*BSD General Thread
Discuss FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, DragonFlyBSD, PC-BSD, OPNsense, FreeNAS...
IRC: irc.rizon.net #baot
News: http://freebsdnews.net | http://undeadly.org | http://dragonflydigest.com
Are you a Linux user wondering about why someone might choose BSD?
Give this a read: https://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/01
Ask questions, get answers!
>>53404741
BSD is for cucks.
BSD license is for cuck developers.
BSD zealotry means devoting your life to an inferior version of the most popular operating system on the planet.
BSD will always be number 2.
BSD licensed code will always be used, abused and reused without any benefit to the BSD community or free software movement.
Choose mediocrity. Choose BSD.
>>53404814
Is there any way to get UNIX without BSD? I've always wanted to go straight unix.
>>53404814
/thread
Op btfo tbqh family associate
>>53404814
anything with people this man about it is worth having.
it's funny cause you're angry about things you dont understand
***yaawwwn*** inb4 i have a cs degree sysadmin devoprogrammer. nice try ahaha
>>53404814
>>53404853
Buttmad freetards detected
>>53404814
Worse, FreeBSD is covered by a Code of Conduct.
https://www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html
No matter what the supposed technical merits of FreeBSD are, this a fucking showstopper.
>>53404905
And since when is FreeBSD all BSDs?
>>53404913
Net, Dragonfly and Open are hobbyist curiosities at best. Which is fine if you're a hobbyist, not so much if you're actually trying to get work done.
>>53404905
>https://www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html
tbqh senpai freeBSD is worst BSD
>>53404814
>cucks
12 year old detected. Ignoring. Children should be seen and not heard. I blame your shitty parents. Had they backhanded you, or taken a belt to your ass when this shit first started, instead of coddling and encouraging you, the world would have been much better off.
>>53404969
Can't speak for Dragonfly but NetBSD and OpenBSD are perfectly usable
>>53404905
>it's unfair!
>civilized society demands that I behave civilly in order to take part in it.
>I'll go whine about it on 4chan
>I'm gonna start a blog too.
>that'll fucking show them!
>>53405023
I didn't say unusable, I said that they were hobbyist curiosities.
>>53405070
And I siad they're not.
Something else that annoys me about BSD is that the various BSD's out there aren't so much distributions as they are completely different operating systems that happen to have had a common ancestor. With Linux, if you get a new kernel feature, it'll eventually be everywhere else. With BSD's....eh.....
For example, FreeBSD is stuck with an absolutely ancient version of pf that they literally can't upgrade because they made too many changes to it to get performance to be not-shit. On the other hand, OpenBSD's SMP support is from the last century.
>>53405189
>Something else that annoys me about BSD is that the various BSD's out there aren't so much distributions as they are completely different operating systems that happen to have had a common ancestor
That's what makes them better.
>>53405058
V npghnyyl qba'g zvaq gurz, ohg crbcyr ba gurfr obneqf ungr gurz sbe fbzr qhzo ernfba fb jul abg oevat vg hc.
>>53405011
Butthurt BSDfag
>>53404850
Solaris
AIX
HP-UX
IRIX
of course, you'll need to buy the hardware to run these on... except Solaris, that runs on x86 hardware pretty nicely.
>>53405023
>OpenBSD are perfectly usable
OpenBSD user here and even I would dispute that. It's useable on some level, but definitely not as a daily OS. It has its uses though.
>>53405472
I guess it depends on what you do. I have absolutely no issues using OpenBSD or Linux or any other OS.
>>53404850
why would not choose BSD if you wanted a real sysv experience? It's probably the most supported on common hardware and its not like the other *nixes will be very different (some of them are forked from the *BSD's.)
btw, kill yourself faggot.
>>53405515
for basic tasks like email, office shit, web browsing (minus anything Flash related), listening to music or shitposting, yeah OpenBSD is ok. Maybe Python/Ruby dev is cool too (though I know Python 3 is quite a bit behind and Python 2 only slightly behind), but that's really about it.
>>53405542
The major Unix variants, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, and IRIX, are all derivatives of System V. IRIX, however, did have a bit of BSD shit thrown in the mix.
>>53404969
I guess you never worked in netsec, or even setup a firewall. Otherwise you wouldn't say that.
