BSD
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
What is the best BSD?
>>54381430
The kind that's been lying on the front lawn for a few days. It's easier to pick up.
No wait. I'm thinking of dog shit.
m
>>54381430
MacOSX
gentoo.
>>54381430
Personal opinion, personal preference.
I like OpenBSD, but I've only used it and FreeBSD. They're both better than every GNU/Linux distribution I've tried, though, so you'll be fine.
MacOS on desktop
iOS on phones
FreeBSD everywhere else.
It's the patricians setup.
>>54381825
Mac OS isn't Unix: Mac OS X is.
Mac OS means Mac OS 8, 9, etc.
>iOS on phones
What's it like having no apps?
>>54381792
What makes them better than GNU/Linux?
>>54381863
Recently a memo from apple referred to MacOSX as MacOS, the speculation is that they are going back to the MacOS name.
>>54381897
Good, because saying you've been on version 10 for like 15 years is dumb
>>54381430
Neither. There's nothing you can do on any *BSD variant that you can't do more efficiently and better on a Linux distro. BSD is mainly for people who have an interest in historical operating systems and how they work, because examining the code and how they work does give you some pretty neat information on how modern operating systems were made and all that.
But to use them for normal everyday use? You'd have to be masochistic or just wanna use it because you want to be different and BSD is more obscure than Linux.
>>54381912
http://9to5mac.com/2016/04/14/macos-name-change-apple/
>>54381430
yes
>>54381430
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as BSD is in fact BSD/nothing-werkz. Or as I have recently started to call it: BSD + Nothing-werkz.
>>54381880
the fact that nothing works
>>54382005
>nothing works
>reason I like BSD is because it always works when GNU/Linux doesn't
wew lad
I hope you enjoy stuff like disabling nouveau in fifty different files and having Xorg start up by default on each boot because you refuse to stop using GNU/Linux shit.
>>54382005
>the fact that nothing works
Are you saying nothing works on GNU/Linux or BSD?
>>54382034
Wait, you actually use it for just normal every day usage? How? That shit is archaic and offers none of the ease of Windows nor as much control as Linux. Why do you even bother? Superior OSes have already been made that improve on the problems within BSD, so why do you even still bother using it?
RMS came along and wrote the GPL, and ever since GNU+Linux has been leaving BSD further behind in the dust.
>>54381430
Manjaro.
The developers delay fixes to improve your computing experience
>>54382034
what do you do, browse the internet exclusively?
>>54382064
BSD + Nothing werkz has nothing that works.
OpenBSD
>>54381912
>Good, because saying you've been on version 10 for like 15 years is dumb
Good thing they never did that.
>>54382123
Browsing the internet is fine with BSD.
Just make sure you install a windows web browser running in GNU/wine.
>>54382171
It's been Mac OS X (10) since 2001
>>54382203
Mactoddlers don't understand major.minor.release version numbers.
>>54382123
Yes, OpenBSD is the OS I have had installed for the past few months, and I've only booted to Windows a couple times since then to deal with a camera I have.
>archaic
Provide details.
>not as much control
Provide details.
>>54382078
No, I study system administration, program, and do everything one could use a computer for.
>nothing works
Literally 0/10 b8 m8.
>>54382005
>nothing works
Epik meme anon. The whole reason I started using OpenBSD is because Linux had no drivers for the pen and touch digitizers on my laptop. It's been a few years now and I've yet to have an issue.
>>54382203
Mac OS X is the name of the operating system, not the version number.
>>54382203
OS X is the brand name, the ten is just there for nostalgic reasons. The major version number is 11.
>>54382235
I installed OpenBSD in a VM, and the package manager segfaulted when I tried to install vim.
Deleted that shit immediately. TempleOS is literally more useful.
>>54382243
>>54382258
You guys are dumb. The OS name is Mac OS, the major version number is 10, the minor version is presently 11. Look on the Wikipedia page, it agrees with me
>>54382292
OS X 10.x.y
OS X is the name, the 10 is redundancy, the x is the major version number, the y is the minor version number.
>>54382292
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_X
>>54382292
na. mactoddlers are dumb. They can't even get versioning correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning#Apple
>>54382276
I doubt this ever happened, but why did you try to install vim anyway? It's already installed by default.
>>54382292
Then the wikipedia article was written by literal retards. The name was changed to OS X a few years ago and never does Apple ever call it "OS". It's "OS X", specifically meant to be written like that and nothing else. If that's too much for your autistic brain, then you are beyond help.
>>54382323
Not to mention the superior mg is also in the base system.
>>54382317
>>54382314
That's retarded, if you're product has 10 at the end of the name, and you version every number of your product with 10.*, then it's pretty clearly version 10.
Either you guys are retarded for not understanding, or Apple is retarded, potentially both
>>54382330
It's Mac OS, version 10, stylized as Mac OS X. If that's too much for your autistic brain, then you are beyond help
I guess the second link is better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning#Apple_2
>>54382276
>wanting vim
Also, I've never had this problem on my machine. I use a physical machine, not a VM.
