*BSD General Thread
IRC: #baot @ irc.rizon.net
Resources/News:
undeadly.org
dragonflydigest.org
freebsdnews.net
Discuss BSD, ask questions, get answers, be nice to Linux users.
I like these operating systems, but there's honestly not much to discuss about them.
>>51740202
Sure there is, *BSD is actual UNIX while Linux is pretending to be UNIX. Free/Open/Dragonfly/Net/whatever are all solid operating systems. Personally, I prefer OpenBSD the most.
>>51740236
Oh sure, those things you can say, but they kind of go without saying.
I could discuss how I like OpenBSD for its ease of configuration and use, but this is pointless considering you can just read the FAQ and man pages for a bit.
Thinking about replacing pfSense with OpenBSD native on my home router box. Having that old version of PF doesn't bode well with me anymore.
>>51740497
but >muh web interface
Seriously, people who need a clicky interface shouldn't be setting up firewalls.
>>51740497
You really should, OpenBSD is rock solid and very secure. Ignore that FreeBSD autist and his crusade against OpenBSD.
>>51740497
I heard book of PF might be something you want to read.
Yes, there's a 248 pages long book about PF.
I would use FreeBSD for my laptop, but I absolutely need hangouts for my conference calls and reliable desktop sharing capabilities. That's pretty much what holds me off from using it. Tried with the Linux compatibility layer but its incredibly outdated.
Hopefully more attention is taken with the desktop usage in the coming years, although it's unlikely
Development Tools on FreeBSD – New BSD Mag Issue!
Website
http://bsdmag.org/download/development_tools/
Download
https://madokami.com/y60fre.pdf
>>51740567
Pretty good book.
BSD noob here, what distro can I easily install X + some DE on top of and fool around?
>tfw freebsd doesn't support haswell graphics
>tfw openbsd doesn't boot on this laptop
>>51740236
>*BSD is actual UNIX
You mean the outdated OS from the 70s?
>>51740637
I'd say OpenBSD, it comes with X already in the base plus has an excellent WM CWM also included in the base.
>>51740637
`They're not distro's. they're not distributions of the same thing (like the linux kernel).
We prefer to call them projects or descendants.
OpenBSD has good X support. If you want something more than the default 20 year old DE you can install metapackage xfce or gnome.
Also have a look at PC-BSD and GhostBSD for easy desktop OSes based on FreeBSD
>>51740672
Outdated, but still works.
Isn't it amazing?
>>51740672
Had to start somewhere right?
>>51740672
Unix is never obsolete. Also all of the code in BSD was rewritten from scratch in the 80s to 90s. It's modern code but with and old school feel
>>51740936
UNIX has been obsolete since the 90s. Plan 9 would have been a good replacement had the project not fizzled out, but that's all the past man. Just use Windows, it's good enough.
>>51741080
OpenBSD and the other *BSDs are free software, windows is not.
>>51740601
have you tried it on -current?
>>51741144
When I graduated from college and got a job I realized I didn't have enough time to tinker around with OpenBSD anymore. Open source or not, Windows gets your machine running all the software you'll ever need without much hassle.
>>51741212
You can install OpenBSD in 6 minutes, way faster than spending 20 minutes on windows and who knows how long updating it. Any additional tinkering for OpenBSD or any other BSD is up to you.
>Linux is better in every way
Which is better for laptop use again, FreeBSD or OpenBSD?
>>51741262
lel, no its not.
>>51741287
openbsd
make sure to do a softraid crypto install
>>51741289
>Linux is better in every way
You may try to argue, but since you use BSD, you are not entitled to opinion.
>>51741287
If I recall, OpenBSD has the better hardware support.
>>51741287
They both have pros and cons.
Go with the one with the best hw support.
Probably puffy.
>>51741304
That says FreeBSD, which I don't use. If all you're going to do is shitpost, please leave.
>>51741351
Not entitled to opinion.
>>51741362
Go shitpost somewhere else.
>>51741299
Isnt the disk crypto support kind of iffy at the moment? Last I checked, they basically say it could break at any time and it's your fault if it does.
>>51741406
There's no official support as in there's no way to do it from the installer, but it worked well for me so far.
>>51741373
Not entitled to opinion.
>>51741435
go shitpost somewhere else
>>51741430
>There's no official support
BSD: The Post™.
>>51740606
fuck off with this spam.
bsdmag is as "substance-free" as bsdnow is now. why is every news outlet becoming fluff-filled shit?
>>51741406
It's laid out well in slide 11 here. Pretty simple. I hope they add it to the installer soon, though, because even though it's only a couple small steps if it's not the default people just won't do it.
http://www.openbsd.org/papers/eurobsdcon2015-softraid-boot.pdf
>>51741745
Very important to point out that if you don't understand those those commands mean, you should definitely learn about them before doing them.
how tough would it be to port kvm to openbsd?
>>51742088
It's completely unnecessary.
It's getting its own hypervisor.
>>51740531
it's nontrivially difficult to attain "rock-solid" levels of security with C.
>>51742110
no way. as in hardware-accelerated virtualization? what's the project called? i googled around recently and dug up a quote by theo de raadt expressing immense disdain for vm things.
i think an openbsd host running * guests would be the perfect fusion of security and usability.
