They are not talking about firmware blobs.
>No BSD distribution has policies against proprietary binary-only firmware that might be loaded even by free drivers.
https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html
So how much truth is there to this? I thought OpenBSD was supposed to be open, What is this about blobs in the kernel?
>>51734081
the biggest delusion systemd supporters have is that systemd is an altruistic project that isn't actually a giant push from a billion dollar company to homogenize the linux ecosystem so that it will be more palatable to sell and easier to exercise control over. eventually you won't be able to install sudo without pulling in systemd.
>>51734032
PPC was and still is a godly architecture. Sadly, jews at Intel won because they could reduce power consumption.
Imagine a world where IBM could reduce the energy requeriments of PPC processors...
>>51734122
Actually, I think that's a very good move and altruistic one.
>>51734114
>believing FSF shit about BSD's
>>51734133
please explain in detail why
>>51734081
X was a protocol designed to abstract hardware/implementations. It had a public API that needed to be preserved.
systemd is a bunch of stuff made specifically for gnu/linux systems: it doesn't need to cater to exotic systems or be compliant with anything; it doesn't need to talk over-the-network with other weird devices; most of it is also not stable (wrt. api); bumping the version number just werks™.
>>51734112
>implying I don't have all the drivers already in the bleeding edge kernel tree
stay pleb
>>51734126
I didn't care then and I still don't care today, I'll take the energy and heat issue if if gives me the POWER. We should live in a dichotomy of PPC and ARM, fuck this x86 middleground.
>>51734114
>So how much truth is there to this? I thought OpenBSD was supposed to be open, What is this about blobs in the kernel?
open source can be a blurry line, they can write the driver for it but rely on binary blob firmware in the device and still technically be open source. this is acceptable to the majority of the linux population, but obviously not to the FSF.
>>51734114
>What is this about blobs in the kernel
OpenBSD redefined the word "blob" so it doesn't have any. :^)
>all these hipsters using freebullshitd
>thinking they are entitled to opinion
>>51734194
>look mom i posted it again
>>51734175
Actually, it's not just OpenBSD, Free/Net/DragonflyBSD also don't consider the nonfree firmware to be blobs.
>>51732597
The entire OSX kernel, XNU, is open source.
https://opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/
The only stuff they don't release is proprietary things like Cocoa.
>>51734145
You can say any shit you want against red hat, but they where the ones who where the sufficently powerful to try to bring some order to the mess that was the userland in Linux.
Also, systemd still is free software anyways. This movement could make some autists who like to use Linux like a Lego OS, but I think that uniforming the administration system will make more attractive to developers and users to give linux a try.
>>51734122
>the biggest delusion
No, I'm aware of RedHat's goal wrt. systemd and I don't mind the homogenization; it just doesn't matter as long as the code is GPL.
>>51734114
Device firmware are not part of the kernel.
Basically, your cheap network card or whatever comes with no flash or rom in order to save monies, so the firmware needs to be uploaded to the cards memory by the driver when initialized. openbsd and others contain a framework to do this, and stallman thinks that's horrible.
>>51734147
I'm not talking about the internal functioning of X11 vs systemd, I'm talking more about the dependence we have (or could have) with these software.
It's not like we still very dependent of X11 in the Unix world.
Was going to use netbsd because "I am selecting what OS i want to use and not what hardware I am want to use".
But after following tutorials and failling to install a desktop enviroment, I installed pcbsd
>>51734159
>should live in a dichotomy of PPC and ARM
ARM? The fucking x86 of the RISC world? Instead of MIPS?
IOW, ask me how I know you're an idiot with no knowledge of cpu architectures.
Daily reminder.
>>51734114
All the *BSDs support the kuck license rather than the superior GPL. By including non free software in their kernel and including non free software in the ports, it is a non free system and shouldn't be supported. Until the *BSDs start supporting a libre kernel and begin cleaning up their ports, you should not use the *BSDs rather than the superior GNU/Linux.
>>51734241
Everything that doesn't follow the GPL v3.0 is horrible for stallman.
>>51734261
>autistic anime shit gtfo
>>51734275
>nigger
>not entitled to opinion
>on a animu weeb board
Enjoy having no opinion and no drivers and no support.
>>51734270
>superior license
Says who?