>>54382337
mg is for toddlers, both GNU/Linuxtoddlers and actual toddlers.
It's useful if you need to let someone else type something.
>>54382342
>links the OS X operating system
I was just making the point that all of you are wrong, the operating system is OS X.. not MAC OS X, not Mac OS... OS X.
>>54381430
arch
>>54382342
Apple's just using slightly irregular version numbering. I know it's probably difficult to wrap your tiny brain around, but if you try hard enough maybe you can figure it out.
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/linux-users/
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq9.html
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/explaining-bsd/comparing-bsd-and-linux.html
>>54382385
I just expect widely used software to have some semblance of coherency, maybe I'm asking too much.
>>54382380
They didn't drop the Mac in MacOSX until 2012, I'm not going to cowtow to the whim of apple marketing
>>54382258
I'd like to interject for a moment.
What you're referring to as OS X is infact XNU/OS X or as I've been recently taken to calling it, XNU plus OS X
>>54382438
I'd like to interject for a moment.
What you're referring to as XNU + OS X is infact NSA/MS/OSX or as I've been recently taken to calling it, NSA + MS + OSX
>>54382276
did you
cp /etc/examples/pkg.conf /etc/
and pick a mirror? if you install over http this is auto-configured btw.
personally I've never seen a pkg_add segfault except when I Ctrl-C it, then a pkg_delete cleans up everything
this is over a span of years, in VMs and bare metal
>>54382438
>>54382470
Shouldn't there be a darwin in there too?
>>54381430
99% of all BSD web servers run FreeBSD.
>>54381949
I only asked because I want to put BSD into a WM. Then I will mainly just laugh how inferior it's to CentOS.
>>54382594
Then what is the purpose of OpenBSD, what's it used for?
>>54382666
Thats the OS playground for the group that makes the coolest shit like SSH, openBGP, openNTPD, and libressl.
>>54382666
It's supposed to be more secure, but it has no drivers and no support.
>>54382666
The install BSD meme leaves the victim with intense feelings of embarrasment, rage, and despair.
>>54381949
Neither. There's nothing you can do on any Linux Distro that you can't do more efficiently and better on Windows. Linux is mainly for people who have an interest in pretending to know how operating systems work.
But to use it for normal everyday use? You'd have to be masochistic or just wanna use it because you want to be different and Linux is more obscure than Windows.
sound familiar?
>>54382710
>no hardware == no viruses :D
>>54382738
>There's nothing you can do on any Linux Distro that you can't do more efficiently and better on Windows.
>this is what BSD cucks actually believe
>>54382666
general purpose
>>54382690
this. it's essentially a dev environment for secure C software
>>54382710
it has drivers and support. the free support is mailing lists, the paid support is M:Tier
>>54382738
In 50 years nobody will use Windows or some other Microsoft cancer. *nix on the other hand will live as long as mankind.
>>54382794
>In 50 years nobody will use Windows or some other Microsoft cancer.
I want to believe too senpai, but the lockin is too strong
>>54381949
There's nothing you can do on any BSD variant.
/fixed
(Nothing werks)
>>54382491
Darwin is the name of apple's open source OS which OS X is built upon with it's proprietary GUI
>>54382748
well maymay'd my friend :^)
I can only surmise the BSD shills on /b/ are paid by Apple as an attempt to indoctrinate future developers who's code they can pilfer with impunity.
Because BSD is absolutely worthless shit.
>>54382884
>on /b/
They shill on /b/? I'm surprised you found anything other than furry porn and roll threads.
>>54382894
or /g/. Whatever. Is there much of a difference?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>>54382904
your right BSD sucks this is anime bread now
>>54382914
I LOVE anime bread.
>>54382933
I LOVE you too anime bread
>>54382761
It has no proprietary graphics card drivers. It's fucking trash.
>>54382933
>tfw can only afford anime bread crusts
>>54382968
your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise senpai
>>54382968
so just don't use an nvidia card
>>54382922
>shit license that lets people take their software and give nothing back!
guess you never heard of a company called whatsapp?
whatsapp uses freebsd and they gave back to a tune of $1M. other companies do too but they are just discreet about it.
Do all BSDs develop their own BSD utils or are they frozen in time? Can you replace them with GNU utils?
>>54383010
premise: it has no drivers
conclusion: it's fucking trash
That's a pretty solid argument for a gay men computer.
>>54383014
There are no proprietary AMD drivers either so what's the difference? Open source drivers are always garbage.
>>54382760
>>54382884
nope merely poinging out that you are literally no different from the street shitting pajeets who endlessly shill windows in every linux thread on this board.
