NetBSD
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
So Gentoo & Arch users, i guess you like tinkering and are quite tech savvy...
Why not use NetBSD?
It is bloat free, easy to compile and configure.
We should get hardware support up to date and documentation/man pages to FreeBSD/OpenBSD levels.
>>52101662
>It is bloat free, easy to compile and configure.
Ok.
Whatever.
>>52101662
Why use NetBSD when FreeBSD exists?
>>52101662
I do.
The man pages are already at least on FreeBSD levels. More hardware support other than CPU platforms would be nice tho,
>>52101662
I think a better question is WHY use NetBSD. Or any BSD for that matter?
>>52101764
NetBSD feels simpler and is leaner.
Making things work on NetBSD actually requires understanding how the system works. Better for learning.
Also wider platform support on NetBSD allows for more playing around with diverse hardware.
I must say FreeBSD is a fine system.
>>52101844
All of what you said also applies to OpenBSD.
>>52101808
Freedom(MIT/X11/BSD/ISC license)
BSDs(aside from FreeBSD and Dragonfly) run on basically anything
If you need linux compatibility you can run linux binaries on them(Net and Free, Open has a compatibility layer but its under-maintained).
The biggest problem with the BSDs is that they just don't have enough developer resources to allocate toward hardware devices.
>>52101864
True, I do have OpenBSD running on a machine.
But, OpenBSD seems to focus more on security than making the system configurable: less compile time options, also, the ports system isn't quite what pkgsrc is.
pkgin is comfy
NetBSD is a nice blend of OpenBSD cleanliness and FreeBSD features (ZFS and ktrace well on their way)
portability extends outside the OS, pkgsrc personal fave package manager for OS X
bsd level documentation
people on the IRC are nice, quiet, and helpful
>>52101881
As a BSD user, I mostly agree.
FreeBSD has poor thinkpad support though(OpenBSD is the uncontested champion in this respect). FreeBSD supports only mainstream architectures, arm kind supported-ish only(although getting better).
Dragonfly runs amd64 only :( , when I get compatible hardware I intend to test it. Is it production ready?
>>52102089
I don't have any experience with dragonfly. I do know that the graphics support is quite mature though at least for AMD and Intel
>>52102076
My only problem with NetBSD documentation is the lack of a handbook like FreeBSD. The NetBSD wiki is dangerously out of date, but this is often true for FreeBSD wiki too.
This said, I love NetBSD, as it has the best cross-compilation experience.
Cleanest UNIX-like experience hands down.
I feel it's a shame people don't know and appreciate this great OS better.
>>52102145
Speaking of graphics support, FreeBSD lags behind a bit. OpenBSD and even NetBSD were faster at getting recent Intel support I think. I hear it's the same thing for AMD/Nvidia support.
>>52102175
Well I'm not necessarily saying these things are related but do consider that the main users of their OS are companies with tons of workstation and server computers and that Nvidia is quite popular in those areas and happens to offer proprietary drivers only on FreeBSD
>>52102228
Well freebsd and linux with a loadable kernel module
>>52102089
>amd64 only
>when I get compatible hardware
how poor can you be
>>52102252
He's probably looking for a secondary machine to run it on so it doesn't mess with his stuff.
>>52102252
I don't want to hardware to test a system I might never use.
I believe VMs don't offer the real experience.
NetBSD just got KMS, Dragonfly is getting Wayland.
2016 will be the year of BSD on desktop.
>>52102257
Yep. I run 3 BSD machines(Net Open and Free). Don't want to mess up something that has been working smoothly for years.
I'm thinking a m-sata SSD for my laptop could allow me to test Dragonfly, but the best would be to test it on a server.
>>52102277
just install it on another hard disk.
>>52102147
https://www.netbsd.org/docs/guide/en/
Seems like a pretty good handbook to me. Even teaches basics of vi.
>>52102447
Nice, I used it a few times in the past(about a year ago) but then parts were incomplete...
Some sections were outdated.
Hopefully now the guide is better.
Good to know there is work being done on the documentation.
>>52101662
Does it have USE flags?
>>52102656
I have no idea what USE flags are.
You can configure make in many ways both FreeBSD(make config) and NetBSD(make show-options then configure) + mk.conf.
OpenBSD flavors suck in my opinion.
>>52103202
USE flags are like configuring make, but it applies to any build system, and they are factored into dependency resolution (compiled --enable-xorg into emacs? Now your emacs package will pull in X as a dependency automatically).
It is the reason I always choose gentoo; I ran LFS and got sick of manual dependency resolution.
>>52103256
All of that is easy with pkgsrc and FreeBSD ports.
Under OpenBSD you may have to manually modify the Makefile...
>>52103256
NetBSD package model is primarily binary-based. You're supposed to compile your own when you have needs that aren't sufficiently covered by the packaged version. If you want such control over your builds, gentoo is the system for you.
NetBSD allows a fair bit of easy customization in /etc/mk.conf for the general build process, though. When compiling only select packages, I find that it also has some of the nicest compile-time options selections (make show-options)
>>52103558
Why do you say NetBSD is binary oriented?
You can compile everything under NetBSD.
The package system is actually quite out of date most of the time. They are useful mostly for quick use on systems too slow to compile. Although cross-compiling is better in my opinion.
