What are your non-meme thoughts on OpenBSD?
Good laptop OS.
Bad laptop OS.
It's nice but it's always lagging behind Linux in hardware support and general user friendliness.
I know they don't just want to slap shit together to make things work like Linux distros do but that has it's drawbacks.
Good laptop OS.
Nice man's
Randi Harper is hot and smart and stable leader.
Great laptop OS
Terrible laptop OS
It's more secure than Linux or any other bsd
decent laptop OS
maybe Laptop OS
>>52285401
Tried installing it on an x60, totally locked up after about 5 minutes of use. Moved it over to an x61 and it worked alright, had to spend a bit hacking up fvwm to fit my needs only to find out that the X server was shit and incompatible with remote Solaris applications, but whatever. Was good enough for local shitposting.
Does OpenBSD support proprietary NVIDIA drivers like FreeBSD does?
>>52286143
>installing non free software
>>52286143
Nope
>>52286207
Then it's not useful you idiot.
>>52286274
Sure it is, I use OpenBSD on a laptop with Nvidia dGPU and no iGPU
>>52286143
>proprietary software
triggered.
I'd say it makes a pretty decent laptop OS.
>>52285583
You're in the wrong thread.
>>52286143
>hurr durr I run ganooh slash leenuks bc it respek mah freedums
>muh proprietary drivers
>muh non free gaymes
>your os is shit bc it's too free
>>52285401
B O T N E T
O
T
N
E
T
>>52285583
Wrong BSD
good thinkpad OS
>>52285446
It lags behind Linux in New hardware support. Older hardware however will continue to work indefinitely, whereas Linux will break shit once actively support ends.
It's also less user-friendly than say Mint, but compared to something like Arch or Gentoo it's way more user-friendly. It's not a hand-holding OS, but it is as simplified, and logical as possible. The target user-base for it are the devs themselves. It's designed to be exactly the OS they want to use as a development platform, so they don't go out of their way to make it needlessly complicated or difficult for the sake of elitism.
I'd say it's biggest drawback is its community. Arch and Gentoo certainly are not welcoming towards complete noobs, but OpenBSD takes it further, and are not particularly welcoming towards anyone who isn't an OpenBSD developer. You have to prove that you are useful to the community in some way before they warm-up to you, otherwise you are a waste of their time. It doesn't matter who you are, and how knowledgeable you are. Create and maintain packages in accordance to the project standards, find and document bugs, shit like that, and you'll find that they are a bit nicer than their reputation suggests.
>>52288331
>compared to something like Arch or Gentoo it's way more user-friendly
it's really not
>>52288331
I think you are exaggerating their unfriendliness, but it's there. A lot of it because they have great documentation and as a consequence believe in RTFM.
>>52288349
It really is.
I've always been able to get good help from them, and they've been nice.
These are the only downsides I've had with it:
From a pure performance standpoint, especially on multi CPU boxes, it is the least performant of all contemporary BSDs (I wouldn't call it slow however)
It doesn't have good support for hosting virtual machines. They don't like qemu or the freebsd solution, and have been working on their own. But it's not ready for primetime.
No video input support, so if you need to use Google hangouts for work or contracts, you won't be doing it from an openbsd desktop/laptop.
>insecure
>lacks modern features that freebsd has like jails
>made a deal with the FBI to put a backdoor into it
It's a piece of shit.
>>52288705
>insecure
No
>no jails
Correct
>FBI backdoor deal
Prove it or it didn't happen. OP said no memes.
>>52288786
>Prove it or it didn't happen. OP said no memes.
http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/allegations-openbsd-backdoors-may-be-true
>>52286454
That depends. Laptop wireless can be a huge pain on Linux, and almost certainly always is on the BSDs. Not being able to use wireless, or having to jump through hoops to do it is understandably a deal-breaker for most people. People generally buy laptops because they expect to be able to use them wherever they happen to be. Its less of an issue if you don't mind potentially being limited to using Ethernet.