Anyway, they *can* also be hobbyist systems. That's pretty much how I use OpenBSD on my laptop, for the good old school Unix feeling. Linux deviated too far from that for me to enjoy it anymore.
But, I also used obsd in data centers and intranets for work.
>>53405189
Nothing wrong with not putting all your eggs in one basket. Also, diverse ecology is better than monoculture. It's bad enough that these days so much hardware is just amd64 or arm. The OS at least should try to branch out.
for me BSD is gentoo without the autism
>>53405189
Well for the most part if it only requires user facing libraries and can be run from the userland they do have a high degree of compatibility between one another. OpenBSD is probably the least compatible as far as importing foreign software projects because of the mitigations but exported software projects should run basically anywhere as long as it doesn't rely on kernel functionality(like pf)
>>53405542
BSD is sysV experience?
What are you saying?
>>53405287
phpxf, phpxf rireljurer
>>53406590
>for me BSD is gentoo without the autism
and without a healthy ecosystem
>>53407275
How so?
>>53407278
That is a good question. I checked quickly after my retort that frisbee has 27k ports and gentoo 18k packages.
However, it still feels like linux gets the most developer attraction.
I used frisbee in the early 2000s extensively, haven't touch it in years if not accounting for pfsense/nas osses which I admin on daily basis. But maybe I should take a look at it, spin up a instance and educate myself about it.
OpenBSD 5.9 will apparently be the last version to support the VAX platform. Seems to be due to hardware problems on the test platform.
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20160309192510
>>53407493
Yeah I heard about that one. Hard to find those beasts anymore these days.
The 68k port got axed some years ago too, but I'm not sure why. Still plenty of those machines around. Supposedly it was due to bad SCSI controller or something. I guess they're still running 88k machine though.
>>53407949
Then again, m88k seems quite different from m68k.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_88000
That looks like a real qt3.14 computer:
http://www.openbsd.org/luna88k.html
>>53407949
>due to a bad SCSI controller
As in instead of getting a different 68k machine they just dropped the port?
>>53404898
I use windows cause I have a job you fuck
>>53410304
Congrats, want a prize?
>>53410329
How would you give me a prize? You probably don't have money cause you don't have a job cause you use an os that only hobbyist use.
>>53410371
I have a job dipshit. I also use OpenBSD as my primary OS.
>>53405542
I was thinking about openBSD... is that a good "distro"?
>>53411354
Go for it, it's great
>>53411361
Is there any guide or pastebin on things I need need to know before I switch from loonigs?
>>53411390
I just used this http://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/5.8/amd64/INSTALL.amd64
>>53411421
Thanks.
>>53411354
It's not a distro. The BSDs are all distinct OSes. It's good though if you are doing development. If you are using your OS primarily for entertainment, then it's not your best choice.
>>53411452
Why do they all share the "BSD" name then? They've gotta share something. The kernel maybe?
>>53404850
OSX
>>53405079
You're delusional.
>>53411476
They're all forks of BSD. Kernel, userland, it all differs from OS to OS
>>53411504
aka. distros
>>53411533
You're fucking retarded.
>>53411476
They are all ultimately descended from BSD/Unix. FreeBSD and NetBSD were forks of 386BSD, while OpenBSD was originally a fork of NetBSD, and Dragonfly is a fork of FreeBSD. They all do borrow fairly liberally from each other, but they do use their own kernels and userland. It's quite different from how Linux does things--i.e. sharing the same kernel, and heavily relying on GNU.
>>53411568
>I got told but must post anyway
kid...
>>53411599
You haven't told anyone bud. Go be ignorant somewhere else.
>>53411599
>>53411613
You're both fucking retarded
>>53411613
>confirmed told
>angry as fuck
>>53411650
>mad for being ignored
here's your (You) to cheer you up, kid :^)
>>53411753
ty daddy
>>53411476
The open source BSDs are all descendants of 4.4BSD-lite. They kept the name for traditional purposes mostly. Changing the name would probably just make it harder to find them anyway.
>>53411857
sure thing; now, fuck off to your room, daddy needs to bust a nut to some traps
>>53411883
>traditional purposes mostly
More like grasping at straws; nobody would pay a second look if they'd be called what they are: FreeToy, NetToy, OpenToy.
>>53407493
This is kind of good news, that'll mean OpenBSD will be less held back by VAX compatibility.