>>51742118
Are you saying OpenBSD isn't a very solid OS? because it really is.
OpenBSD > NetBSD > shit > DragonflyBSD > FreeBSD > OSX
>>51742164
i think so too. or more aptly, that it's the most solid, relatively speaking.
in terms of type and memory safety and other compiler-automated checks, i think large pieces could and should be ported away from C into something else. maybe rust, but its borrow system hasn't been formally proven yet.
>>51740936
>Also all of the code in BSD was rewritten from scratch
All of the code in Linux was written from scratch in the first place.
>>51742339
And?
>>51742370
And even then BSD sucks because it is a port.
>muh hipster os
>>51742088
>>51742110
>>51742156
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=144104398132541&w=2
>>51742216
So what's FreeBSD's problem anyway? Coming from a Linux background I always thought that was the major player on the "other side", is it a kitchen sink sort of deal?
>>51742708
FreeBSD devs don't really put a lot of focus on desktop use, it's okay but OpenBSD would probably work better for most users. It's really popular for web servers though and it has found a niche in set top boxes, game consoles and other embedded applications.
What do you guys think about nosh?
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonathan.deboynepollard/Softwares/nosh.html
>>51741171
how to?
>>51739858
someone needs to update the bsd sections on the /g/ wiki
>>51743189
Agreed, only FreeBSD has its own dedicated article. Open/Net/DragonflyBSD and maybe PC-BSD and Darwin need their own articles.
>>51742956
Yeah I've been considering FreeBSD for my upcoming fileserver whenever I manage to decide on its specs... Cool to hear OpenBSD is working well for desktop use, I'd gotten the impression it was for tinfoil hatters only. How's comprehensive is its collection of packages?
>>51743342
I'm pretty sure FreeBSD has more packages especially pre-compiled binary packages but I cannot find a number for for either OS. You'll be able to find most popular applications on either though and you can always compile from source if you have to.
>>51743480
Didn't know OpenBSD did have binary packages, that's neat! FreeBSD got those fairly recently... Going to go look up Open's packaging guidelines, I really prefer integrating everything with the package manager instead of juggling software installs manually. Starting to sound real good though, maybe something to migrate the laptop to over Christmas
>>51743660
yeah openbsd has pkg_add, pkg_delete, pkg_info, and pkg_create for managing binary packages. You do have to set up an environment variable so the package managers knows where to find packages though
Something like:
export PKG_PATH=http://your.local.mirror/pub/OpenBSD/$(uname -r)/packages/$(machine -a)/
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#Easy
>>51739858
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>#baot
lol what a hole, blakkheim is a genuinely diagnosis-tier autistic and retarded.
>>51743256
PC-BSD is FreeBSD though.
>>51744272
fine, then PC-BSD will be given its own section of the FreeBSD article. Should we still give darwin and its derivatives like opendarwin and puredarwin its own article?
i have a openbsd desktop and have darwin on my laptop, can i be in the club?
>>51744557
Of course. Do you use a DE on OpenBSD?
>>51744707
not a chance, i3
what is the arch wiki equivalent in the bsd world
With linux distros, every one is based on different thing, tons of derivatives, and many unique features (package managers, repos, user bases). How different is bsd, are all the flavors of bsd unified in these aspects but just used for different end goals
>>51743794
if you select a http mirror while installing openbsd, the newly installed system will use the same mirror for packages (it creates /etc/pkg.conf)
>>51744779
documentation is pretty centralized in bsd land. all of openbsd's documentation is either in the manpages or on the website/faq. most/all of freebsd's documentation is either in the manpages or on the website/handbook. etc.
https://strawpoll.me/6208062
https://strawpoll.me/6208091
Also, can I use Linux emulation to run Wine and get shitty performance on muh gaymes?
>>51744788
Oh that's good, I usually use the installer disc base packages so I don't set it until post-install.
>>51744779
The BSDs try to keep the man pages as informative as possible so it's not always necessary to consult the internet. Each individual BSD has pretty extensive documentation on their site also.
>>51744779
>How different is bsd, are all the flavors of bsd unified in these aspects but just used for different end goals
Each project is fully autonomous, what happens in one project has little to no effect on the others. Usually you'll have to recompile code if it comes from another BSD, they're different operating systems with different system calls for the most part. The common name is just a traditional thing I guess.
NetBSD and FreeBSD were started at just about the same time and they share a common ancestor 4.4BSD Lite but each OS has about 20 years worth of code that separate them. OpenBSD was forked from NetBSD like 2 years later, it was started by one of the lead NetBSD devs because he didn't get along with the community. DragonflyBSD was forked from FreeBSD 4.X with a focus on improving multiprocessor performance. FreeBSD devs believed the work in DragonflyBSD wasn't suitable for upstream so DragonflyBSD dev made his own branch.