It`s pathetic in both cases really. The mere mention of someone using an operating system you don`t approve of sends you into an autistic fit of rage and into maximum shitposting. never mind that you don`t have any actual experiance using any BSD, you couldn`t give it a legitimate try. your mind is too closed to do anything but scream MY TEAM IS BETTER THAN YOUR TEAM!!!
>>54382968
just like your opinion.
>>54383159
I think the real reason is the 2 or 3 year head start they had in the 90s when BSD was getting sued.
>>54382594
faggot
>>54382666
traditional unix services mostly
>>54381880
>What makes them better than GNU/Linux?
BSD - focussed on a speciality,
OpenBSD - security
FreeBSD - server and storage
NetBSD - architecture availability
Linux - nothing really, its really all generic respins, infighting, faggot promoting and suffering from bipolarism as it has two guys leading the project that have conflicting views on what its called etc.
>>54383237
It's true. Don't cry around because OpenBSD is garbage for real word uses.
>>54383072
yes they are developed. this is what the "base system" refers to, everything else is "ports." openBSD in particular maintains a constant rolling code audit.
you can find most GNU programs in the ports tree.
openports.se and freshports.org for open and free, respectively
>>54383159
>GNU/Linux
>implementing
>implementation
freetards love talking about "implementations"
>>54382968
Wrong, it means the video card companies are trash for making closed-source hardware.
>>54383291
>OpenBSD is garbage for real word uses.
Does Linux have a spell checker yet?
>>54382666
Desktop and networking
>>54383382
dumb tripfag cancer
>>54383310
GPUs are always closed source you fag. Do you think they are just going to give away their R&D?
my mind rests assured when thinking lennart pottyring will vanilla Linux so much ready for MS to make an offer for it...
>>54383441
Yes. Capitalists don't deserve to live.
>>54383479
is that you bernie?
>>54383490
>human rights
>leLennin
>>54383382
a lot of the developers have real jobs anyway and work on it as a sort of professional hobby. there are a handful of core devs who presumably get something from the foundation, who in turn gets it from M$, Google, Facebook, HP, Yandex, etc.
Apple shares back the source code, but if you're any of the above companies, you probably just want to donate $10k and get the best portable networking software, rather than fuck with Apple's shitty OS X ports
what's the point of the GPL again? it doesn't force companies to pay for the software
>>54383490
>marxist
>leninist
you remind me of this guy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhHJ4zEKDZY
>>54383492
Bernie is a socialist. Only anarchism can defeat capitalism in an effective way.
>>54383684
anarchy is the ultimate form of capitalism
>>54383931
"There is a strong current within anarchism which does not consider that anarcho-capitalism can be considered a part of the anarchist movement due to the fact that anarchism has historically been an anti-capitalist movement and for definitional reasons which see anarchism incompatible with capitalist forms.[268][269][270][271][272][273]"
>>54384136
as an anarchist i listen to what i have to say, not that shit you posted. who the fuck do they represent?
>>54384184
>using memes like "tip", " edgy", or "fedora"
Spotted the conformist.
and now, back to our scheduled debate
BSD
>>54382760
>i have no argument
>better call him a cuck xD
should be an insta-ban word
>>54384796
No, should be a shadow ban
>>54384796
>should be an insta-ban word
which word?
>>54384875
the word cuck
>>54384886
enjoy you're ban
>>54381430
I'll cut through the bullshit for you. OpenBSD and FreeBSD are your only serious choices. Neither is better. Both are good at what they do. It just depends on what you want.
Simple, boot and forget server, router/firewall, or desktop aimed at development? OpenBSD.
Complex server(s) with enterprise level features, or a desktop that for whatever reason requires the best possible Linux binary compatibility? FreeBSD.
FreeBSD has a bigger, and generally more helpful community too, so if you plan to ask for community help every now and then, FreeBSD is by far your best bet. OpenBSD on the other hand is almost perfectly documented. If you are more into figuring shit out for yourself, it is a better choice. The OpenBSD community will most likely be extremely rude to you if you go to them with noob questions, or want them to fix a mess you've made by trying to do things that they manual explicitly warns you not to (custom kernel for example) unless you know what you are doing and won't need to bother them. They will however warm up to you if you help them document bugs, or create and maintain packages in accordance to their standards. Make yourself useful, and they'll accept you into their community.
GhostBSD
No love for Dragonfly and Midnight, /g/? I am disappoint.
>>54385283
>The OpenBSD community will most likely be extremely rude to you
Just call Theo a faggot right off the bat and everything will be fine.
>>54385542
I'll try Dragonfly someday, but BSDbuntus like MidnightBSD aren't necessary for me.
>>54385745
Theo de Raadt is the closest anyone has ever been to being my role model.
>>54382034
I don't even know what problem you're referring to because I've never run into it. I've used linux for several years.
Maybe you were just retarded when you tried linux before. Try it again.