Maybe we'll finally have ARM packages.
>>53411953
I hope they drop everything except uniprocessor 32-bit x86 to avoid getting held back by compatibility.
>>53411976
PPC macs still have practical use, if you're a poorfag.
All the ports have uses, some bugs only happen on some hardware.
>>53411953
OpenBSD uses these antiquated platforms for finding edge case bugs. There's no practical application for them anymore aside from that but it's still a shame.
>>53411990
PowerPC Macs still have practical uses period
>>53411990
>if you're a poorfag
I'm not, so no.
>some bugs only happen on some hardware
Nobody cares about that hardware.
>>53412004
Yeah I know, it IS a shame because it helped the devs and it's still a nice novelty.
But let's be honest, no one but Theo ran the VAX port.
>>53412022
>Nobody cares about that hardware.
Maybe you don't, but again, it helps reduce problems on other architectures.
>>53412030
>reduce problems on other architectures
m8...
>>53411917
>no one uses FreeNAS
Well OpenBSD 5.9 will continue to run on the VAX at least. If for some reason you still have a VAX and you rely on it and you don't have it hooked up to the internet you can just stay on 5.9 forever. Being open source, it only really goes unmaintained if no one with a VAX knows how to program.
>>53412213
>still have a VAX and you rely on it
bsdcucks wet dreams everyone
>>53412315
What is VAX?
>>53412330
obsolete
>>53412330
an ISA
>>53412348
>>53412346
WTF? It was made in the 70's and It's still in use? Whats it for that people need?
>>53412412
x86 was also made in the 70s and you're probably using it right now
>>53412412
No one really uses them for anything significant anymore they're mainly a curiosity for most people. Theo the lead OpenBSD dev likes to try and build his OS old computers because it helps him find unique bugs.
>>53412412
There are cases where replacing antique hardware (and software) is just not an option, for various reasons.
The US Pentagon still uses hardware from the 60s for ICBM guidance systems for example. There is a huge benefit to this that may not be readily apparent. This hardware is so old that the original manufacturers don't make it anymore, if they even still exist. Very few people outside of the Pentagon know how this hardware works. The outside entities who do, are private contractors that make the replacement parts, and maintain software, which is an extremely lucrative business for them. Plus this hardware is not precisely the same as it originally was, as the Pentagon has heavily modified it over the years, so even if you did understand the original, you don't understand the current. See where this is going? It's extremely secure for them to use, to the point that outside security vulnerabilities are virtually non-existent, and people with inside knowledge have very high security clearances, so there's only a very small chance that they would deliberately compromise the systems.
>>53412454
>bugs unique to an architecture nobody is using
money well spent openbsd "foundation"!
>>53412539
An unnoticed bug is still a bug. What may go unnoticed on one system may not be noticed on another.
>>53412560
>may go unnoticed on one system
>not be noticed on another
those are the same thing
>>53412571
Yeah you get the point
>>53412560
Codewords for "the developers are incompetent and can't reason about the code so they instead compile on as many archs as possible and hope to catch the bugs"; if only those VAX machines would have caught the openssh roaming vulnerability...
If you take pride in auditing your code but you need exotic machines to catch bugs for you, your audit is a fucking joke.
kill me and end my suffering
>>53412745
>openssh roaming vulnerability
you mean the vulnerability that didn't mean shit because no one used other SSH servers, and even if they did no one knew about the exploit?
>>53412768
>no one knew
oh, sweet summer child...
>>53412816
point me to the servers that DID NOT run openssh and also made use of the vulnerability
ALSO the feature to disabling roaming was built into the SSH client, so as soon as we knew about it you could just turn it off
but no, you don't know shit and you're just trying to spread FUD
>>53412745
>>53412745
>openssh roaming vulnerability.
It required that you connect to an untrusted SSH server other than OpenSSH and that the server administrator actually knew about the bug.
>>53412768
>other SSH servers
>>53412830
>servers that DID NOT run openssh
>>53412833
>other than OpenSSH
I think you kids mean "unaltered openssh server"; you don't have to create another ssh server, you just need to modify openssh to take advantage of the roaming offer from the client. You're dolts.
>as soon as we knew
You only "knew" after 6 years :^)
>>53412925
And yet you're not arguing the other point.