>>51745165
which flavor has the biggest user base, and with which do linux users usually lose their bsd virginity with
>>51742339
If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened. --Linus Torvalds
>>51745241
It's hard to really measure but generally people start on freebsd so it's likely the most popular with openbsd being distant second, and third and fourth are close between netbsd and dragonflybsd. It's hard to really pin down their ranks though because people can use more than one computer and even multiboot.
openbsd is slow
t. openbsd user
>>51740637
OpenBSD. XFCE and Fluxbox both work great on it. I hear KDE does as well, but Gnome doesn't, but I don't like either anyway so I've never tried.
Just understand that with OpenBSD, you are pretty much on your own. The Handbook is nearly perfect, and can tell you anything you want to know about the OS, and a lot more. The book "Absolute OpenBSD" is also great, and aimed at beginners.
Beyond that, the devs are rather infamous for their complete lack of social skills. The OS exists because Theo de Raadt was booted from NetBSD because of how much of an asshole he is. Don't go to the Mailing List expecting any kind of tech support (if you have to ask...) because the only help you'll get is directions on how to find your way back to Windows or Linux. If you're merely told to read the fucking manual, that's them being unusually nice, and you really should do it, because it really is that good, and it won't CAPS LOCK at you, or call you names.
I'm doing zxfer on my machine. I am trying to transfer all of my snapshots into another zfs system. I did Everything to chow, chmod777, zfs allow the goddamm file still when I zxfer this thing spits out permission denied on destination fil system
>>51745433
I've only had problems with HTML5 video playback.
And that was on a VM so yeah.
>>51746440
i cant watch youtube.
i am on a T61 though, but this used to work fine under xubuntu.
>>51746468
Yeah that's what I'm saying.
Is your laptop 32-bit? I think the devs may have capped the performance for the 32-bit laptops, it can be changed though.
>>51746495
yeah im using 32bit
>>51746509
Then you may have to change one of the sysctl variables.
I think it began either with hw or kern, but unfortunately I can't remember which one it was.
>>51746604
thanks for the information I didn't know about this at all. I will look into it now.
>>51746638
You may also want to take a long at apm(8) for more power management utilities.
Make sure the apmd daemon is on.
Has anyone here used Arch BSD (Pac BSD)?
If so, what are your thoughts?
Is it worth looking into?
>>51746679
I've never used it but it doesn't really seem to offer much advantages over Arch Linux or FreeBSD. I guess if you want jails and ZFS then it's an option but those are server-ish features and arch is a rolling OS which isn't really ideal for servers.
>>51746143
but likewise, they have managed to make a very solid and secure OS so it has its pros and cons. They just don't tolerate bullshit you can figure out on your own with a very detailed manual.
>migrated my rpi2 mumble server over to freeBSD
>compiled from ports, left everything at basically default
>people can connect to my server but no audio is transmitted, don't even see the mouths light up
wat do
>>51746863
stop using meme hardware
>>51746863
My first thought is pf is blocking it. Although since they can connect to it that might indicate a problem with how you configured your audio hardware or mumble itself.
BumpSD
BaStarDen
Can someone tell us /g/tards what would be the best laptop(s) to run BSD on?
>>51750526
>father is literally a bastard
>reeeee bastarden
>>51750543
>>51750564
>quite possibly the laziest person ever
>didn't used to be this way but is now
>>51750581
idk wtf is wrong with me
But I'm tired all the time.
Okay, I could do more about seeing if sound will work on this one laptop I installed FreeBSD on, and if the laptop I installed OpenBSD on is really a good laptop for it.
>>51750613
>idk wtf is wrong with me
>you keep getting up at midnight or 1am after sleeping for 4-6 hours
You don't sleep enough, and also keep vampire hours.
>>51750662
Okay, that might be wtf is wrong with me.
Should I expect to have to compile a lot of stuff if I use OpenBSD?
I tried FreeBSD once but all the binary packages were compiled with minimal support for anything. I don't mind compiling a few things but not everything (e.g. I had to compile Qt with GTK theme support)
What can you do in *BSD's that you can't do in Linux?
>>51750543
Openbsd runs amazingly on thinkpads.
>>51751007
run bsd binaries natively?
>>51751007
Running something like netflix' network.
>>51751007
Experience true UNIX
>>51751011
How compatible with OpenBSD with libreboot? I want to get one of those thinkpads (x200 for example) and make it into a libre thinkpad. Is OpenBSD compatible with libreboot?
>>51753044
Do you have anything to say that resembles intelligence or are you just going to shitpost?
>>51753028
It's not. For real.
http://libreboot.org/faq/#bsd
I was interested in libreboot at first but there are so many gotchas w/r/t compatibility that it doesn't seem worth it at the moment.
>>51744866
>muh vidya
Windows.
>muh packages
Linux.
>>51744866
The whole backdoors in OpenBSD is a meme. The alleged backdoor was put in around 2000-2001 by ex-developers, those are the ones who allegedly got paid, not the modern team. The entire team independently reviewed it and nobody found it. Anyone who is spouting the meme out is either shitposting or spreading FUD about OpenBSD.
>Daily reminder you should be using Linux in 2015.
What can it do that Linux cannay? I'm curious. Why use it instead of industry level stuff like suse or red hat?
>>51753711
You can tip fedoras with 14%* more euphoria.
>* performance on fedora tipping may be different from user to user, according to your level of hipsterism and retardness. Consult the manual before using BSD systems. Service may be optimal for hipsters from California.