>>52103558
After having everything auto-compiled against my global USE configuration, I don't really want to fuck around with custom compiling specific packages, especially with the dependency resolution (compile-time flag based dependency resolution is very important to me).
As far as nice compile time options, I would imagine they are on par. Gentoo even lets you drop .patch files and have said patch be auto-applied to the correct package at build time, I used to use this to get global menu bar in Firefox (before I grew sick of it).
>>52103657
Dependency resolution is excellent under the ports system. pkgsrc does a great job too.
You don't have to custom compile every time, configurations are saved across upgrades, deinstallations/reinstallations.
I'm guessing you never used BSDs...?
Your configs are only lost if you modified the Makefile which does get replaced if updated.
>>52103797
I assumed config was saved, that is not what I was getting at.
Here is an example: I want absolutely no program with printer support compiled in.
Under gentoo:
echo USE="-cups" >> /etc/portage/make.conf
Is it this easy in BSD?
I might give it a try if it is, ports has just never appealed to me as I did not think it had some of the nicer features from portage (which keep in mind is just an upgraded ports).
>>52103895
>I want absolutely no program with printer support compiled in.
literally pure autism
>>52101931
That's sort of the point of OpenBSD. I admire their effort in valuing security over everything.
I have chosen OpenBSD for one of my applications to be deployed on and decided to take the performance hit just for the peace of mind.
>>52103983
So what you telling me is I have a legitimate reason to use gentoo, and that makes you angry for some reason?
I don't have a printer as my school only supports windows for printing, so I use windows to print. Why have context menus with a print command and have one of the worst Unix daemons ever written installed if I will never use it?
I never said BSD was wrong or bad. Someone asked why I didn't use it, I laid out my reasons and even considered trying it out if my issues were addressed.
>>52103895
It is more involved than USE flags I guess, but still quite easy. Individual configuration should take no more than 10 minutes. pkgsrc stores configs in the one file, FreeBSD ports keeps them under a comprehensive directory hierarchy. Also ports will ask you to configure if it is the first compilation(unless told not to).
Individual configuration for each port is more flexible in my opinion anyway.
This is what I like about BSDs. Flexibility and as little hand-holding as possible. Nothing is done for you, the system doesn't do design in your stead.
>>52104271
Gentoo lets you do individual package configuration easy enough.
echo "app-editors/emacs -X sound" >> /etc/portage/package.use/emacs, to disable X and enable sound support.
You can make /etc/portage/package.use into any directory structure you see fit, as long as they use atoms of that form.
make.conf just lets you set global defaults.
>>52104088
I don't have a printer either but sperging over a print context menu is autistic
>>52101711
No. It really is. Amazingly so. It's like Slackware from the olden days simple. And cleaner.
>>52101764
Choice, easier to port code, new drivers show up in NetBSD first. System/package manager doesn't shit itself if you mix packages and ports.
Since this is going to be a BSD thread, has anyone here tried Dragonfly? I really want to try using the HAMMER filesystem.
Also I might try netbsd for an embedded system, how much space does the install take up usually?
>>52104501
Why? It takes the same amount of time to install either way, only takes a second to turn off, and unclutters my menus.
I am just taking advantage of the customizability the system offers.
>>52103983
i use BSD but use flags work really well when you want to filter out cancer like GNOME and systemd on linux
>>52105011
:D , BSDs have the advantage of having no silliness like systemd...
Gnome is hard to weed out but possible with careful configuration.
>>52103983
If you don't use it ever why have it?
>>52104686
Just use FreeBSD with ZFS until HAMMER2 comes out.
>>52106114
Under FreeBSD I use ZFS, what is better about HAMMER2?
>>52103895
In Freebsd you put in /etc/make.confWITHOUT_CUPS=1
>>52106074
Those were just examples. Thankfully, BSD doesn't have to deal with systemd.
I remember on some Linux distros for example shit would keep trying to pull in gparted even though it was completely unrelated to what I was actually installing. USE flags helped remedy that.
Didn't really have that kind of problem on OpenBSD, yet.
>>52106263
One thing about HAMMER2 that's nice is the license, BSD license allows any OS to adopt it. HAMMER2 is supposed to be simpler in concept than its predecessor also and less reliant on system calls unique to dragonfly so porting it to other OSes would be easier.
Maybe eventually OpenBSD devs would consider adopting it. OpenBSD wont use ZFS because the license doesn't mesh with their project but they also don't really have an answer to ZFS either.
>>52102089
>Dragonfly runs amd64 only :( , when I get compatible hardware I intend to test it. Is it production ready?
Dude for fuck's sake, even Pentium 4s support x86-64
>>52108599
>Maybe eventually OpenBSD devs would consider adopting it.
But why would you replace the glorious 80's era UFS? I like open BSD a lot, but they tend to shun anything Theo Deraddit considers inelegant.
>>52108701
Maybe he uses an Intel Edison board with a line printer instead of a display. Ok? Mr judgy who only garbage picks PCs from the finest ghetto neighborhoods.
Yeah. But seriously, I have three spare p4s in my garage that run, were garbage picked, and run in x86-64 mode. It's hard to get hardware that doesn't support it anymore.