Why the fuck would you connect to an untrusted SSH server?
>>53412925
The functionality was disabled when it was discovered. At this point the only way to take advantage of this bug is to poison the client as well and if you already have physical access to the client why would you even bother with this overly complex scheme? Why would the client even be connecting to servers they don't know about?
>>53412966
Ah, yes, the gold argument: "why would you connect to an untrusted server", "why would you browse untrusted websites", "why would you join an untrusted network, ie. the internet". Well, gee, I don't know, maybe because it didn't cross my mind that simply connecting to a server through a "secure protocol" implemented by "security experts" that "audit the code" wasn't supposed to leak my private key?
>>53412972
>disabled when it was discovered
After 6 years "in production".
>At this point
At this point it's 6 years late. It doesn't matter anymore, the vulnerability is public. The other ones are in play now.
>>53413043
ssh and http are not the same protocol
again, you could turn it off without even PATCHING the source code
the real bug here is the fact that it was undocumented
>>53413084
>ssh and http
your level of understanding is astounding
>real bug here is the fact that it was undocumented
ah yes, LEAKING your private key is not a bug if it's documented; let me guess, you're a "security expert"
>>53413239
Again, the leaking of the key would've only happened if you connected to an evil ssh server you didn't trust.
It would've been your fault. Who knows what other bugs might lurk? Are you gonna cry if some other bug happens and your key gets leaked for real?
And again, there are no private keys for http, the comparison is moot.
>>53413239
Leaks your key to the server you willingly connected to. Connecting to an untrusted server is risky business which is why people generally don't do that. The only people that do that on purpose are hackers usually.
I can only see two reasons for an innocent person to fall prey to this:
1. They're being MITM'd
2. They blindly trust someone else who is misleading them
>>53413274
>ssh server you didn't trust
every day, countless people connect to them
>would've been your fault
sure, openssh did nothing wrong! hey, how about sending the private key every time it connects to a server, wouldn't that be a nice feature? since you don't connect to untrusted servers it wouldn't be a problem anyway, right?
>if some other bug happens and your key gets leaked for real
I'm sure openssh wouldn't be to blame, they didn't force me to use a computer, did they?
>here are no private keys for http
you're the only one that imagined that argument
>>53413291
>owning a computer is risky business
You don't say!
>>53413291
>Leaks your key to the server you willingly connected to.
Did you argue the heartbleed bug as "Leaks your key to the client you willingly allowed to connect to you"?
>>53413418
Heartbleed leaked pieces of the memory to any client that asked for it. It's not the same, it's actually considerably worse. Probably one of the worst bugs discovered really.
>>53413363
>every day, countless people connect to them
And countless people click random URLs on the Internet and execute programs of dubious quality. What's your point?
It's not OpenSSH's responsibility to assume that you're not retarded. Most security issues come from the end-users.
>you're the only one that imagined that argument
>Ah, yes, the gold argument: "why would you connect to an untrusted server", "why would you browse untrusted websites", "why would you join an untrusted network, ie. the internet"
I don't know anon, not only are you comparing ssh to http, you also imply that just connecting to random servers on the Internet is fine.
>>53413418
That was a genuine problem, it's not comparable to the roaming bug in any way.
>>53413474
Only to clients that you allowed to connect to you! It's your fault if you let untrusted clients connect to you.
>>53413478
>click random URLs on the Internet
Yes, you have to click in order to benefit from the hyperlinking of documents on the web.
>execute programs of dubious quality
Apparently openssh is one of them.
>What's your point?
That openssh leaked your private key.
>not only are you comparing ssh to http
I'm not.
>imply that just connecting to random servers on the Internet is fine
Obviously, it's not fine when the client program (openssh) is crap that spills his guts when trusted with sensitive information.
>That was a genuine problem
How so? It only leaked the key to clients you let connect to you. Why would you allow untrusted clients to connect?
>>53413535
The OpenSSH roaming bug can really only be utilized by one malicious entity and you will generally trust a server to some extent if you connect to it over SSH.
The heartbleed bug can be utilized by hundreds if not thousands of malicious actors simultaneously and it can leak anything that is in the memory not just the private key which can always be changed. If someone unwittingly accessed a webpage with their name, DOB, SSN, and CC# information that information would be stored in the memory and anyone using the bug could eventually dig through the memory and find it.