>>51740672
windows is based on 1980's code also, anon
>>51740236
>solid operating systems
bwhahahahaha
>>51740818
>We prefer to call them
just like you prefer to have your own definition of "blob"?
>>51741449
underrated
>>51742110
>getting its own
A New OpenBSD Innovation!™
top cuck
>>51742164
"int main() {}" is very solid too
Why are all BSD threads full of memes?
>>51740202
>>51740236
>>51740672
>>51740936
>>51741262
This is brilliant >>51741304
>>51741317
>>51741362
This one is genius >>51741449
>>51742164
>>51742393
>>51746863
>>51753158
>>51753726
I love this one >>51754066
>>51754114
I mean, you can't make this shit up. This is /g/ comedy gold.
>>51754081
I highly doubt the implication that every device firmware in your computer is FLOSS. This is what's required to be blob free according to the FSF definition. Very few practically useful operating systems follow this reasoning.
>>51754358
*loadable* device firmware! the firmware in a ROM chip is considered part of the hardware; loadable firmware otoh must be free software.
>>51754469
In either case the firmware is loaded onto the hardware not into the OS. OpenBSD draws the line strictly at the OS level which they can actually control not the hardware level which they cannot. OpenBSD does not allow non-free software to run in their OS.
>>51754535
Or rather they do not allow non-free software to be included with their OS. You can run whatever you want after the fact but they wont give you support.
>>51754114
tell me where they claim it's an innovation
Why is OpenBSD failing to boot on my netbookt. I verified the install.iso, verified hash hash, I got the i386 version, I wrote it to USB, verified again, set boot order, and it still won't load.
Or did I just fuck up because Intel Atom processors need some other meme instruction set.
>>51755055
UEFI
E
F
I
>>51755055
>Why is OpenBSD failing to boot on my netbookt.
God sign you shouldn't be using it. There is no support that will ever help you, either.
>>51754114
literally nobody said that you dumbass, try to be original next time you decide to shitpost.
>>51755160
Not entitled to opinion.
>senpai
>>51755190
Weren't you were told yesterday to fuck off?
>>51755227
I wasn't here yesterday, and you are still not entitled to opinion.
>>51754535
But they're not the same thing: a piece of hardware with firmware on a ROM chip is a complete hardware product: it can be extensively tested and audited for doing the right thing. It actually doesn't matter if its function is carried out by simple logic gates/adders/shifters/whatever or software burned in silicon. The maker is extremely motivated not to fuck it up because recalling the devices back to the factory, or worse -- no sales, will have serious impact on the business.
Hardware that doesn't have the firmware already on board is just a pile of circuits and REQUIRES you to provide software for it to do anything meaningful. The provider can get away with sub-par devices because "meh, we'll fix it with a firmware update, ship it now anyway".
Also, the provider for said software (and here I include anyone with access to it that can be socially-engineered/strong-armed/bribed) can at any time embed a backdoor or whatever unwanted functionality in a firmware blob (keep in mind that this software has full access to your system, it can read and write any piece of memory it wants, it doesn't need to obey your kernel access checks) and you better take it as is or you're left with worthless scrap.
What I have a problem with is this
>firmware is loaded onto the hardware not into the OS
That's not a meaningful distinction: the firmware IS software and it doesn't matter WHERE it's loaded as long as it has the same FULL system privileges. If it's free software then great, just another "driver", if it's a blob you're just giving total access of your system to unknown code.
...
>>51755349
>contd
Take for example the raspberry pi; the openbsd developers themselves have problems with it: it requires a "firmware blob" that's the actual main software that runs on it; the kernel that you load is more of a side-loaded application because the ARM CPU that it runs on is not the main system controller. The actual controller is the VideoCore chip that only runs closed source software. And as an example, OpenGL is fully implemented in this blob and all it provides to your custom kernel that runs on the ARM chip are traps for every API that simply delegate to the closed source stuff.
If closed source firmware is deemed I-dont-care-it's-not-software, hardware manufactures will continue to make increasingly crippled devices that require your operating system to give up more and more control to the "firmware blob"; instead of them making hardware with only the minimum required functionality and no more (because of efficiency reasons) and giving your software full control to drive said hardware, they'll stuff more and more "features" in the firmware that has no business being there because the dumb hardware device is so cheap to produce with no real QA necessary because they can always "fix it with a firmware update".
See for example the AsRock motherboards UEFI firmware that connects to the internet to check for updates: it has a full blown tcp/ip stack, a dhcp client, a pppoe client and who knows what more; I expect it to gain facebook/twitter status updates soon. And we're talking about a fucking motherboard that should just configure your PCI space, read a few sectros from the disk and jump to your code.
...
>>51755365
>contd
How long until we see webcams that don't work unless you load the firmware that requires a snapchat account? Seems too far fetched? Just look back to the raspberry pi example: the entire opengl library is implemented in that firmware blob; a bug in the shader compiler? no biggie, take this firmware update that also bumps opengl support to 4.4. Another bug? Sorry, we don't support that board anymore.