>>54382435
>DUDE THEY CHANGED THE NAME OF THE PRESIDENT FROM GEORGE BUSH TO BARACK OBAMA. THAT'S RETARDED. THEY DIDNT EVEN DO THAT UNTIL 2008. I'M NOT GOING TO COWTOW TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. HIS NAME IS STILL GEORGE BUSH
pls die btw
>>54386185
I did try it again. I've only gotten nvidia drivers to work on GNU/Linux a single time in my life, but I've gotten them to work on FreeBSD every time I've tried.
Can somebody give me reasons to try a BSD over linux? And maybe tell me which they use? I'm on the verge of trying it but need some nice words about it so I don't realize I'm falling for a meme until it's too late.
>>54382968
NVIDIA makes drivers for FreeBSD you fucking mongoloid
>>54386404
That's what I'm arguing you retard. FreeBSD has proprietary drivers, and OpenBSD doesn't.
>>54386370
I've used both FreeBSD and OpenBSD, try FreeBSD first simply because the handbook is amazing.
You can learn how to use the OS even without the pretty decent man pages. If you read these things, you will be able to use Unix even if you've never used Unix in your entire life:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/
http://netbsd.org/docs/guide/en/
https://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/handbook/
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/index.html
The beginner info for these operating systems is good.
>>54386437
>blaming an OS for a hardware company's problem
>>54386480
It's not their problem. It's not worth their time to make something for an OS with 0.0000001% market share.
>>54386549
But Nvidia wouldn't have to make it if they open-sourced their hardware.
>>54386570
Oh my god you fucking retard, they would go bankrupt if they did that. Why are freetards so stupid?
>>54386647
>actually wanting the rich to get richer
It's like you're some sort of capitalist.
>>54386647
yeah wow they'd just INSTANTLY go bankrupt if they opened their drivers up
nevermind the hardware sales
>>54381430
NoBSD :^)
>>54386727
He said open source their hardware, not their drivers, you fucking retard.
>>54386749
Haven't heard of that one
>>54381949
>source: my arse
Nice try, Red Hat shill.
>>54382319
>there's only a correct way to do software versioning
That shit is like indentation style or what aesthetic school follows you house.
>>54382968
What kind of conclusion is that?
Graphics card drivers always has sucked in the freetard land anyways.
>>54383159
>When people use the BSD license they just fork what they want and can ban the original community from implementing it.
They can't patent or close the BSD code, only close the code wrapped around the BSD one.
>>54386899
Pretty sure BSD explicitly allows you to close the source.
So yeah, nice baito senpai.
>>54381430
GhostBSD / PC-BSD
>>54386912
Yes, they can. They do all the time to wrap propietary code
But again, they can't claim copyright over the BSD code portions. They can't forbid the original developers to develop it.
The only they do is protect their tiny portion of original code.
The BSD code still exists.
I used OpenBSD for about a year on my laptop.
Literally everything about it, from filesystem layout to manpages to default settings, everything was perfect.
Unfortunately, when I tried it, GNU Emacs had some considerable performance issues running on OpenBSD, and that is a major dealbreaker for me, so I'm back to Debian for now.
I don't know if the situation has changed any since, could anyone weigh in about running Emacs on OpenBSD?
>>54386953
Never tried GNU Emacs on OpenBSD since mg exists, but it's bizarre you had performance issues with a text editor. I have no idea.
>>54386953
Does emacs use some linux kernel specific features for performance gain?
>>54383280
why doesn't anyone use it then
enterprise cloud: rhel, ubuntu, AmazonOS, Azure
>>54387005
>Netflix, Yahoo, Whatsapp use FreeBSD
wew lad
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/nutshell.html
Section 1.2.2
>>54386972
To be fair, emacs is more of a lisp interaction environment with a good editor, and there is a lot of infrastructure in place to evaluate lisp on the fly.
>>54387000
Yeah, it has a lot of Linux-specific performance enhancements, which might not carry over to other operating systems. There is definitely some stuff related to custom memory allocation, and until very recently, glibc had specific functionality to speed up GNU Emacs (https://lwn.net/Articles/673724/).
In my experience, Emacs on windows is sluggish for some things, and unbearably slow through cygwin.
>>54387005
Because is more popular?
Because almost any IT department is populed by freetards of the GNU flavor?
Why everyone doesn't use Plan 9? It's more perfect than UNIX.
>>54387032
That's not a fault of OpenBSD then, it's a fault of GNU programmers who don't write portable shit.
In my view, that's a subtle way of vendor lock-in.
>>54387032
>Yeah, it has a lot of Linux-specific performance enhancements, which might not carry over to other operating systems. There is definitely some stuff related to custom memory allocation, and until very recently, glibc had specific functionality to speed up GNU Emacs
Typical GNU piece of shit software.
Amazing how they shit on MS and they pull off the same shit as them.
>>54387051
On the other hand, no one is obligated to write portable code. Looking at POSIX or SUS standards is a personal choice.