>>53413616
>anyone using the bug
Don't allow him to connect to your server. Problem solved! :^)
>>53413649
Of course, you're retarded enough to compare apples and oranges.
No one should be replying to you now.
>>53413649
Security in layers you shit
>>53413660
I also sincerely hope the IP counter is broken, because according to it there's 20 IPs in this thread.
You've probably been shitposting for hours.
>>53413660
>2 bugs leaking private information
>apples and oranges
Looks like you're literally retarded.
>>53413674
I've had a couple posts in here. Here they are >>53413671
>>53412412
>>53412330
>>53411857
>>53411650
>>53411476
>>53411390
>>53411354
>>53413671
Where was the layer that was supposed to NOT leak the private ssh key to the server? It's called PRIVATE, not SHARED, the server being trusted or not has nothing to do with it, you dumb fuck.
>>53413713
Hey faggot, I was never shilling OpenBSD. Fuck off back to your /csg/ and /ptg/ threads
>>53413737
Did I ask what you shill? Fuck off back to your homescreen thread.
>>53413755
Okay dad
ITT: bsdcucks are getting murdered!
>>53413807
>ITT: bsdfags can't stop taking the delicious bait
Getting those delicious (You)s is so easy in BSD threads. BSDfags can't for some reason notice obvious baits or they believe BSDs needs them to whiteknight for them. I don't know why anyone would do the latter, at least if there isn't some BSD based sexbot that only lets whiteknighting faggots fuck them.
>>53413974
Laugh all you want, but some people are retarded enough to believe obvious bait without thinking about it, hence why you get people defending stuff here.
>>53413974
Well what do you want? No one can give you your precious attention that means so much to you, if they don't play along.
>>53411452
>It's not a distro.
>Berkeley Software Distribution
>Distribution
>>53416524
Yes, BSD UNIX was originally a distribution of UNIX.
FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, DragonflyBSD are all forks that went their own way.
>>53404741
>>53416545
aka. distribution
>>53417295
No, because those operating systems have almost nothing in common besides the name.
What do Linux distributions have in common? They have the Linux kernel, and they pile some shit on top of it.
>>53417452
GNU/Linux:
Common kernel
Common core utilities
Common C library/Compiler infrastructure
BSD:
Similar name
>>53417452
>No
berkeley software DISTRIBUTION
>>53416589
so, one is actually useful, while the other just stands around and looks pretty? sounds about right.
>>53417452
>What do BSD distributions have in common? They have the BSD kernel, and they pile some shit on top of it.
>>53417586
They don't have THE BSD kernel.
They're all different. And by piling shit on top of it I mean userlands like the GNU userland or even busybox. All BSDs have their own.
Oh wait, I'm replying to a shitposter again, right?
>>53404814
enjoy you're CPU microcode backdoors, lincucks
Is someone here using freebsd or openbsd as Desktop?
How does it feel compare to a gun linux distribution?
I've always wanted to try freebsd but I guess I'm a bit afraid to do it.
>>53417900
Very similar, but more cohesive.
Just try it, especially if you got a spare computer somewhere, because they suck on consumer VMs.
I'm wondering whether I should install FreeBSD or NetBSD on my old laptop, both seem to support it, but it's PPC so NetBSD would probably be better supported, and NetBSD looks cleaner, which I really appreciate.
Which one should I use? I have lots of experience with Linux and OS X already.
>>53418018
I don't even know if FreeBSD has binary packages for PPC, but it seems like NetBSD does.
You should also consider OpenBSD, because it also has binary packages. You want those because you're gonna want to kill yourself if you compile shit on such an old computer.
ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/5.8/packages/powerpc/
In general, OpenBSD > NetBSD because they generally have the hardware to test their ports out, and the system is self-hosting.
>>53417626
>They don't have THE BSD kernel.
they do, though
>They're all different
they're all shit, though
>I mean userlands
they have userlands, though
>BSDs have their own
they're shit, though
>replying to a shitposter again
I'm right, though
>>53417929
>they suck on consumer VMs
>consumer
bwahahahahaha; they're shit on ALL VMs
>>53417929
>more cohesive
codewords for "almost nothing to offer"
>>53418537
try harder
>>53418551
not on Xen, according to statements anons have made on here
>>53418577
>according to statements anons have made on here
"they're shit on ALL VMs" is also a statement made here
The cuck distros will always be bottom of the barrel because of one thing: the cuck license. Nobody will contribute actually good code under such retarded terms.