Next up: hard drives that don't give you block access anymore but instead provide an API consisting of open/read/write/close for files on their own custom-implemented secret file system. And don't work without a network connection because "update reasons".
>>51755349
>>51755365
>>51755375
So don't both any of those devices and you don't have to worry about that.
>>51755380
>don't both any
anon...
>>51755401
Don't buy any hardware that relies on non-free firmware and you don't have to worry about non-free firmware. You'll have a hell of a time doing that though I guarantee you basically every device on your computer has non-free firmware and could be loaded with some kind of malware if a stranger had physical access to your hardware at some point. Even if the firmware is on a chip it can usually still be re-flashed because manufacturers tend to use EPROMs for bugfixing.
>non-free firmware
Is this the new >muh bsd hipsterism meme?
>>51755375
Shit like that is why you shouldn't support permissive licenses.
>>51755487
These people probably believe linux is somehow free-er when it ships with WAAAY more non-free firmware blobs by default than any of the BSDs do even despite the license. Linux-libre is the FSF's naive implementation of the Linux kernel without firmware but it doesn't work properly on anything because even modern CPUs have firmware. OpenBSD has an application that will loads firmware if they're needed for certain hardware to work or even download them if they cannot be shipped by a third party. OpenBSD devs aren't concerned with politics or religion they just want to ship a product that works. If your hardware is compromised then yes that is problematic but there's nothing OpenBSD can do to fix your fucked hardware. If the hardware was compromised in a physical way especially at the factory then it probably wouldn't require an optionally loaded firmware blob. Avoiding firmware because of malware just gets you no-where.
>>51755633
tl;dr please, you surely talk a lot for someone not entitled to opinions.
>>51755633
>product that works
there's OSX or Windows for that, no need for these toy systems
>>51755633
>If your hardware is compromised
by OpenBSD loading the rogue firmware
>there's nothing OpenBSD can do
except for not loading the rogue firmware
>>51755487
easy way to avoid the non free firmware on OpenBSD is to use hardware that doesn't require any proprietary firmware.
>>51755633
>it doesn't work properly on anything
>what is Libreboot X200
>>51755929
>>51755945
Didn't the installer have an option to not load them before?
What happened?
>>51755945
or avoid OpenBSD
>>51755979
Nah, OpenBSD is a great OS, just like the other *BSDs. Only reason I choose not to use it is because libreboot doesn't work with any of the *BSDs.
>>51755929
How exactly would putting that on a ROM chip change anything?
>>51756101
great question! did you think of it by yourself? just now? wow!
>>51756101
if only there'd be a post itt that talks about exactly that; god dammit, /g/!
>>51755996
>OpenBSD is a great OS
>I choose not to use it
sounds great
>>51756166
Which post was that, because the only other post that mentions it seems to be missing the part where firmware can be updated even when its stored on PROMs. BIOS updates are a thing you do realize that right?
>>51756199
I choose not to use it because I CANNOT USE LIBREBOOT. I have nothing against OpenBSD, I don't want to be stuck with the original proprietary BIOS.
>>51755460
>just use Windows, you have nothing to fear
>>51756101
OpenBSD wouldn't be loading it, obviously
>>51756209
>BIOS updates are a thing you do realize that right
it's called UEFI now and it has a http downloader built in, anon, git gud
>>51756209
if only you had some working bain cells
>>51756239
>I have nothing against OpenBSD
>except for the fact it doesn't work with libreboot
>nothing
m8...
>>51756239
>I have nothing against OpenBSD, I don't want to be stuck with the original proprietary BIOS
confirmed OpenBSD forcing proprietary BIOS
fucking dropped!
>>51756356
I don't hold it against the OS is what I'm saying.
>>51746834
I didn't exactly mean to imply that they are wrong. I think a lot of people are put-off by them, and don't give OpenBSD enough consideration because of it. The OS is solid, and for the most part not difficult at all to figure out on your own. You don't really ever have to interact with the devs at all. Once you become well versed in the OS, and start doing stuff that actually helps the OS and the devs--making and maintaining packages according to OpenBSD standards, or finding, documenting and reporting bugs--they'll actually warm up to you.
>>51756376
It's the same thing with any other BSD, Free/Net/Dragonfly/Whatever BSD doesn't work with libreboot, not just OpenBSD. It's a BSD issue, not specifically with OpenBSD.
>>51756385
>doesn't work with FREE SOFTWARE bios
>not the os fault
/g/ everyone
>>51756408
>It's a BSD issue
that's why all BSDs are a joke
>>51756410
>BSD systems require a full Video BIOS, which libreboot lacks (there is a free replacement on all current systems, but it lacks certain features that GNU/Linux doesn't require). Translation: X11 won't work in BSD.
the problem is libreboot, not *BSD.
up to date and feeling pretty cozy
>>51756433
>everything open
>works fine with linux
>doesn't work with bsd
>not bsd's fault
really, anon?
>>51756485
Libreboot is free software, why can't it make itself compatible with *BSD, a different operating system that has been around far longer than Libreboot or Linux has.
>>51741234
>Any additional tinkering
really? does openbsd come with all the usual desktop software installed by default?
>>51741289
it is though. first of all, it works with libreboot.
>>51756562
It depends on what you mean by that.
