/tech/ - Technology★

"it" being openbsd, because I'm braindead and an idiot.

>>1027331 (OP)

Tried to use it on a laptop. got frustrated with the supposed extensive documentation and yet the lack of how to do supposedly simple things like connecting to the internet and setting up XFCE.

Not my cup of tea.

>>1027341

IIRC, It wasn't so much trying to set up the internet, it was that the instructions for the program were too few to account for the fuckups. Either way I don't use it anymore so I'm not bothering further.

>>1027341

If you cannot "connect OpenBSD to the internet," it's highly likely that you are retarded. At the very least, you shouldn't be here.

>>1027357

Most people here are literal children dude. That includes you. He is right at home here at that skill level.

>>1027362

A white nine year could accomplish that you worthless pajeet. If you weren't a subhuman niggerfaggot you'd know that was true upon reflection of your own past.

>>1027357

OpenBSD's documentation is light on step-by-step instructions, and instead assumes the reader understands basic concepts behind what he is trying to accomplish. That's too much for today's youth.

>>1027373

True. Today's youth literally die when someone opens a jar of peanut butter in their vicinity. Perfect niggercattle slaves. Generation Zion.

>>1027341 I have used Linux more than 10 years. Not only OpenBSD but also FreeBSD doesn't support recent hardwares. If you want to use BSD, you'd better use very old hardwares.

So I use Linux today also.

>>1027357

>>1027362

>>1027373

>>1027374

LARPing

>>1027431

I remember reading that as a kid, I probably owe a lot of my systems knowledge to it. It's easy to laugh at newfags, but we were all there once, just most of us forget how we even learned in the first place. At some point I must have learned the basic shell commands, but I don't recall when.

>>1027439

I just realized that that meme have same meaning as "samefag".

>>1027459

I remember how I was reading that in the kindergarden while everyone else couldn't do anything more useful than playing with toys. I wish more people would be smart like me.

>>1027511

It doesn't.

Every time I tried one of the *BSDs (yes, any of them) it was nice but something about the hardware I used wasn't supported, sometimes with the statement that it probably will never be supported.

also yeah, all the *BSDs claim great documentation but in fact in my experience it was often pretty spotty. If you don't use garbage programs without manpages in linux, linux is at least as good if not better in the documentation department.

>>1027357

There was a time when I didn't know what BIOS was for and why would need to use it to reinstall Windows on my computer. I wanted to learn things despite everything was really strange and confusing back then but here I am, I can set up a Linux system from scratch without breaking a sweat now. People shouldn't be blamed for being ignorant, but rather not accepting their ignorance and always being eager to learn more.

>>1027515

Explain.

>>1027522

Nobody on /tech/ knows how anything works. So if you have faggots claiming that they are BSD pros you know that they are only LARPing as such.

>>1027524

Oh, now I get it.

>>1027520

Anon, the whole point is on imageboards you have this constant influx of people wanting to be spoon fed. The appropriate response is lurk more. You have anons coming on here every day asking the same. damn. thing. over and over and over again. It gets pretty old. Therefore, the people who do lurk here get fed up with it. If only newfags would spend time lurking to find the answers for themselves, rather than wanting to be spoon fed, they'd actually learn. Doing research is learning. Asking to be spoonfed is mind control.

Let's have a for instance. The openBSD documentation. So you want to install openBSD, eh? You've read x and y about it and realize it may be superior. But here's the problem, the documentation isn't step-by-step. Here's what you do: look up the things you don't know. It's a learning process. It takes time. Literally Google (duckduckgo) it.

>>1027524

Nearly all of /tech/ are post-doctoral students in computer science role playing as ironic retards. Of course, some bona fide retards like you aren't in on the joke, and naively think to make this your home.

>>1027672

Paul, don't give it away to the newb. Damnit.

>>1027438

This is a myth, have you actually used openbsd before?

>>1027524

Its mostly because the BSD community doesn't mind people being stupid or slow at picking stuff up - mostly they just fucking hate when people don't read the manual and ask stupid questions - so when some "idiot" who is "LARPing" as a BSD user posts to the mailing lists a genuine bug as opposed to his misunderstanding how to read the manual it looks a lot like spoonfeeding an idiot to a linux user. Its a little different in the linux world mainly because of how many varied and unique pieces of tech do exactly the same thing - so bug reporting takes a whole different level of care when taking criticism/comment on code/functions.