I only feel programmers should be honest and transparent about how portable, or how not portable, their code is. I'm fine with systemd or desktop environments not being portable as long as the developers are honest.
However, developers are dishonest and like to say that their code full of GNUisms and Linuxisms is in fact portable.
>>54382470
>the register
>>54387095
but the problem is that GNU software is so god damn ubiquitous yet it has stupid shit like that, why?
they're also the ones who influence public opinion on open source software, people judge the quality of open source software by GNU shit
Wouldn't have openssh without openbsd. You'd have some fucked up daemon from Poettering that sends all your passwords back to him clear text.
the one that isn't a ciabotnet
>>54387177
So any of them
>>54387150
This.
That's a subtle way of vendor lock-in if you think that.
>>54387199
I want Hurd to get a stable 1.0 release, because I want to see what Linuxfags will do when the FSF stops directly supporting Linux.
It will hopefully cause enough disruption that enough variety will occur, and maybe spur better development.
>>54382078
>Wait, you actually use it for just normal every day usage? How?
You install it (non-graphical installer but you won't find an easier install anywhere else), configure it to your liking (mostly by editing simple text files), and once satisfied, you fucking use it.
>That shit is archaic
How? Things are as simplified as they can possibly be. If you already know your way around Linux (I mean using the shell, and actually knowing Linux rather than letting Ubuntu hold your hand at all times), then you should have no trouble jumping in. Things are done differently. Like commands may be different, or the directory tree is laid out differently to what you are used to but much of the basic ideas are the same. Learning how things are done in OpenBSD should be fairly trivial for you. It's no different from hopping to an unfamiliar Linux distro. Your biggest problem will be getting used to the idea that things don't have to be unnecessarily difficult or tedious.
The default shell is ksh, but it does everything you expect BASH to do, and your scripts should be POSIX compliant anyway (you aren't half-assing shit are you?), so which shell you use is irrelevant. If that's not good enough though, you can use whatever shell you like. Just install it, and set it as your default. OpenBSD is designed to allow you to do this, even the root shell, without any problems.
>none of the ease of Windows
Windows is just painful, and infuriating to use. You won't appreciate this fact until you stop using it for a while, and then attempt to again, for whatever reason.
>nor as much control as Linux.
Absolute control = not as much control? I'm starting to think you may not have the slightest fucking clue what you are talking about.
>improve on the problems within BSD
Which problems would those be?
>so why do you even still bother using it?
Because I fucking want to and can. If I ever go to work for you, then I'll use whatever the fuck you tell me to use.
>>54387258
I doubt that will happen. Not because I don't believe in Hurd, but I'm afraid that Linux is suffering the same situation as Unix had when Plan 9 was created.
>>54387290
>letting his employer dictate what OS he uses
Otherwise, really solid post.
>>54381430
NExTSTEP, and as a continuation, OS X.
>>54387301
I don't particularly know about Hurd either, but I agree: GNU/Linux is suffering from extreme popularity caused by stubborn users.
If in the year 3000 people are still using Unix, it will mean mankind has not improved.
>>54387301
The big problem with Plan 9 is that it seems like they didn't even try to sell it, though.
They tried with Inferno, but it was too late by then.
>>54387353
I think that could be said with any operating system that tried compete with the unix model.
Windows got luck in the PC side only because was shoe horned from DOS. Unix never became too popular in desktop.
>>54383159
>GNU/Linux
No, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.
Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.
One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?
(An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.
Thanks for listening.
>>54386370
>Can somebody give me reasons to try a BSD over linux?
I use OpenBSD because I like it's simplicity. Once you learn your way around, it is just a pure pleasure to use. You do need to be a hands-on kind of person though. It doesn't hold your hands, and you may need to play around to get things working as you think they should.
It's not a good OS if your main goal is entertainment. The target audience for the OS are the developers themselves, and what they are developing is a platform to aid them in their job as developers. If you are interested in programing it is a wonderful OS for it. If you are interested in setting up WINE and running the latest Windows games, it's about the worst choice for that.
If you are interested in security this is it's main goal. At the very least using it for a while will give you an appreciation for why every other OS is willing to sacrifice security for convenience to some degree, or another. It'll also teach you better security practices, and principles that you can apply to other OSes you choose to use.
If you are interested in learning to be a [better] C programmer, or are interested in systems programing it is the perfect learning environment. The OS is documented better than any other, and the project insists on very strict coding and documentation standards. Study the source, for it is C done fucking right. Remember, C isn't a very difficult language, but it is made extremely difficult by shitty programing habits. Learn to emulate the OpenBSD project's example, and you will be a better programmer for it.
Lastly, it's good if you just like to learn new shit, and tinker. It's not like you are stuck with it if you realize it's not for you. It's not for everyone, and that's perfectly ok.
>>54387565
Actually, I don't even like GNU/Linux and I call it GNU/Linux. Most of the userland is GNU, and an OS is made up of a kernel, a userland, and a shell.