>>51734259
I'm just saying ARM since it's much more likely to happen than MIPS, I don't know how ARM got so big but it did. MIPS seems as obscure as SPARC today but I could just be ignorant to who's using either and for what applications.
>>51734159
For home use, power consumption is an issue. I don't believe you want to pay a grand monthly to use a PPC who emits more heat than a nuclear reactor in DNP.
>>51734159
>muh hipster architecture
x86 is superior, accept it. That's why it won.
>>51734293
It pays for itself in the winter though. I don't actually know about their usage when idle though, I wonder if they'd be alright when thinking about a "race to idle".
>>51734307
>POWER
>hipster
>>51734270
I know you're just a troll, but it should be noted that nearly every linux distribution does the same thing and as such, contain "blobs" and are "nonfree" as defined by the almighty toesucking pedophile.
>>51734307
>superior
Yeah, like linux kernel. Internally both they're a fucking mess, but they're the sufficiently popular and used to get all the attention.
We should be using L4 based UNIX in Sparc - PowerPC boxes, but the worst and popular always win.
>muh hipster os that has zero native packages
>>51734343
>source: me
>>51734343
0/10 bait, apply yourself.
>>51734241
>not part of the kernel
>has full access to system memory
>it doesn't count
m8...
>>51734336
I really need to learn more about L4.
>>51726762
DragonflyBSD actually has the best graphics stack.
They even have a working Wayland port.
>>51734375
>i don't know how to read.
>>51734280
Everyone that contributes to Linux and doesn't contribute to *BSD. It's quite a long list.
going back to the guy who was asking about non free firmware, the *BSDs only installs firmware made for your computer and no other firmware, right? If I installed a *BSD one of those libre thinkpads, it would only install free firmware, right?
>>51734286
>just saying ARM since it's much more likely to happen
Then why mention PPC instead of AMD64? AMD64 already happened!
PPC is as relevant as MIPS.
>>51734375
The same applies for firmware already present on the card in an eeprom. The delivery method changes nothing in this regard. And no, it is not part of the kernel. No stretch of imagination or ideology can make that a true statement.
>>51734383
>muh damage control
>>51734379
Go for it. They're the ones who got the microkernel concept right. The code is awesome. It's like to stare a beautiful naked goddess.
Unfortunately, the damage made by Mach, Hurd and Minix was done, and L4 isn't very popular outside embebed applications
>>51734387
>eat shit, billions of flies can't be wrong
You argument in a nutshell.
>>51734336
In general and as a whole, the Linux kernel is superior, mainly because it has more hardware support. That's why it becomes more popular and gets more attention. There's no big conspiracy behind Linux popularity. You can have a perfectly coded kernel but if it can't use mainstream wifi chips nobody is going to use it. Same with x86 vs PPC. x86 won because it's better for more use cases. It's that simple.
And I like the BSDs, but that doesn't mean I can't see its flaws.
>>51734415
And that's i'm saying.
But compared for example, L4 or illumnos, the code base is a fucking mess. A high quality and organized mess.
We all know that in this field, wins the most adopted solution, regards their beauty.
>>51734387
Don't you realize the license forces them to make that decision? Talk about freedom. Shackles are superior!
>>51734408
>The delivery method changes nothing
It does. It can be updated on a whim by anyone with access to said firmware (eg. employee of hardware manufacturer or whoever can social engineer/strong-arm said employee). A backdoor can be delivered at a later date instead of being present in ROM from the start and risking discovery.
>>51734408
>no, it is not part of the kernel
doesn't matter if it has same level of access as the kernel
>>51734411
>You argument in a nutshell.
It was literally the answer to your question. Now you're gonna backpedal?
I use open bsd on my desktop because it hosts my secure development environment. I use the free bsd hybrid, Darwin (os x), on my laptop because it was a gift.
I had Windows & Linux dual booted on the laptop but opted for an easier virtualized approach.
>>51734438
We ARE talking about the license and how it DOES bring in contributions.
Are you mentally disabled by any chance?
>>51734452
I hope you aren't those guys who spout "logic and reason" because you argument is literally, nonsense.
>>51734459
>I'm a retard
>>51734431
What parts of Solaris is Illumos anyway? Can I build and install a working bare version of it and have a full OS? I'd actually like to give it a shot and see how it is compared to my memory of Solaris. Same goes for packages, is there a canonical package repo, it seems like everyone uses Joyents or pkg-src but they're a third party.