The documentation is actually okay. I wouldn't say better or worse than linux, but it's ok. You have to sit down to read it, for linux you can quickly search your problem online and somebody else probably already solved it, that's the big difference. (If they solved it well or correctly, in many cases- who knows)

With all of them, you get one base system that's put together a certain way and that's it. Not much to confuse there. Coming from gentoo and being used to have not much of the system abstracted away, what I found the most confusing were the little differences. The same commands just behaving *slightly* differently. That's not the fault of anyone, but it takes getting used to.

What kills the *BSDs is the poor hardware support, even for 6+ year old mainstream systems and hardware in some cases. You have to buy the system with *BSD in mind, if you decide to just install it on whatever you have lying around, chances are not everything will work, especially graphics/ wireless or whatever usually needs blobs/inside knowledge of the hardware. Linux has more commercial support. Linux (the kernel) also has generally more stuff for specific usage cases, you don't get a lot of choice with the BSDs there either. If it's needed or not is something case-by-case. The hardware support is truly poor though. Even the things that are supported aren't always supported well and come with a bunch of "ifs" and "buts" and tiny advantages of the hardware like in-hardware video decoding, encryption etc. (yeah yeah it's all botnet I know) are not leveraged, something Linux has gotten really good at compared to 10-15 years ago.

That's the most frustrating thing, else I'd like to use them. Just don't feel like finding the perfect system for it where everything will work. If somebody has some advice there, feel free to mention it. I'm just afraid it'll probably be some oldish system with absolute horrid power/performance ratio that'll still be somewhat slower and worse with the *BSD than with Linux.

>>1028131

Most of that is wrong or outdated info, but not off by much. fw_update kills your comments on blobs/hardware except for nvidia - which fuck nvidia. All the BSDs have a ports tree and Net/Free both have an entire linux compatibility layer if you *need* a specific debian userland tool or something. And what the fuck are you talking about, OpenBSD formally initated software/hardware vendors handshaking when it came to crypto acceleration. They also have mesa, based in like 4.2 or something, so video decode/encode is only tool limited which learn to use ffmpeg you dolts. Sorry to sound aggressive, but these are some true myths of the BSD world avoiding specifically the actual flaws - like massive over-provisions on OpenBSDs behalf to security axeing performance or FreeBSDs ideological two-facedness when it comes to licenses/NDAs resulting in "best for me, second for thee" tech which while good for securing their in-house servers doesn't do anyone else any good. NetBSD is almost exactly how you described here, but no one actually believes NetBSD is anything more than an experiment or educational tool or some good fun with a dreamcast.

>>1028131

>That's not the fault of anyone

no, it's the fault of GNU.

I use it on my T42 but I'd rather use something like Gentoo on modern machines.

>>1027331 (OP)

>My question is has anyone tried it in a workstation setting?

Absolutely. OpenBSD is an enterprise-level, cloud-capable, webscale OS incorporating blockchain. It's perfect for a workstation setting.

>>1027331 (OP)

It works fine as long as it has what you need. If you need niggered out games or wintard software, forget it. If you are already a Freetard then it probably has everything you already use.

>>1028127 I only installed OpenBSD. But I failed because of its lack of hardware supports. I used PC-BSD and TrueOS though they are actually same.

But anyway, all BSDs I installed and used are not good comparing to Linux.

So I use Linux and Android.

I was required to use OpenBSD as a workstation/desktop OS on the company I was doing an internship in, around 10 years ago.

It was fucking terrible, Something like Slackware or Arch would be 10 times easier to setup, find proper tools and software, and get them working. I'd end up spending more time messing around getting the OS in a functional state than actually getting shit done.

Like I say this was a long time ago, maybe it's in a more usable state as a workstation OS nowadays, but I wouldn't count on it.

>>1028265

10 years ago I worked at a company that provided IBM Thinkpads (they gave me an R51e) to all their contractors and employees. I dual-booted it to OpenbSD, and it ran perfectly, even the wireless was great (it was an atheros-based card btw). Took me only like 5 minutes to install the OS, which is typical for OpenBSD. Then I added a few packages like firefox, vim, and various dev tools, and I was almost never booting into WinXP anymore.

>>1028265 You're right. BSDs are always sucker than Linux due to lack of developers. They always have driver problems. You always have to use outdated hardwares!

>>1028287

Windows is the only OS that has reliable hardware support. For the rest you always have to do research before buying.

I noticed that OpenBSD lacks a port or package for mit-scheme as well as Racket. Are there alternative ways for one to install these programs, or will I ha r to look elsewhere?

>>1027438

New hardwares are inherently botnet (ME/AMT/uEFI etc.etc.), no wonder OpenBSD doesn't support them

>>1028408

OpenBSD supports new hardware just fine.

