Been using arch for a while, and now thinking of moving to gentoo. What about BSD? I've never tried a BSD system and don't really know anything about them.
What are the advantages / disadvantages to using BSD over linux?
BSD's kernel technology is waaaaay behind Linux. FreeBSD didn't even have tickless until 9 (I think)
They don't have ASLR either. Pretty fucking pathetic for 2016.
Everything in the core system is written/maintained by core group of developers so it's all a lot more cohesive than Linux is. Overall just a really solid, clean system that makes sense. Ports are also godly.
Give it a shot sometime, I run arch on my laptop and freebsd on my server and I like it for a lot of the same reasons I like arch. (massive collection of software in ports tree/aur and it's super easy to add in your own packages---say from git repos or whatever---to the system.)
>>52464307
This is what worries me. Is any advantages of security / performance / etc worth the lack of support at all?
I really haven't found too many strong pros for bsd
>>52464817
the point of bsd existing is the license, the other differences are mostly coincidental
>>52465130
meh, starting gentoo install now. BSD just isn't convincing at all.
You can install gentoo on top of bsd btw
By the way, stick to stable or unstable branches, do not try going stable and mixing unstable packages because it'll become a dependency hell for you.
>>52465597
one of the biggest reasons i'm moving from arch. every few months my system will get BTFO'd by a -Syu and I'm just getting sick of it. Good to know though.
>>52465225
The BSDs are not distros of one central OS called BSD they're all independent OSes. If you want security features OpenBSD has a fuckton of them, NetBSD has a few as well but not as many. FreeBSD isn't as extensive security-wise but there are distros like HardenedBSD that have security features enabled by default.
>>52465689
I know, I was just meaning a BSD system in general. Though isn't the most popular FreeBSD? If I were to play around on a *BSD system, which would /g/ most recommend?
>>52465225
holy shit, 30 minutes into installing fucking NETWORKMANAGER, and gentoo's still compiling LMFAO
>>52465688
>i don't read arch newsfeed before updating
Go install Ubuntu. if you're too stupid to use arch, *BSD will be a nightmare for you.
>>52465833
FreeBSD is the one everyone gravitates toward because it tries to be more user-friendly like a GNU/Linux distro. OpenBSD and NetBSD are a little more hands-on. I wouldn't really recommend them to someone that doesn't know how to apply patches to software and compile things.
>>52465900
OpenBSD is more user friendly than FreeBSD. OpenBSD simplifies everything as much as possible. What FreeBSD does do better is performance. It can compete with the best of Linux there, whereas OpenBSD falls way behind.
>>52464307
>>52464310
>>52464817
>>52465225
>>52465541
>>52465597
>>52465688
>>52465689
>>52465833
>>52465871
>>52465882
>>52465900
>>52466056
shit you retards heard about on wikipedia
#memes
>>52466268
thank you for your valuable input
>>52466268
You go to Hell. You go to Hell, and you die.
>tfw OpenSMTPd+spamd+Dovecot on OpenBSD mailserver
If you don't know why you'd want to try or use BSD you probably shouldn't. Having a majority mrket share is a non-goal for the main BSDs.
What you should know is that the BSDs are different operating system. There are quite many things in common between them, but FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD do not have the same kernel, same ports tree, same hardware compatibility, same developers, binary compatibility or 100.00% source compatibility. You have dumb fucks like >>52464307 shitting on
>BSD's kernel technology
when OpenBSD was the first OS anyone cares about to have ASLR. I might as well say Linux kernel technology is outdated since they don't even have kernel Lua scripting or rump kernels.
>>52464160
Companies that consider making a Linux port for their software can't make a bsd port because they've never even heard of it.
>>52466908
I fucking love OpenSMTPD.
It's so simple. So is their httpd server.
>Arch is getting too mainstream
>what about this even more obscure bullshit?
go for haiku
>>52468597
This is really funny considering the whiny "BSD general, please use BSD!" threads we have every couple of days with less than 10 posts. And by "we" I mean a few losers.
>Please use BSD!
>...okay, why?
>If you have to ask, you probably shouldn't. Get lost
>>52473659
Exactly this... people say to try it. Okay, why?
> no good answers
So BSD is shite
>>52473659
>>52473951
The last release of BSD was in 1995, so you're all a bunch of retards having no idea whatsoever what you're talking about.
>>52474227
>Debian released 1993
I guess nobody should debian with your logic.
>>52474597
Debian has had plenty of releases after 1993. I don't think you understand what a release is.