It comes with Xorg and FVWM/TWM/CWM.
The rest you can simply add either by ports or packages.
>>51756519
Libreboot is free software, why can't the *BSD make the necessary changes (in either project) to work with it? Are they happy with requiring a proprietary BIOS?
>>51756485
It isn't a BSD problem so much, just like how a lot of shit not working or being difficult on Linux isn't Linux's fault.
Windows creates a walled garden where software is tailored to it, the same happens in Linux land which is why *BSD ports really are a lot of ports, because so much linux-isms due to lack of care/intelligence need to be corrected.
Most Linux user-land is like amateurs creating bash scripts, using bashims because they use bash and thinking they are "just shell scripts, run with /bin/sh :^)" without any regard for POSIX SH standards.
I've come across several configure scripts with bashims this year, this is just unacceptable especially when even autohell docs make it very clear to use actual SH and no bashisms. Complete amateur hour.
>>51756603
Free/Net/OpenBSD shouldn't be forced to change their BIOS or rewrite it just so libreboot, which only works on specific laptops to begin with, works with *BSD. Libreboot devs should be trying to make it compatible with *BSD, not the other way around.
>>51756609
>It isn't a BSD problem so much
requiring a proprietary BIOS is not a problem? dropped!
>Windows creates a walled garden
>the same happens in Linux land
really? isn't the source code in linux available for anyone to study?
>amateurs creating bash scripts
well, bash IS the most used shell, fuck the crippled ones
>this is just unacceptable
did you pay for them? ask for a refund!
>>51756701
You might as well stop using computers other than a select few thinkpads if proprietary BIOS are a problem.
>>51756701
>dropped!
Good, now you can leave this thread instead of shitposting.
>really? isn't the source code in linux available for anyone to study?
Just because it's available does not make it easily portable, especially when it's assumed to be running on GNU/Linux rather than an actual certified standard. Also pretty ironic considering Linux users complain about MS open sourcing shit because it is designed and assumed to build on, with and to target windows core.
>well, bash IS the most used shell, fuck the crippled ones
It's also the slowest due to non-posix bloat. Libreoffice configure script runs 10 minutes faster using posic compliant shells like (d)ash compared to bash.
>did you pay for them? ask for a refund!
No but I sent them patches to fix it.
Price is not the point either, it's complete disregard for documentation, attention to detail and allowing portability.
>>51756664
>shouldn't be forced
they're not; the fact that they don't care to make their system usable on a FREE SOFTWARE firmware says a lot thought
>which only works on specific laptops to begin with
yeah, fuck them! hey, better install windows, it works with an even wider range of devices!
>Libreboot devs should be trying to make it compatible
0.001% market share and smug! keep at it, apple cucks! this right here is what keep the BSDs at the bottom of the barrel.
and no, they don't need to do shit! it already works with a free software operating system already!
does the *BSD work with any free software firmware?
>>51756770
that's what I use
>>51756787
>easily portable
codewords for copy-pasta
>an actual certified standard
what standard?
>non-posix bloat
you mean extra features
>runs 10 minutes faster using posic compliant shells
use that shell for the libreoffice configure script then
>complete disregard for documentation
contribute it
>attention to detail
send patches
>allowing portability
send more patches
basically your point is "waaaaah, linux is more popular and now people started writing software for it! back in the day, both linux and bsd had shit support from anyone but now linux is pulling ahead; this is not fair! we demand equality! we are the real unix"
fuck off
>>51756901
Isn't BSD objectively better than Linux in most ways? I don't really care about being to loyal to either Linux or BSD, I just want the objectively best software to have more stuff written for it.
>>51756901
>codewords for copy-pasta
What?
>what standard?
POSIX. It's not just shells, they even do syscalls, too!
>you mean extra features
No, no-standard bloat 90% of Linux users are too stupid to know isn't even POSIX compliant.
>use that shell for the libreoffice configure script then
...or everything.
>contribute it
Are you trolling now or just really stupid? The autotools documentation already exists and in the case of bashims I talked about the documentation was ignored because some GNU tards can't tell /bin/sh from /bin/bash or the mouth from their rectum.
>send patches
I did.. I just said I did holy shit are you blind?
>allowing portability
Nah, after a while it's better give up wasting time and let GNU crowed crawl on their knees in their own filth. (https://gist.github.com/dchest/1091803)
>basically your point is "waaaaah, linux is more popular and now people started writing software for it! back in the day, both linux and bsd had shit support from anyone but now linux is pulling ahead; this is not fair! we demand equality! we are the real unix"
You have little to no reading skills at all and are a complete fucking moron.
Back in the day Linux users cared about portabilaty to other UNIX like systems and did a good job instead of writing half-arsed crap that assumes a single OS/Environment.
>fuck off
I'm about to, congratulations on trolling/derailing/shitposting decent threads with your complete lack of any technical knowledge at all. Unfortunately I have better and more productive things to do, such as fucking my girl and finishing in her mouth which coincidentally is what your father should have done.
http://www.bsdnow.tv/episodes/2015_11_23-the_cantrill_strikes_back
>>51757083
>I have better and more productive things to do, such as fucking my girl and finishing in her mouth which coincidentally is what your father should have done.