That said, it's wonderful for older hardware. I have 5.8 running on an old Pentium 4, and it works flawlessly, and surprisingly fast. I rescued the thing from the dumpster at work, and it had Win XP originally. XP would barely even boot anymore, and you could completely forget using it for much of anything due to how slow and sluggish it was. With OpenBSD though it's a perfectly good PC for browsing the web, word processing, and light shit like that.
>>52285401
One thing I noticed,updates are slow as fuck to install.Agonizingly slow,tbperfectlyh.
>>52285401
The most popular normie OS is *BSD.
>install openbsd
>ok, now how do I update this
>find out that I have to manually download source patches and recompile
>uninstall
>>52291078
Why would you even download and install an insecure OS like OpenBSD in the first place? FreeBSD master race.
>>52288808
>links article proving backdoors
>article literally disproves them
le kek
>>52291367
Dude I really wanna use FreeBSD but the default install is so bloated. Something like 1.3GB with no ports and ufs filesystem (wanted to install it onto a thin client pc with 2gb of flash memory)
>>52291977
>>article literally disproves them
No it doesn't
>>52292106
Nor does it prove them. It actually suggests it's highly unlikely.
>>52291977
The URL has both "openbsd" and "backdoors" in it, what more proof do you want?
>>52288689
Yea, performance is almost an entirely alien concept to the devs. They don't give a single fucking about it. I can see their reasoning to a degree. They don't want to sacrifice security, or rush half-assed code into a release, just to have better performance, or new features just for the sake of having new features. They are really conservative about major changes to the OS.
I do think they take it too far though. There's no good reason to completely sacrifice performance. There can be a reasonable compromise somewhere between the two extremes.
>>52292406
I was hoping for actual proof and not just clickbait shit.
>>52288086
>i value pleasure more than freedom
>>52291078
>can't follow simple instructions to make a release
>>52285583
>Theo de Raadt is hot and smart and stable leader.
fixed it for you desu
It's mostly irrelevant.
>>52291078
>>52292703
yeah if you're too lazy just make a release in a VM then install that
problem solved
Never used it. Just installed FreeBSD on my RPI
>>52285401
i run it on my desktop gloriously.
>>52296417
tfw no openbsd for rpi
that would give me one reason to actually get a rpi, but the rpi foundation doesn't like muh freedoms
Laptop OS
>>52286163
>not having accelerated graphics on desktop
>"only 2 vulnerabilities" meme
>>52291367
>In November 2012, The FreeBSD Security Team announced that hackers gained unauthorized access on two of the project's servers. These servers were turned off immediately. More research demonstrated that the first unauthorized access by hackers occurred on 19 September. Apparently hackers gained access to these servers by stealing SSH keys from one of the developers, not by exploiting a bug in the operating system itself. These two hacked servers were part of the infrastructure used to build third-party software packages. The FreeBSD Security Team checked the integrity of the binary packages and announced that no unauthorized change was made to the binary packages, but they stated that they can't guarantee the integrity of packages that were downloaded between 19 September and 11 November.
:^)
>>52297539
openbsd has accelerated graphics with intel and amd graphics. your own fault if you buy hardware from shitty vendors
>>52297243
Don't hold your breath. The devs are pretty hostile to the idea porting it to RPi. However, there are other boards that they support. Like the PCDuino family. http://www.openbsd.org/armv7.html#install
>>52300223
they're mostly hostile to the fact that it's crappy hardware but if someone sent a patch they would probably accept it. the trouble is nobody sends patches, they just complain that the devs never bothered getting one and making it work.
>>52300223
>>52300411
i know that they're hostile towards it hence my original post, but i'm sure they'd refuse any diffs as apparently you'd need a clusterfuck of blobs to actually run an OS on it
>>52300533
maybe, maybe not. openbsd dev: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=142297169308850&w=2
bump ?
