when will fvwm finally be replaced with spectrwm in openbsd

isn't spectrwm developed by openbsd devs? who the fuck uses the dead gay fvwm version it ships with

>>54728189
I know, this has always baffled me. I mean why not at least ship the latest fvwm, which is actually pretty good. It's available as a package, so why not just update the one in base?

>>54729591
i guess they probably put too much work into their own variant
but still, they could at least try to move it a little

Any thoughts on PC-BSD? Because I noticed you didn't mention it?Is it that bad?

Cause I'm thinking of transitioning from Linux to BSD and PCBSD is the noob-friendliest version of BSD I found so far

>>54729713
it's a freebsd fork, last time i tried it, it was pretty bad

>>54729656
Why even have their own variant though? Why not just use the one from ports/packages?

Or better yet just delete the fucking thing and stick with their own cwm, which is actively developed by the OpenBSD team, and far better anyway.

Seems so bizarre to me that a project dedicated to heroically deleting old code, and breaking backwards compatibility, is so attached to a terrible version of a shitty wm from the 90's.

>>54729765
they probably have a bunch of OpenBSD features in it that weren't in the base program, like privsep and all
it's the reason why gcc in base is so old and why they're reluctant to use llvm/clang, even if it would work perfectly fine

>>54729737

How so?

What other version would you recommend? And please don't rec me the Arch Linux equivalent of BSD, I need something that a total normie noob like me can easily use.

>>54730056
all BSDs are pretty easy to use if you're willing to read their FAQs/handbooks, FreeBSD and OpenBSD could not be any simpler

>>54730056
Stop being a neet and use an OS that just werks.

>>54730062

But how easy are they to install on my device?

What about package installers?

I don't want something that requires meticulous CLI usage and constant error messages just to install or run common hardware.

And what about virtualization software, like virtualbox?

>>54730097
>common hardware.

I'm sorry, I meant "software"

>>54730097
>But how easy are they to install on my device?
depends what device you're talking about, x86 and x64 are obviously well supported
>What about package installers?
both of the BSDs i mentioned have ports and packages, two ways of managing programs
ports are a huge collection of makefiles that automatically fetch every dependency and the package and compiles them for you
>I don't want something that requires meticulous CLI usage and constant error messages just to install or run common hardware.
it's not THAT meticulous
>And what about virtualization software, like virtualbox?
what do you mean by this? are you asking if it can run virtualbox or if it can run on virtualbox? or are you talking about virtualization? freebsd has bhyve, and openbsd will have vmm soon
most BSDs are designed for bare metal, so they don't run too good on virtualbox (then again, what does?)

>>54726183
These drawings are so fucking autistic.

>>54730149
you're just mad because it pisses on stallman

>>54730156
They're all cringy as fuck. Especially the AT&T Star Wars one.

>>54730048
Yeah, but why not just get rid of it then? It's utterly superfluous given that cwm is in base, is perfectly usable and actively developed by the same people! Same thing with twm. Why is it there? It's crappy and useless and unnecessary bits on disk and code to be maintained. Seems so at odds with OpenBSD's ethos of simplicity and cleanliness.

>>54730594
to be honest with you, the only reason they didn't get rid of it yet is probably because some devs use it
a bit autistic, but probably true

as for twm, well, it's kind of part of the standard Xorg distribution, isn't it?

Is there ANY "normie" BSD aside from PC-BSD? Any BSD that comes with a graphical installer and preloaded DE?

>>54730594
>why is twm there
I actually like it being there. I'm incredibly pleased that OpenBSD includes xedit and xcalc, unlike FreeBSD. OpenBSD includes a lot more X.org programs in X11, which make X11 a lot easier to deal with.

>>54730797
Just use PC-BSD and graduate to FreeBSD, then on FreeBSD:

pkg add Lumina

Lumina optional, insert your favorite DE.

>>54730056
Not him, but when I tried it, it was sluggish and unresponsive as fuck. That was a few years ago, so it could be different by now.

I have tried it's Lumina desktop on both FreeBSD and OpenBSD. On both it felt sluggish and unresponsive, just like PCBSD.

I'd try both FreeBSD and OpenBSD, and see for myself. I like both, but I prefer OpenBSD strongly to FreeBSD. It couldn't be any easier to install and get configured as a desktop (takes about 20 min), and unlike FreeBSD, it's actually intended to be used as a desktop. Once you learn your way around it's a very intuitive OS, and just a pleasure to use. Everything is as simplified as possible, without you having to trade-off functionality and control for it.

Unfortunately it's not a all purpose system. It's great for working and getting shit done, or if you are wanting to learn Unix or about security in depth or become a great C programmer. It's the best OS you could choose for a router (it has every feature you could possibly want for that, and some that even high end routers don't offer), and it's great for a simple, boot and forget server. It's not so good for general fucking around and entertainment. If your need a more complex server setup, the best possible Linux binary comparability, ZFS, or enterprise/bleeding-edge features, FreeBSD is the way to go.

>>54731418
Lumina wasn't very interesting, but it didn't feel very sluggish either.
Then again, that was a few months ago on FreeBSD, using proprietary Nvidia drivers. Now I'm on OpenBSD, with no drivers. I like OpenBSD though.
Never buying anything from Nvidia again.

>tfw not able to utilise my 1440p monitor

How's AMD support on FreeBSD? I have an R9 290 in my system, and it's just to see how well it works as a desktop.

>>54726183
I can't seem to find any in-depth comparison between pkgsrc and Portage.
Is there one available, and if so, where?

>>54731710
AMD and Intel support is generally healthier than Nvidia.
https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=radeon&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+10.3-RELEASE+and+Ports&arch=default&format=html
According to this, your R9 may work, but take my word with a grain of salt.
>>54731784
Pkgsrc is really portable, and very well isolated from the rest of the operating system.
Portage has USE flags.

>>54731710
>>54732055
Actually, no, scratch that.
https://wiki.freebsd.org/Graphics
I don't know why they had to make that manpage so confusing.

Okay /bsd/ tell me why this BSD is better than Linux

>>54732107
>BSD
>2016
>no drivers
literally cucks

>BSD and cuck things
ftfy

>>54730048
I thought the reason the gcc in base was so old was because of GPLv3. Same reason the versions of bash & emacs in OS X are ancient. Fucking commie licenses.

>>54735566
Even Linus hates GPLv3 and approves of BSD style licenses (in particular the one OpenBSD uses - ISC).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

File: Screen Shot 2016-05-25 at 8.56.28 AM.png (148 KB, 1364x956) Image search: [Google]

148 KB, 1364x956

>>54726183
is Darwin welcome?

>>54735605
>>>/mlp/

>>54735650
>implying /mlp/ hasnt has a firm foothold in every board for 5 years

>>54731442
how's mpv on OpenBSD?

>>54735774
works fine.

>>54734743
>he says this as only 9 of the GPUs listed here don't work yet
fuck off already

>>54729713
Its not a FreeBSD fork, its build on FreeBSD and 100% compatible. You can turn free into PC and vice-versa. Its basically FreeBSD + GUI tools and a preconfigured desktop. Lumina is also pretty neat, if unfinished.

>>54730797
GhostBSD, but it's not great.