>>53418188
I hadn't considered OpenBSD, actually. It sounds like a better idea though, that way I can read my zfs drives as well if I end up needing it.
By the way, don't reply to the faggot shitposting the thread. Nothing good comes out of replying.
>>53418639
Yeah but at least it makes the thread live
>>53418639
>OpenBSD
>zfs
you ok, m8?
>>53418675
Fugg, I'm confused. No zfs for me then.
>>53418639
>don't reply, you might say something stupid, like all bsd cucks do, and we get raped again; we already got told on opensshit, our asses can't handle anymore
>>53418697
>I'm confused
as are all bsd cucks; the ones that come to their sense move up to gnu
I find it funny how openbsd seems popular here. I thought the big thing was freebsd
the more niche/toy, the more "popular" (actually, just memed, nobody uses it)
>>53404905
I always thought this was some kind of weird in-joke, what's wrong with wanting people to act civil?
>>53418858
>what's wrong with sjws
did you just buy a computer and came directly here to ask stupid questions?
>>53417452
Wow, so you're just going to double down eh?!
I'll say it again - the clues in the fucking name you utter mong. Berkeley Software DISTRIBUTION.
>>53419181
still trying i see
how many times have you been banned in this thread
>>53419206
never
>>53419206
>noooo
>I can't handle the truth
>mooooooooooooom
>>53419220
>>53419237
>obvious samefagging
its sad
but hey im giving you attention
>>53419220
Why do you keep doing it? Are you really that bored? Are you feeling unwell? How was your day?
>>53419274
You know what's sad? Pretending to use bsd when you're an apple whore.
>>53419464
And now we're back to months old bait.
I remember last year when that was a regular bait around here.
>>53419555
>it's bait even if it's true
anon...
>>53410024
Well here they say it's because of some proprietary tool...
http://www.openbsd.org/mac68k.html
But also they cite lack of interest (which is the reason given for abandoning the Amiga port even earlier on).
There's still quite a lot of these machines around, with Motorolla 68030 CPU or faster, but even those are only about the speed of an Intel 80386. And a 68040 is about as fast as a 486, which nobody seriously tries to use anymore. Which is too bad, because software maybe wouldn't be so bloated and slow now if more people still had those old, simpler machines.
>>53420046
Damn I was going to say, if it's because of hardware issues I could donate machines
>>53420046
Well at least we always have a NetBSD port for 68k macs.
Shit sounds like it would be way too slow though.
>>53404741
Good news for owner of Haswell desktop/laptop.
https://secure.freshbsd.org/commit/freebsd/r296548
>>53420763
About fucking time! It only took 2 years this time.
>>53421228
Say "thanks" to intel.
>>53421249
Thanks, Intel!
>>53421627
You forgot:
for OpenGL 3.3 support on *nix in 2016!
https://mesamatrix.net/
>>53420450
For typical Unix terminal stuff, those machines are ok. Compiling the entire OS, or the ports tree can take a long time though. That's probably one reason they lost interest.
The biggest problem for end-users with such machine is web stuff. Today most sites need big, bloated javascript browser. In the 90s (and even early 2000's) you could do fine just browsing with Lynx, or even Links in graphics mode (or other small thing like Dillo, etc.)
Having lived through these changes, I don't feel like I personally gained anything from them. I think the old, simpler model was better. I used to do online banking with just HTML 3 + SSL browser. Even ebay worked without javascript back then. I did have a pentium 120 though, not a 486. But with enough memory to run XFree86 comfortably (so you can see the aution images), even a 486 would have been good enough.
>>53421855
Yeah, to this day I don't know why everything must be so "web 2.0"
But hey, I'm the kind of guy who would run a blog by editing HTML and CSS files instead of using WordPress or something.
>>53422694
Probably better, since wordpress has a lot of security bugs.
Then again, you can also use a template system on client-side and then just publish the plain HTML pages to the server.
Even dynamic web pages don't necessarily need tons of javascript. 10+ years ago I made stuff in mod_perl and fastcgi, that worked fine in any browser, including Lynx (that also made it easy to test the site fom scripts).