>>It runs on that specific hardware I have therefore everything that's said about compatibility is invalid

Also apparently *BSD users are really whiny, strike two against these OSes time has forgotten, lol.

>>1028408

Fun fact: Did you know 99.3% of all strcopys are in driver code of linux?

>>1028408

>when you redefine botnet rather than admitting a flaw in your OS

>>1028618

>when you glow in the dark

>>1028378

I'm thinking about using guile instead just for the sake of using OpenBSD. From what I've read, it's fairly decent, but I would like the opinion of you folks on the language.

>>1028759

Guile is Scheme. If you like Scheme, you'll like Guile. If you want to connect your Guile programs to your C programs, Guile is specifically designed to help you do that.

Think I tried FreeBSD on an old dual core laptop and saw it was sluggish as hell. Went back to GNU/Linux.

>>1028759

guile is meh. chibi-scheme is better and much much easier to integrate with C.

>>1027341

It's called a retard filter and you were caught by it. OpenBSD isn't like other operating systems, anon. If you can't figure out how to make it go you're not in the target audience. It's that simple.

All BSDs are suck except macOS and iOS!

All Linuxes are marvelous including Android!

If we petitioned OpenBDSM Foundation to use some of their funds for an transparent, documented external audit, would they do it? Or are they too arrogant and proud like Theo to try?

>reminder that OpenBSD got a pwnie for lamest dev response

>reminder that an unofficial one-man audit "easily found" 25 bugs:

https://www.csoonline.com/article/3250653/open-source-tools/is-the-bsd-os-dying-some-security-researchers-think-so.html (they were quickly fixed which is respectable, but one person finding 25 bugs is not. The devs only seem to audit the bits they like)

Yes, they are the top of a shit bunch but that's no excuse to be complacent. If a comprehensive verifiable professional external audit finds little to no errors, they have quality assurance and respect from skeptics. If they do find lots of bugs, it makes their software safer when fixed and shatters unwarranted pride.

>>1028987

>using pwnie as a standard and the concept of professional software in the same post

Your position is ultimately flawed, openbsd has proven this by simply being more secure than what you are currently using by every verifiable metric - actually improving cybersecurity instead of giving out stupid awards to name and shame and fuel some bias system.

>>1029019

I'm not saying they aren't the most secure net-enabled modern OS. It's easily possible that they are from their track record. I just doubt they are as secure as they think they are or at least as they advertize they are.

'The most secure OS' is a great start, not an end goal. If one person found 25 bugs in that short amount of time, that is a sign that this 'constant auditing process' still has room for improvement.

Dismiss the jab about the pwnie, sure. That does not invalidate the rest of my argument for an actual professional audit. Auditable does not mean audited.

>>1028759

Racket is a much better scheme.

>>1028276

>>1028287

The problem wasn't even hardware support (it was outdated hardware actually, so it had drivers for everything), though I couldn't get the printers to work and had to transfer the files to another machine whenever I wanted to print something.

But the problem was mostly software availability, lots of stuff I needed or wanted to use wasn't available for it, or there wasn't prebuilt packages available and you had to compile from source.

And if you need to build something from source and run into dependency problems or broken Makefiles, troubleshooting this shit is already bad enough when you're using a normalfag Linux distro. God help you if it's on OpenBSD.

Android is the only Linux distribution that gets graphics right, even of all the still pitifully existing *NIX oses even. Prove me wrong. You can't. Checkmate, atheists.

>>1029256 Android is the most popular Linux distro because it's easy to use. It makes it easy for people to want to become dumber.

Android just works on minimal hardware, good luck watching a simple HD video on a normal linux/*BSD desktop without choking the CPU out. Or even try getting something like smooth scrolling in a browser. Shit's broken.

>>1029356

Works for me.

>>1029359 Android is non-GNU Linux. GNU thinks Linux is same to GNU but they're completely different. Linux is kernel and GNU is third-party softwares.

Is Ungoogled Chromium buildable in OpenBSD? I unfortunately do not see it in the ports list.

What BSD would you folks recommend for a general use desktop OS? Security and privacy are very important to me, and while I recognize that OpenBSD advertises itself as the most secure OS out there, I've seen others suggest that this may not be true due to certain practices of the devs. I'm currently leaning towards OpenBSD regardless, but I'd like the honest opinion of you fuckers in order to make a more informed decision.

When I take a look at the ports list, I see a severe lack of software I regularly use. Is this lack of software an issue in the eyes of you folks? Are there ways around this, such as Linux compatibility?