I essentially want the equivalent of a FreeBSD or Arch/Gentoo install, a system with nothing but necessary tools but the ability to expand via packages or ports in the most "native" way. I see a lot of forks using the GNU userland and other non-Solaris parts so I'm kind of confused about the whole thing.
>>51734470
>maximum damage control
it's ok, we can all tell you got rekt
>>51734462
If it's in contributions only, then right, the GPL is superior. But that's is only a part, a quantitative measure.
What about the qualitative parts?
>>51734483
Epic maymay bro. Go to /r/atheism to shill Sagan.
>>51734462
How the hell does that bring in contributions? They'd contribute anyway, the only thing the GPL does is make sure their contributions stay GPL. People who do not want to use the GPL already are not going to contribute to the project either way obviously. How are you connecting the 2 at all? Don't act so childish either you nonce.
>>51734470
>ask "who"
>get handed a list of individuals/corporations
>"that makes no sense"
/g/ everyone
>>51734478
Illumos is the kernel. They're distros of illumnos, like Linux distros.
I believe there is a arch like illumnos distro somewhere, but I should search it.
>>51734387
>Argumentum ad populum
kekats
>>51734441
>>51734448
Nobody's forcing you to buy such hardware, if you think this is a problem, don't. Also it does matter because the argument was regarding the kernels free or nonfree status, not security. The firmware is not part of the kernel codebase.
>>51734471
You basically did this:
> thread topic?
> reply to topic.
> retard!
Care to explain, friendo?
>>51734513
I see, thanks. It should be possible to use the OpenSolaris userland on top of this right? Is there a native userland development initiative going on? Seems odd to only take the kernel from Solaris even though the Solaris userland itself is taken from Unix and BSD.
>>51734507
>there is no a list
>appeals to the popularity of a license to say that license is superior in every ways
>no, u dumb
We still can arge what license is best. Quantity of contributions is only a part.
Of course, discussing licenses is entering in the terrain of philosophy, ethics and shit like that, so I know that the gentlesirs in Sheeky Forums will not want to discuss these issues saying "doesn't matter"
>>51734535
how much firmware does the *BSD setup when installing it?
>>51734501
>They'd contribute anyway
Why do they contribute to the Linux kernel and not to *BSD then? Why is Debian more popular than FreeBSD?
>>51734545
It' depends. Solaris userland is BSD based anyways.
There is a distro with GNU userland too.
>>51734550
Depends of your system.
>>51734537
I think they're just criticizing your choices for attention.
>>51734555
You'd have to ask them, why would you assume the license is the reason, what's your basis for thinking that?
>>51734535
>"it makes no difference"
>get told
>"nobody is forcing you to buy"
how's this called? "moving the goalposts"? I'm not quite sure, english is not my first language
>>51734563
so it only installs the firmware you need? It doesn't install all of the firmware available?
>>51734545
Illumos isn't the kernel, it's a complete fork of OpenSolaris.
>>51734578
>english is not my first language
neither is logic, obviously. You're the one trying to bring firmware security into a license discussion. You are moving goalposts, not me.
>>51734555
Because Linux is more popular. And that is because historical reasons
>GNU hasn't kernel
>hurd is A̶ ̶ ̶E̶ ̶ ̶S̶ ̶ ̶T̶ ̶ ̶H̶ ̶ ̶E̶ ̶ ̶T̶ ̶ ̶I̶ ̶ ̶C̶ vaporware
>386BSD, the other alternative operating system and his kernel, was in trouble with a long lawsuit
>Linus launches Linux to the masses, first in a propietary license, then in GPL 2
>because everyone wanted to use GNU, but they can't, they adopted linux as their kernel
>meanwhile the lawsuit is resolved years latter, but linux is more popular
And that is how Linux become the facto kernel for near everything.
>>51734584
>>51734513
I'm confused!
>>51734570
>why would you assume the license is the reason
well let's see:
1) you claim the code in *BSD is better
2) you claim the BSD license is better
3) somehow more people contribute to Linux than *BSD; it's like they don't like contributing to the superior codebase with the superior license, amirite?
cmon, anon!
hmm
>>51734579
Exactly.
>>51734613
He is right. Illumnos is a kernel and much more.