Are there any userland programs made by the Linux developers?
>>54381476
You can run gentoo on freebsd
>>54387720
You can remove the GNU from linux and still have a OS, but you cant remove the linux from GNU and still have a OS.
I love my freebsd.
>>54387784
Remove the GNU from Linux and you have a kernel. GNU/Linux is one operating system. Alpine Linux, which has no GNU, is an entirely different operating system.
A/B is a different operating system from A/C
E/F is a different operating system from G/F
But all A/B distributions are just the same operating system.
GNU does not have an OS, but neither does Linux.
>>54387877
Tell me, what manages the memory in the operating system?
The GNU userland or the kernel?
Also answer this, is it possible to boot the Linux kernel without any userland?
(yes it's possible)
>>54387877
So if I'm discussing operating systems based on the Linux kernel, why is it wrong to refer to them as Linux? Some use GNU, some use Busybox, some use something else, all use Linux. It's the one common component.
>>54381476
I'd just like to interject for moment. What you're refering to as Gentoo, is in fact, BSD/Gentoo, or as I've recently taken to calling it, BSD plus Gentoo. Gentoo is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning BSD system made useful by the BSD corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the BSD system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of BSD which is widely used today is often called Gentoo, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the BSD system, developed by the BSD Project.
There really is a Gentoo, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Gentoo is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Gentoo is normally used in combination with the BSD operating system: the whole system is basically BSD with Gentoo added, or BSD/Gentoo. All the so-called Gentoo distributions are really distributions of BSD/Gentoo!
>>54387884
Of course the kernel does that. But when speaking of unixlikes, one usually considers "what do we need to make it operate as unix?"
But you have a point.
>>54387892
You can make the same argument for anything.
In all the OSes that use ksh, ksh is the commonality.
>>54387916
>In all the OSes that use ksh, ksh is the commonality.
Except ksh isn't essential, Linux is.
>>54387906
waddafug
>>54387916
>one usually considers "what do we need to make it operate as unix?"
The kernel, because it's the part that accepts POSIX system calls.
>>54387916
>>54387948
Just think about how the NT kernel operates.
Is it compatible with POSIX system calls?
FreeBSD is best girl
>>54387932
Linux is essential to boot Linux. Therefore, it is also essential to boot any Userland/Linux.
GNU/Hurd could boot without Linux, though their unstable kernel won't be that useful :^)
GNU/kFreeBSD can also boot without Linux.
Minix/Minix can boot without Linux, too.
I am simply trying to help you generalise.
>>54387948
It's not Unix without ed, man.
>>54387963
>GNU/Hurd could boot without Linux
And is useless
>GNU/kFreeBSD can also boot without Linux.
And is a dead project that was never anything more than a hey look this works sort of thing.
>Minix/Minix can boot without Linux, too.
And is an entirely separate OS.
>>54381949
So I take it your Linux distro of choice has strong encryption built in? Your distro has made X secure and less bloated, and basically made the mess that is Wayland unnecessary? Your distro has near-perfect documentation, and it's source adheres to correct coding standards, making it both more secure, and easier to read and understand? Your distro isn't infected by the systemd malware...yet? Your distro comes as a complete and coherent system that is frequently audited, rather than various odds and ends from third parties all across the web which are duct-tapped as is, to the Linux kernel, and then passed off as a competently designed OS? Surely your distro has native ZFS (ZoL is garbage) or HAMMER? Pf?
>BSD is more obscure than Linux.
Unix has a long, and eventful history. It doesn't start and stop with Linux. That the BSDs are less popular, is not the same as being obscure. There is plenty of documentation, and if need be, there are companies that offer professional paid support, just as Redhat and Canonical do.
Linux, as a desktop system is far less popular than Windows or Mac (technically a BSD actually). So are you using it instead of those because you are masochistic, and just want to be different? Would you call Linux obscure due to it's lower popularity?
Also, people can and do use more than one OS. You seem to be assuming that BSD users are likely to use only BSD, whereas in reality most of us use Linux, Windows, Mac, Solaris, etc. as well. We use whatever we feel is needed to get the job done, or whatever our employers/clients require.
BSD users in my experience tend to be far more knowledgeable about Linux, than Linux users are about the BSDs too. I think it's safe to say that most of us these days were Linux users first, and came to BSD through it. I know very well what Linux can do, as I use it almost daily. It's not like I need to be sold on it.
>>54387976
Those were the points I was making, yes.
>>54388001
>near perfect
Reminds me, I submitted two typo bug reports last night. Already got a response on one, so I'm happy.
Best BSD system for a desktop?
>>54388182
There's a distribution of FreeBSD called PC-BSD, I've never used it, but some people say it's the most newb-friendly BSD.
>>54382794
>predicting tech future
You have more posibilities of curing your cancer eating grass than get that prediction right.