>>1030679 Project Trident or GhostBSD

>try openbsd on a very old laptop (no X)

>screen permanently on, cannot find anything in the documentation or online to have it turn off

>try openbsd on an old desktop

>configure as a router

>system won't stay up for 10 minutes without locking up

>also nano for some reason makes files disappear, using vi instead

Maybe FreeBSD would be better?

>>1030679

I am an OpenBSD critic but I still think they are the most secure. I am no expert, but they don't have the reputation for no reason. They remove unneeded features and do reasonable checking on often used code. This way they avoid lots of common bugs.

They aren't perfect but they're easily on of the best. What matters more is usage. Airgapped Windows XP is on par with TempleOS for privacy and security, so long as physical proximity is not in your threat model. Part of OpenBSDs security is that its harder to add insecure or non private software (outside of the browser, at least)

>>1030922

>screen permanently on, cannot find anything in the documentation or online to have it turn off

I had no problem finding the ACPI and APM documentation the last time I had a similar problem running OpenBSD on a Pentium III laptop.

>>1030960 BSDs work on only very very very old hardwares....

>>1030954

How would you describe the lack of software for OpenBSD? Does this usually cause problems, or are there ways around it that I don't know of?

>>1030971

It works on my machine. :^)

Does Steam work on opanbsd?

>>1031286

Why even bother using OpenBSD at that point? No amount of security will save you if you purposefully install spyware on your system. Another system would be much more well suited for you, as OpenBSD has a severe lack of software, and will almost certainly be incompatible with any of your games, if not steam itself. You're better off using windows or Ubuntu, since you are already disregarding your privacy.

>>1031403

this

>>1031403 OpenBSD is an inferior OS because it can't run Steam!

>>1031403

Ah, i see now!. Security through lack of functionality.

take that jews!

>>1027331 (OP)

My attention span is too low for that.

If I had any purpose, reason, or a real way to benefit off of making my own Linux Desktop from scratch, I would be dedicated enough to do it.

But not here, not now, not like this...

>>1027431

>libgen only has 1st ed

>so do the filesharing IRCs I frequent

Spoonfeed a download or I'll make sure something javascript becomes an industry standard.

>>1031642

https://github.com/rangaeeeee/books-bsd

You can correct the bookmarks and metadata if you want

>>1028408

UEFI is not a botnet, it is a specification. And it is much better than BIOS in every way.

>>1028987

>OpenBSD bugs

Ok, you found bugs in OpenBSD. But the design of OpenBSD assumes users running software with bugs.

The more important question is: can you actually exploit those bugs? The fact is that OpenBSD is the only operating system which by default shuts down the process or even the entire system if it finds a program misbehaving.

>>1027362

fuck off back to /g/

>>1031457

You have to go back

can't play AAA games on it, not interested.

>>1027331 (OP)

OpenBSD is an awesome project but is pretty much unusable as a workstation.

It lacks any file system support. If its not ext2, or the native FFS, your pretty much not using it. File transfer pain.

Virtually everything crashes constantly due to no one developing for oBSD - Firefox crashes constantly, valgrind wont even compile. oBSD is agressive about turning on exploit mitigation, and 3rd party code doesn't integrate well including essential development tools like valgrind.

Little 3rd party code is available anyway in ports. You basically will package everything yourself.

There is no mandatory access control to enforce enterprise policy.

OpenBSD is said to have high quality code, and its frequently audited. It is probably tested more in server roles than desktop roles. It has the aclaimed PF firewall system.

Its probably useful is an education tool on the design of Unix, and as a server.

Wouldn't use it to host any hidden services. OpenBSD sticks out like a sore thumb.

>>1030648

Just use iridium.

>>1028150

NetBSD as desktop though? Isn't it already the nigger of the BSDs?

>>1042758

I used to use oBSD for a lot of servers. Was good, firewall was fun to work with too.

>>1027331 (OP) (OP)

You can use it as a minimal desktop but really FreeBSD is much better situated to use as modern Desktop than obsd. I used freebsd as a desktop about a decade ago but whenever came time to run updates (between releases, even) shit would hit the fan. I think they've improved package management but... just harden Linux and use that instead. It's currently much better suited and will take less time to do.

I am going the other way.. I've used obsd for years - it's great, my first love for sure. It's completely suitable for my desktop needs except for one thing.. speed. It's a dog. On a Core2Duo systen, obsd vs. gentoo is not even a comparison in terms of being responsive. I can't even watch a movie and browse a web page on obsd without audio artifacts.