>>52465688
So just use another distro? I don't understand the problem, you picked the one of the most known distros that is known to break on updates. Why not use Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, or openSuSe?
>>52474910
Mostly because Arch was generally harder to use, and I'm trying to learn as much as I can about *nix. Same reason why I just moved to Gentoo.
>>52474965
Ubuntu minimal, Debian minimal, Fedora minimal, etc. all exist. You start with the exact same place as an arch install and you build the system up according to what you want. And if you really want to learn Linux, then I would recommend slackware. Everything you learn about gentoo is gentoo specific, it won't teach you anything more than using their package manager, emerge.
>>52475011
Interesting... I've heard of slackware before but never gave it much thought. I'll check it out.
>>52475092
Cool. I also want to say I didn't mean to come off as arrogant. I too went through the arch and gentoo phase a couple of years ago, but in the end I have settled with a 'just werks' debian install. Have fun anon!
>>52474227
Last release of Berkeley Software Distribution was in 1995. Its descendants, known collectively as BSDs have had numerous periodic releases since then, right up to today. You're being unhelpfully pedantic and actually wrong.
>>52474597
First release vs last release.
>>52473659
I never told anyone to use BSD. If you need to be convinced that trying an OS similar to, but older and differently built than guhnoo plus linux systems you're used to could be a fun, educational or useful experience; if you feel that nothing you've heard about the systems is meaningful; stay with Linux or Windows or AmigaOS or whatever the hell you're using. You'll be happier.
I'll try to be nice and make a short, incomplete list of interesting features in the BSDs. Feel free to care about them or not. The BSD license allows either.
FreeBSD:
>Mature ZFS implementation out of the box
>Excellent handbook
>Excellent performance, especially on x86/AMD64
>Underrated binary package manager that slays most of the Linux ones (speed, ease of use, dep resolution)
NetBSD:
>Also has ZFS support out of the box (IIRC)
>Lua scripting in kernel
>Excellent portability (Try to find a single Linux distro to run on all of these architectures. Even then their kernel has gone through much more rewriting.)
>Best combined source/binary package manager
>God-tier TCP/IP stack
>Clean, simple, efficient networking tools in general, good selection of firewalls, etc.
OpenBSD:
>Muh security or whatever
>Surprisingly user friendly
>Bad documentation considered a bug
>Hilarious Theo de Raadt quotes and a movie song parody for every release.
>Best man pages anywhere
>Almost as, if not more portable as NetBSD (but actively focusing only on a handful of architectures)
If none of that means anything to you or you feel you're missing something crucial, fine. BSD is shit and you shouldn't use it. Us who know and love our BSDs will continue to ignore your opinion because it doesn't matter.
>>52475214
OpenBSD is as portable as NetBSD, they just don't care for architectures that barely work, hence why you don't have as many ports of it.
>>52464160
Do you by any chance mean use BSD on a workstation?
What line of business are you in?
>>52475268
Yea that's pretty much what I meant. "Portability" is just pretty hard to scientifically quantify.
>>52475330
Just desktop use.
> is it stupid to ask about BSD for personal use?
>>52475268
Theo tries to target every platform he can, he just doesn't always have the hardware necessary to personally test against. He has a room full of obsolete hardware that he uses to test each port and to make sure that they can compile theirselves so OpenBSD is a self-hosting OS on each and every port.
>>52475480
Yeah but what I was talking about is OpenBSD will only ever have Tier 1 ports.
That way they're all supported equally, unlike the vast majority of NetBSD ports.
I've been using BSD since 2.2.5. It is faster, mor re secure and more stable then any linux distro. Most linux software is originally developed on bsd. It also has things like zags which no file system ever built can touch. It also doesn't have any of the Linux "I want to be more like microsoft" crap like gnome, ked and the automatic system manager telling you how you should use your computer.
That being said, I suggest linux. Bsd is difficult to use for someone not ery, very familiar with the command line, the kernal, system libraries, compiling... etc. I never suggest bsd to anyone who isn't a complete masochist. It has a great support community and lots of built in tools to help guide you. BSD is more for crazy hackers.
>>52475657
>since 2.2.5
so you went to Berkeley?
>>52464160
>posting from an OpenBSD laptop
>everything works perfectly
>httpd, SMTPd, softraid crrypto
>god-tier man pages
>can troubleshoot offline
>feelsgoodman.jpg
>>52476073
>httpd, SMTPd
On a laptop..?
>>52476073
>tfw my nigger ISP blocks smtp ports
feels bad man
>>52476112
I've other machines running it, and it's great.