>>54388182
OpenBSD
>>54387956
NT can have subsystems, where the posix calls are implemented, for example.
>>54383090
Linux also doesn't have proprietary Intel drivers, and AMD is abandoning its proprietary drivers, so it's also shit.
>>54387877
>Alpine Linux
>is an entirely different operating system.
>Alpine linux
>Alpine
>Linux
>>54387311
It happens. It's a fact of life. The CNC machines I work with at my job all run a shitty Linux distro that's loaded down with the manufacturers proprietary shit. If it were up to me, we'd use something else. Since they are not my machines, I don't get to just start modifying them as I please.
>>54388342
Reminds me of the latest thing a pleb has said about me studying Unix/BSD.
>"Oh yeah, anon, they're putting Linucks in DRONES! Your skills will be profitable some day because of drones"
>>54387402
Ironically, MS originally wanted to develop, and license a Unix variant to IBM. IBM wanted CP/M, but did not want to deal with Digital Research's horse shit any longer, so they asked MS to create a clone. That clone happened to already exist, so MS bought the rights, renamed it, and handed it to IBM. IBM was quite impressed with how quickly they "developed" MSDOS, and established a long term relationship with MS. MS saw MSDOS as a temporary thing to pacify IBM long enough to sell them on Unix. That never happened though. Instead IBM asked them to co-develop what became OS/2, and MS were given the right to publish and sell their own version of it. Their version was what eventually evolved into WindowsNT.
>>54381949
>There's nothing you can do on any *BSD variant that you can't do more efficiently and better on a Linux distro.
pf. 'nuff said.
>>54382761
>this. it's essentially a dev environment for secure C software
The problem is, a lot of the good practices it permits, such as arc4random and explicit_bzero are unportable.
>>54388439
pf is pretty fun
Packets went where they needed to be, would recommend to a friend.
>>54388455
Yeah, that stuff is unfortunate, but at the end of the day, if everything was portable, there'd only be one OS.
>>54388468
Well, in better news, the OpenBSD are pushing for arc4random to become a POSIX thing: http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=859
explicit_bzero and timingsafe_bcmp still ain't going anywhere, though
>>54388481
What a fun read. I'm generally unfamiliar with POSIX and SUS.
>>54388182
OpenBSD. It's the only main flavor of BSD that is developed with desktop usage in mind. The devs expect, and encourage it, and they have put a lot more effort into developing the graphics stack because of this.
FreeBSD can be used as a desktop, and it can make a nice one, with some work. The devs however are adamant that it is a server OS above all else, and they put virtually no effort into improving the desktop experience. They have one guy who is responsible for their graphics stack, and he only works on it part time, when he feels like it. If you want a desktop they recommend a Mac, just like they use.
Let me be clear here on something. In the BSD world FreeBSD users/devs don't think all that highly of OpenBSD, and vice versa. Personally though, I like both. Both have pros and cons. I prefer OpenBSD, but I'll never claim that FreeBSD doesn't have a well deserved place in the world. In some ways it is superior to OpenBSD. What would be great actually is if the best parts of each were combined into a distinct OS of it's own.
>>54388531
>The [FreeBSD] devs however are adamant that it is a server OS above all else, and they put virtually no effort into improving the desktop experience.
And yet, all the security features end up in OpenBSD first.
>>54388565
Which is why Theo has been laughing at them for years.
>>54388531
>the FreeBSD developers use Macs and only have FreeBSD in VMs meme
It's funny because it's true.
I use FreeBSD sometimes, but I'm ready to hate on them for letting Apple control them so much.
>>54387720
torvalds himself made git. i'm assuming there's quite a bit of overlap between linux kernel devs and linux userland devs
>>54381430
hardenedbsd
>>54388591
how's Applel controling them?
>>54388565
they're just making sure it's well tested in OpenBSD first
The only good answer is OpenBSD, they eat their own dog food.
DragonFly and NetBSD also have some cool stuff going on but for general use I would say OpenBSD is the best choice. I use it on 5 servers and a router right now, the only thing holding me back from using it on my desktop is a more mature hypervisor. Maybe I'll move over once 6.0 releases. Though I have used it as a desktop on various PCs without issue.
OpenBSD for Theo. :^)
>>54386953
It's time to use vim desu senpai :^)
>>54381473
/thread
>>54387699
This guy gets it.
>>54381863
iOS not having apps? Are you serious?
>"hurr durr linux is fragmented"
>mfw there are more BSD-variants than there are BSD users
>>54390999
> there exists stastics on BSD users, at all
Is there a decent reason to use OpenBSD for a laptop over a linux distro? Hardware support aside, what benefits does it bring?
best freebsd is the one that works on modern hardware..
aka none.
>ITT: Paided Red Hat shills.
>writing a music program in FreeBSD
>literally just wite bytes to /dev/umidi to play notes on hardware synthesizer
I think BSD is the only OS left that captures the spirit of Unix
>>54393341
plan 9 is unix on crack though
>>54393400
Does plan 9 run on actual hardware?