>>51757074
>Isn't BSD objectively better than Linux in most ways?
No, it's objectively worse.
>>51739858
>ctrl+f angela
>0 results
Whats a BSD thread without her?
>>51757196
How so? I hear it tossed around that OpenBSD is the most secure OS, FreeBSD has excellent network stack, Dragonfly has HAMMER and it's amazing. In what way is it inferior?
>>51757301
>i want this thread ruined
is all i got from your post
>>51755697
dear motherfucking god shut the fuck up
>>51757083
>I have better and more productive things to do, such as fucking my girl and finishing in her mouth which coincidentally is what your father should have done.
>>51741234
>20 minute windows install
More like 4 hours.
>>51757881
20 minutes to install, half a day to install the updates.
>>51757892
Holy fuck this. I remember running Windows Update at an office once, and it literally took two and a half hours just to find the updates, and then took even longer to install. It basically got to the point where I switched user over to my admin account, launched windows update, then locked it, handed it over to them, and said come get me after lunch. It'll probably be done by tomorrow.
Was literally not worth company time for me to just sit and jerk off at a desk while I waited for 30 computers to search and download updates.
>>51757611
You're not entitled to an opinion.
>>51757955
This is why you slipstream the updates if you're doing a large deployment.
>>51757968
Goddamn, you literally repeat the same thing every time. At least the FreeBSD autist tries to argue.
>>51757987
If by argue you mean "says meme over and over" then yeah.
They both have the same tactics, hell I bet it's the same person.
>>51758002
I never said he was good, I said he tries. He even a bit ago updated his tactics with the OpenBSD FUD.
>>51757987
>>51758002
>>51758020
You're both not entitled to an opinion.
>>51758116
Why the fuck are you even here?
>>51758174
You're not entitled to an opinion.
>>51757955
I cannot understand why it takes windows so long to install updates. On old Fedora which used yum(which I consider slow as fuck) it takes maybe 30-40 minutes to get an install completely up to date.
Windows takes like 10 minutes just to find updates then it takes like 30 minutes to an hour to actually install them and then when you restart you'll probably have to install even more updates. You could end up doing that like 3-4 times if you're far enough behind.
>>51756701
>requiring a proprietary BIOS is not a problem?
The BSDs don't require a proprietary BIOS; they require features your beloved open sauce BIOS does not support. This is in no way OpenBSD's fault.
>>51756797
>apple c ucks
>hurdur FreeBSD = all BSDs meme
Stop that
>>51755375
I see you make 2 points:
>the firmware IS software and it doesn't matter WHERE it's loaded as long as it has the same FULL system privileges.
OpenBSD drivers are still free, so the hardware doesn't run at "FULL system privileges".
By doing this we keep OpenBSD secure. Sure, it won't prevent the bufferoverflow exploit in your UEFI's tcp/ip stack, but OpenBSD can't prevent that anyways.
>When we allow the industry to use loadable ROMs:
>-> no real QA necessary because they can always "fix it with a firmware update"
>->webcams will need a snapchat account
>-> HDD's wil need a network connection
Same scenarios could happen without loadable ROMs.
>>51758309
>I cannot understand why it takes windows so long to install updates.
Because you can pick and choose which updates to install, and there are so many interdependent components in Windows, that the patch dependency graphs are so large you could probably print the shit out to paper and build Trump's wall with it.
Windows development, testing, patching and deployment is pure hell.
BSD is best Unix. Linux can go eat a dick.
https://www.dragonflybsd.org/release44/
DragonflyBSD release44(4.4.1) was just released
>>51760768
>drm/i915 and drm/radeon drivers now match Linux kernel 3.18
Their gfx development has been on fire lately, props to them for achieving this.
>>51756239
Maybe you could use Libreboot if it wasn't made by fucking insane fanatics, trying to force their ideology, and in this case also their operating system on everyone. They've deliberately made it to be unusable with non-Linux OSes, which flies in the face of how Unix-like OSes have always done things--you know, encouraging cooperation, sharing, portability and actual freedom (free as in the user decides, not free as in fucking do as Stallman says, or else.).
Like Libreboot matters anyway. It can only be used on a tiny handful of systems. On the other hand there is Coreboot (as well as SeaBIOS and U-Boot). It also limits your hardware choices, but not as badly as Libreboot. You can use it for BSD systems, because the goal is to replace the proprietary BIOS, and not locking users into a specific OS in order to monitor and ensure that they use their freedom correctly, instead of making their own decisions, like some sort of un-free slave has to do.
>>51756485
Really! Or do you also think that Windows 7 not working on MIPS and SPARC hardware is an inherent flaw on the part of MIPS and SPARC? Is a Ferrari flawed because you can't use Ford parts? Libreboot won't run on MIPS, SPARC, or Ferraris either, another clear sign that those things suck, albeit not as much as you fake-Freetards suck Stallman's dick.
