bump

FreeBSD getting ASLR
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2016-March/017719.html

>>53435779
I honestly wonder what took them so long.

Even MS has it now. But I'm glad they have it now.

>>53435779
>Unix-the-code is owned by SCO
Stopped reading there.

>>53435779
>FreeBSD getting ASLR
>2016
the jokes practically write themselves

>>53436869
"FreeBSD has caught up to what OpenBSD has been doing for over 10 years, I see nothing new in their changes." -Theo de Raadt

And this was 3 years ago when they got better cryptography support.

But hey, maybe it means they'll have a good competitor, some day.

As a FreeBSD user, I'm really glad we have a code of conduct to keep the shitlords out:

https://www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html

>>53436958
>too obvious

File: Odinism.jpg (24 KB, 736x690) Image search: [Google]

24 KB, 736x690

>>53436958
Nothing at all wrong with living by codes.

>>53435779
>>53436869
>>53436930
Do you mean ready to get committed in mainline?
FreeBSD has ASLR support about 5-6 years ago.

Hi lads, I'm a CS freshman and I've only used debian since 2006 but BSD caught my eye recently.
I wonder:
Is bsd compatible with openbox? what about i3?

I need to use emacs btw how's bsd compatible with wine? and how well does it compare to linux?

Based on what I've written should I go with FreeBSD or something else?

>>53440034
Yes.

>>53440034
The BSDs have ports of most popular *nix applications in their package repos you only need to install them.

Openbox and i3 don't care what you're running they only need an X server. All of the BSDs have X servers readily available either in the base(on OpenBSD) or as a package.

FreeBSD and NetBSD have wine in their package repos, OpenBSD doesn't support wine anymore.

>>53440034
https://www.freebsd.org/
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/handbook/getting-started.html
https://www.freshports.org/

>>53440204
Ty; but regarding freedoms, why does Stallman bash BSD so much?
I mean, if the license gives permission to devs to either go proprietary or open source why is that a problem to the end user? I never agreed how Stallman endorses the whole "if it allows non-free packages it's not free" concept

>>53440402
I know what you're trying to do.

>>53440402
(cont) because at the end of the day, the user can surely choose what kind of packages he wants to go with given that, of course, he's not using a bloated OS.

>>53440402
Stallman has a proprietary conception of freedom :^)

>>53440411
I know what you think I'm going for.
I'm not perceiving BSD as a ULTRAL33T LE HASKER thing
I want to learn/try something different that's it.

>>53440458
No, what I'm thinking about is an irrelevant obvious license argument bait, which then turns into a thread long argument.

Let's not do that again.

>>53440479
I'm new to the whole professional view towards programming I've been coding since when I used WinXP but as a hobby so, licenses weren't even a concern for me.

>>53440402
>>53440522
It's basically a religious or political discussion. It wont end well, it never does really.

>>53433709
Daily reminder: OpenBSD and FreeBSD have all the packages you use (except OpenBSD has no Wine), and they're up to date. If that's not true, list the packages or nobody will believe you.

>>53441048
I still can't believe OpenBSD doesn't have a SDL2 package, though.

Thankfully that'll be rectified in 5.9.

>>53441157
Hell, it's actually rectified NOW if you run -current.

>>53441048
>Daily reminder: OpenBSD and FreeBSD have all the packages you use (except OpenBSD has no Wine), and they're up to date.

That's not actually a point in favor for it unless you do nothing but hobbyist shit or want the equivalent of an Arch/Gentoo rolling release OS.

If you need stability, you want something like RHEL, CentOS or Debian. They pin their package versions so upgrading for bugfixes and stability improvements doesn't bork your running apps. Plus their stability guarantees for the distro apply to the entire package repository - with FreeBSD ports you're basically on your own.

>>53441392
You do know almost all BSDs have binary package management, right?

In fact, OpenBSD, as far as I know, is as stable as it comes when it comes to versions. Programs only get upgrades when the OS gets upgraded.

>>53441392
obviously you've never run RHEL 5 in production, and desperately needed some software that simply can't be built when every other library on your system is 6 years old

the right way to handle long-term projects is to plan ahead, budget time for upgrades and troubleshooting based on it. and that's easy to do when your operating system updates every six months like clockwork.

ted unangst wrote a good piece on this subject: http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/long-term-support-considered-harmful

>>53441439
OpenBSD not only has binary package management, but you are highly encouraged to use it, and even more highly encouraged not to bother anyone period, if you choose to build from ports, after explicitly being told not to. If you are using ports it's assumed you either know exactly what you are doing, or are a retarded piece of shit that needs to fuck-off back to Linux, or Windows, or wherever the fuck it is you wandered in from when your caregivers were busy smoking crack. Just ask the devs how much they care that their attitude keeps people away.

What could you even do with NetBSD on a dreamcast?

Could you technically host a NAS on a dreamcast?

>>53441981
Dreamcast was dial up only, it topped out at 56Kb/s. You could try but it wouldn't work well.

There's actually another thing it could be used for though. The patents on the SuperH architecture are almost expired and the open processor foundation is working on re-implementing the various SH cores under permissive licenses so anyone can take them and use them for whatever. We might start seeing small devices and single board computers using SH compatible cores soon and NetBSD's dreamcast port has done a lot of the work for them.

http://0pf.org/j-core.html