>>54393415
neither does freebsd
>>54393091
>openbsd is buzzword wine and windows buzzword buzzword C programming
>>54393415
unfortunately it doesn't
you may have better luck with 9front but it's really just a hobbyist OS at this point
>>54393113
lol you don't know what you're talking about
>>54393437
Maybe I'll check it out when I have hardware to spare.
FreeBSD is on a rpi, and I doubt 9front is ARM.
>>54393464
There was a Plan 9 port specifically for the RPI, actually.
The OS itself is just such an interesting oddity. I recommend you watch a few videos on how Acme works so you get an idea of how to use it.
>>54393490
>best freebsd
>FREEBSD
you don't even know that there's more BSDs than just FreeBSD, why should we listen to you again?
>>54393508
>>54393437
Intel Skylake, Z170 motherboard, nvidia gpu. Doesn't boot.
Intel haswell, thinkpad laptop, intel gpu, doesn't boot.
Tryied DragonFlyBSD, GhostBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, all had the same results
>>54393490
>>54393518
inb4
>b-but muh parallels
>>54393518
oh, and I tried both legacy and uefi booting..
>>54393341
OSS emulation is a thing.
>>54393536
i still don't know why linux even bothered switching to alsa
OSS works great
>>54393541
IIRC it was at one point non-free.
osx
>>54393574
Yeah, it went FOSS -> Closed -> Switch to ALSA -> back to FOSS
>>54392877
None. But you get to brag in threada like these that you use it.
>>54393783
I've noticed that /g/ increasing interest in BSD is starting to make Lunix kids ever more butthurt.
They're having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that they don't know actual Unix: only a flashy mass consumer imitation of it. And it's making them nervous. Once they get exposed as frauds, who will they feel smug to?
>>54393541
OSS does mixing in kernel, thing that linux devs hate because involves floating operations.
>>54393964
What are the benefits of "actual Unix"?
>also implying that BSD = Unix
>>54386953
the the soda called kek?
come on
>>54382078
>hat shit is archaic and offers none of the ease of Windows nor as much control as Linux. Why do you even bother?
windows is not exactly easy to use,
its like using ithkuil (a fake logical language that is so complex that not even the developer is fluent) as your main language, by learning it as a kid, other langues will sound hard, but doenst means they are harder than ithkuii.
>>54388565
Does OpenBSD have some equivalent to capsicum/casperd?
>>54394231
the competing "product" is pledge
>>54393964
I feel bad for them if they ever have to use AIX
> killall not even once.
>>54385283
Yes, if you want OpenBSD support you should install it normally. Generic kernel and all install sets. Then you get good support within a day if you follow two simple rules:
1. Be polite
2. Post a dmesg
>>54386953
It really depends on how portable the software is to begin with. That's why we don't have LXDE (too much Linux-only stuff for not much reward).
>>54387290
>>54387699
Yes, OpenBSD is so easy that a Unix sysadmin from the '70s would not have a problem with it. All you ever need to do is consult the man pages. This sidesteps nearly every outdated 3rd-party guide online.
>>54388001
>You seem to be assuming that BSD users are likely to use only BSD
Hardcore OpenBSD user here about to VM it alongside Windows Server on a Linux host.
>>54392877
Personal preference is most of it: If you want an easy system that comes bundled with pf, LibreSSL, OpenSMTPD, OpenNTPD, and the rest, use it. Otherwise, don't. Pretty much all OpenBSD software you'd care to use is available in Linux ports. It really makes no difference other that personal preference.
>>54393964
Gnu/Linux is the spiritual successor of UNIX and existing actual UNIXEN are inferior to it in every way.
>>54388426
This, bro.
And this is why Linux didn't come to desktop: Even Unix couldn't reach it.
>>54394497
>GNU/Linux
>spiritual sucessor of Unix
>literally doing everything in the most anti unix way ever
>>54394052
They hardly stripped out any At&t code in the usl v bsdi ruling. Read the groklaw post about it. Novell owned the Unix code base at the time and didnt give a shit.
Immutable and append only flags are cool.
Is the OpenBSD implementation of FFS the only one that can do that?
>>54389810
>vim
>not vi
????
It's like you're a GNU/Linuxtard.
>>54394497
>spiritual successor
>anything other than Plan 9 and Inferno, which were actually made by Bell Labs
>>54395911
Usually a successor has to be a success. I mean its in the word.
>>54397077
you are weak
>>54383280
What about me anon?uname -a
DragonFly localhost 4.4-RELEASE DragonFly v4.4.2-RELEASE #3: Sun Fed 14 21:46:21 EST 2016 [email protected]:/usr/obj/home/justin/release/4_4/sys/X86_64_GENERIC x86_64
>>54389098
con kolivas made lrzip and others