>>51760976
OpenBSD doesn't force their OS on anyone. The develop the OS for themselves to use, that is all. You can use it if you want. If you don't want to, that's nice too. They don't give a shit either way
>>51756770
OMG you are just so fucking wrong there! You don't know just how wrong you are, but I'm gonna tell you: Libreboot also runs on two different Macbooks. You read that correctly. Not one, but FUCKING TWO! That's practically twice as many as one, if not even more! I bet you feel silly now, being so wrong, and shit.
Bumping from page 7 just to remind everyone that BSD users are not entitled to express opinions.
>>51760857
What's stopping other BSDs from forking parts of this?
>>51762332
Each BSD can very different internally, they have some system calls in common but many of them will not be. Each is a distinct operating system and even porting userspace applications usually requires recompilation at the very least. For kernel level stuff I'd imagine porting would require a significant rewrite. Also Dragonfly only works on x86-64 also so the code would have to be rewritten for portability if the other BSDs wanted to adopt it anyway.
>>51762537
Oh, that's true.
Never thought about the x64 part. OpenBSD would never want it then.
Anyone get word from Broadcom yet about a blob for their AC WIFI cards?
>>51760520
But aren't they just stealing from Linux and patching it to work on their shit?
>>51761000
No, No, He's saying Libreboot forces their OS on you: GNU/Linux.
>>51762681
Was it not based on Linux in the first place?
The program actually running as the BIOS, that is.
>>51762653
What about the DE's like KDE and Gnome, for instance?
>>51762732
Those aren't Linux software, they're software that run on Linux.
>>51762927
Thanks for clarifying that. It seems I've had the wrong ideas about both of these OS's.
>>51762927
>Gnome 3 requires the use of systemd
>not a Linux software
okay
>>51763002
It may be tailored to Linux now, but it's not Linux's property or anything
>>51762653
>no
>>51762927
>>51763002
>>51763027
>>51763033
I'm so confused....
>>51763367
Take KDE for example. They develop a DE. Their DE runs on Linux, but isn't JUST for Linux. It's a project independent of Linux. It's not software for Linux, it's software for UNIX(like) systems, Linux just being the most popular one.
>>51763436
I was under the impression BSD used the Linux Kernel as well. Is this wrong?
>>51763436
What the hell happened to devs being proud of portability? If you got to XFCE's website, the fact that it runs on OpenBSD is actually one of their selling points.
>>51763462
Yes.
>>51763462
Very. Not only do they not use Linux, they each have their own kernel.
>>51763367
DEs and WMs make use of external libraries, they don't talk to the OS directly the libraries abstract those details away. As far as GNOME/KDE/XFCE/etc is concerned every OS that has the libraries appears to be the same.
>>51763027
It's a de facto Linux software as it uses Linux-specific features which make it unportable without heavy patching.
>>51763485
>>51763494
>>51763520
Thanks.
Are the commands the same across the various BSD's? I wan't to try one of the 'easier" ones first and I'd hate to throw away anything I learn, if and when I move to the more advanced versions. I realize the package management is probably different but the core commands are all the same?
>>51764085
They function similarly but each has its quirks, they are separate operating systems after all.
>>51764085
If you used Linux, you won't have any problems, and yes they do share a lot of commands.
Start with OpenBSD, it actually comes with Xorg.
While browsing the official FreeBSD forums, I've stumbled upon the post by byuu (yes, that byuu) which showed me how little I actually knew about autism:
"If things get so incredibly bad that we lose all of X.Org, all of Wayland, all of our accelerated video drivers, all of GTK+, and all of Qt, the absolute doomsday scenario, then I will help rewrite it all. One ioctl and one mmap, and you've got a hi-res pixel buffer that's good enough for anything but playing 3D games. I am certain I won't be the only one interested in a true, portable *nix-style desktop that uses tried and true paradigms instead of constantly redesigning everything. Especially if the BSDs end up with no alternatives. We'll recreate it all from scratch if we have to: first a display server, then a window manager, then a toolkit, then userland applications. One by one."
So while listening to the BSD fags don't forget for a minute how delusional they are. Take everything they say with a grain of salt.
>>51764498
Oh hey that's neat.
But who cares?
>>51739858
You forgot remove word "General" and add this:
All kind of Clowns don't cross that line, it's *BSD thread, so leave your jokes to yourself.:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>51764705
Sounds like you want a circlejerk thread nigga
>>51755697
>>51757968
>>51758116
>>51758198
Kill yourself.
>>51764705
>goes to 4chan
>pls no jokes
>>51764705
I have bad news for you, this board is a joke, and moot is one of the 'clowns' you're complaining about. This seriously used to be the /g/uro board.
Too bad, no trips.
>fucking >>51750777
I hate this stupid country I live in.
>/g/ will never have a BSD thread as good as >>51724709 again
You can't say I ruined this thread.
>tfw had new year's resolution
>failed it because something else took longer than I thought
It's like new year's eve is cursed or something, supposedly, nobody ever actually accomplishes those goals.
>>51766919
>license arguments
>good thread
>>51766934
As far as BSD threads tend to go, it was great.
>>51758824
>doesn't run at "FULL system privileges"
>I don't know how computers work
>scenarios could happen without loadable ROMs
>I can't read
gtfo
>>51757339
>memes
>>51758492
>don't require proprietary BIOS
>they require proprietary features
bsd confirmed for cucks