And also they're illumnos distros.
>>51734610
>neither is logic, obviously
>>51734615
Ladies and gentlemans, the future of CS field.
>>51734610
>license discussion
License discussion? Oh, then the firmware is non-free! OpenBSD distributes the firmware, thus OpenBSD distributes non-free code. qed.
I though you wanted to discuss why having free firmware is important, but I see you're the average OpenBSD meth-head retard.
>>51734615
I never made those claims, don't assume everyone against you is the same person.
You still haven't answered the question, your basis is just an assumption?
>>51734579
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man1/fw_update.1?query=fw_update
This is what Stallman and the FSF are so worked up about.
>>51734637
I don't think you're being fair, you're using your own lack of understanding with the spoken language against the other person. You can't just assume that your interpretation is what they mean, that's not fair and allows you to just say what you want willy nilly.
>>51734642
>>51734620
Ok, so if I used a computer that is fully free (like a libre thinkpad), this nonfree firmware would not be an issue at all and OpenBSD would only use free firmware, correct?
>FreeBullShitD
>>51734637
Fuck off already. You're not even making sense.
>>51734660
Of course.
>>51734114
Firmware doesn't run in the OS so OpenBSD devs specifically made an exception for it especially since a lot of devices require it and simply banning all firmware wouldn't be feasible. They do give you the option to avoid firmware blobs though, just buy hardware that doesn't require it and it wont ever be loaded.
>>51734660
Exactly.
Fun fact: Stallman doesn't like the model of distribution of firmware in OpenBSD for the same reason Stallman doesn't like Debian, although they lick his arse everytime.
>>51734611
>because historical reasons
>lawsuit is resolved years latter, but linux is more popular
Really? 1992-1994? The lawsuit lasted 2 fucking years! That's it! It didn't last decades in order to allow linux to sneak in and steal the crown!
How popular was Linux in 1994? How much better than *BSD?
>>51734675
>>51734679
I really don't understand why the FSF dislikes this model, the only other alternative is to not support those devices but that doesn't even help their cause, by then the user has already purchased the "offensive" equipment and is now incentivized to move to software that DOES support their hardware.
>>51734640
>You still haven't answered the question
>what is logic
>all these sheeple thinking they are entitled to opinion
>>51734698
2 years is quite a long time for software, look at all the shit that can be done in only months. Take into account businesses seeing "trademark lawsuit", that stifles adoption regardless which in turn causes friction, less adoption means less support/contributors which just snowballs.
I'm not saying this as some point, I'm butting in. (different anon)
>>51734715
Not having a reasonable basis is illogical, if you have one just state it clearly. What's the issue you're having?
>>51734720
>sheeple
The irony of this
>>51734740
>>51734715
autists get out.
>>51734720
>sheeple
Back to reddit with you
>>51734747
>not entitled to opinion
>>51734749
I'm just trying to waste time to be honest family, sorry to have bothered you.
>>51734735
>2 years is quite a long time for software
Agreed, but tell me how much more advanced was Linux in 1994, after starting development in 1991, compared to *BSD with its UNIX heritage?
Hint: Linux was shit in '94.
>>51734735
This.
Also, consider that everyone wanted to use GNU before, since a lot of neckbeards considered the political stance of GNU project attractive, but BSD's didn't have one apart of "Take the code, we don't care, but don't say you wrote it and don't sue us"
Also, Linux was available in internet, but the BSD not, you need to get them from some university. And you still need, for some versions, six files of AT&T commercial unix to make the BSD work.
>>51734762
forgot the smh, you cuck?
>>51734773
>six files of AT&T commercial unix
No longer required starting with 1992.
>>51734772
Linux was shit, but shit you could download to your computer.
>>51734772
That's a fair point. >>51734773 may have something though with the political ideals and availability. I'm not sure though.
>>51734773
>a lot of neckbeards considered the political stance of GNU project attractive
>BSD's didn't have one apart of "Take the code, we don't care..."
In other words: the GPL was considered superior to BSD?
>>51734777
did you just post kek and it didn't get filtered?
>>51734795
Yeah. I just forgot to do that detail in my history homework.
>>51734777
Nothing to shake at friend. :^)
>>51734808
It's very differently to say "A political stance is attractive" to say "GPL is superior to BSD"
It's like comparing Mozart with Coltrane.
>>51734808
Political views can't be considered "superior" since they're inherently subjective and very personal. The views of one person are not better than any others.
>>51734827
>The views of one person are not better than any others.
This is what the proletariat actually believes.
>>51734839
>proletariat
Fucking gringos trying to play at being Marxists, they're so funny.
>>51734839
I'm going to be honest with you, seeing the many makes me flip flop on it.
>>51734820
>>51734827
So, to recap:
We have X free software developers: 80% write software under A, 20% under license B (I'm being generous towards B here); would you argue that license B is the superior free software license?
>>51729123
OpenBSD was way easier for me. On FreeBSD I had to recompile programs to get sane configuration and then my file system was wrecked by a couple rapid shutdowns when the power went off.
Perhaps freeBSD has more, but I would prefer something that does what it should do well, than something that does a lot and kills itself in the process of no doing it well.
<Biased Opinion Acknowledged>
<I have not used FreeBSD much>
>>51734888
>would you argue that license B is the superior free software license
No, why would I? What's the correlation between contributions and the licenses under those contributions? I've written plenty of code under the MIT license because it's what the project leader wanted, and I personally don't give a shit about license choice, if I happen to contribute a lot under MIT does that make the MIT license better somehow?
>>51734888
First objection:
Why you choose the development efforts given to a software license to measure the "superiority" or "inferiority" of a software license?
Do you know that a free software license is more than that?
>>51734912
I admire your honesty. I've not had these problems myself with UFS or ZFS so I'm not sure what happened there and I've used FreeBSD on some pretty volatile (see: cheap as fuck and unstable) hardware.
I only hear of people having issues with third party software if they mix ports and packages way too much, usually it's an either or kind of thing but you can mix ones without heavy dependencies and have no issues as all, same goes for just using the stock configs in ports.
>>51734922
>Do you know that a free software license is more than that?
A free software license is useful as long as it brings us free software. If license A brings more free software than license B, I'd call license A better.
>>51734820
No, it's like comparing a bunch of dirty Marxist Jews to generous goyish sensibilities.
http://www.tradyouth.org/2015/12/the-marxist-subversion-of-free-software/
>>51734912
>>51734953
Also I'm just sayin, I didn't mean to imply anything behind my post. Just making conversation. Everyone seems to be looking to argue so I feel the need to mention it.
>>51734957
>If license A brings more free software than license B, I'd call license A better.
How can you know the license was the reason for the contribution and not some other factor? I think this is a good example >>51734914
>>51734960
I think people who care more about licenses and less about code itself are terrible people who should get off of /g/ and discuss this shit over at >>>/biz/ or >>>/pol/ because business isn't software and neither is political views. These GPL people derail every thread no matter what the subject is.
>BUT BUT NONFREE
Who gives a shit, shut up and hack.
>>51734971
I think part of the problem may have been that I was using UFS with encryption. I am not exactly sure how stable it was described as being at the time but it mad the system difficult to use. It was a laptop, and I could not reliably power it on without running fs checks and reboots and such.
As far as hardware, my laptop seems like it can run anything you would expect it to fine, so that was not a factor. I even can do 9front without issues.
I am sure FreeBSD has its uses, and I imagine if my needs were different it might be attractive, but considering my use of it, OpenBSD was by far superior.
>>51735028
>Who gives a shit, shut up and hack.
I agree, that's why I like MIT or BSD, because it's actually the "who gives a fuck" license. If you want to shut up and hack, use those or WTFPL. Don't use the Talmudic hair-spilling license known as the GNU GPL.
>>51734957
>A free software license is useful as long as it brings us free software.
That implies that:
>free software is some kind of moral duty
>all software licenses are made to make these type "free software" per se
>history of development is negible
Consider this: Is said that BSD licenses were made with two factors in mind:
1) Attract investors to Universities, interested in using these software
2) Protect developers from law action in these cases
Other factor frequently argued for BSD is, since the code is easily borrowable without legal issues, that could impose standards and diseminate correct and proven code, instead of new and shitty code.
You proposition sounded too FSF influenced too.
No all free software licenses have the same goals.
>>51735049
Do you care to talk about Plan9/9front? I'd like to know things about it from people who have used it for anything. I hear a lot of interesting things about it.