I installed Gentoo.. what a masochistic installation process, I hate it. But performance is amazing compared to obsd.. a new lease on life for my machines. NFS is faster, no audio artifacts, and everything feels snappier. Everything. I feel dirty as hell but I can't give up 30% performance. Maybe 6.5 will be faster.

>>1052902

OpenBSD is only slower because they focus on proactive security and use time honored techniques. Correctness is the goal, not speed.

A good portion of the Spectre vulns which were revealed this last year didn't work on OpenBSD because they'd already been mitigated.

>>1055474

Sure but as a desktop on old Core2, it is just unusable.

>>1055508

Many of the developers use it with Thinkpads X200s and X220s, it's usable for everything.

>>1055545

Maybe. Well, I tried it on coreboot'ed x200 and a fairly basic install with xfce, thunar and firefox and it was sluggish as fuck. So no, not usable on my hardware.

>>1055557

I'm currently using an X201 to browse this site without issues. I also have about four dozen Iridium tabs open, those work just great too.

>>1056184

x201 is not Core2Duo, this explains a lot I guess. I will try again OpenBSD when I'll find a cheap x220 (and flash it to coreboot as well)

>>1056726

Last release I tried was 6.2 on my x200. Maybe things improved a bit since ? I had a lot of segfaults with thunar and audio stuttering.

>>1056742

Could be you’re just a lying shill, too.

>>1056744

I only say that 6.2 OpenBSD install on my x200 was not functional as a desktop. This is my experience. I'm not shitting on OpenBSD as a whole because my experience was bad on my hardware. Actually, I tried it on a more powerful setup and everything was working fine. But with my x200, for now, ganoo linux performs better (with a desktop), that's it, deal with it nigger.

Been using obsd since 2.3 or so; at home and professionaly. Evangelized, wrote articles, even contributed a small shit script, back in the day. I believe it to be one of the finest operating systems in existence and if I could run it on everything, I would.

However, its performance sucks on low end hardware. I used it for years on lower end gear, always thinking 'this is a little laggy' but never worrying too much.. I recently tried gentoo on a spare drive, and fuck me, my 'a little bit laggy' perception has morphed into 'motherfucking slow'.. like, SLOW. Everything is slower: network, video, file access, X. No longer do I get audio artifacts on load spikes. For similar tasks, loads sit at 60% or 70% of what they did previously. X jitters are gone.

Up until recently, I ran obsd on a small fleet of CF-30s/4gb/ssd for desktop use. After having done every performance tweak I could find, I recently (and sadly) started migrating to gentoo. The performance gap is wide enough that I feel forced to leave the beauty that is openbsd for linux. On a new machine, obsd would be installed in a heartbeat. But all that extra security goodness has made it quite sluggish on older hardware. For desktop use, it's only 'useable' until you've tried the alternative.

Now you'll have to excuse me, my routine emerge @world needs some attention because of course it does.

>>1056742

Thinkpad T60, 3GB RAM, 64-bit T7600 CPU, HDD, latest OpenBSD runs flawlessly.

>>1057682

openbsd is only about security. they would happily implement something that makes it 99% slower if they feel like it might make it more secure against something that never happens

>>1057364

>in $CURRENTY_YEAR AHCI still less reliable than plain old IDE compatibility mode

>>1058111

>Thinkpad T60, 3GB RAM, 64-bit T7600 CPU

That's maxed out isn't it. What about the GPU, Intel I guess? What about the T60p with ATI GPU, is it supported?

>>1058117

To my knowledge it's maxed out, except maybe the fact I'm still using a hard drive on it, but that's only because TRIM doesn't work on it apparently and I don't know how it responds to AHCI. It's responsive nonetheless and I find it acceptable. It uses Intel GPU. The Wifi card isn't supported, getting an Atheros for it instead. A T60p should work well with OpenBSD, even better than the T60. It should work right out of the box.

>>1058123

TRIM doesn't work on a T60? Even when SATA controller is in AHCI mode? Or is it that TRIM does not work in OpenBSD generally?

>>1027331 (OP)

try it on a shit secondary pc than your first one to try it out and to find the bugs before putting it on your main pc.

Looking through 65.html, some performance bits:

- New pthread rwlock implementation improving latency of threaded applications.

- The multi-threaded performance of malloc(3) has been improved.

- RETGUARD performance and security has been improved in clang(1) by keeping data on registers instead of on the stack when possible, and lengthening the epilogue trapsled on amd64 to consume the rest of the cache line before the return.

6.5 should be out any day now. Be interesting to see if any of this has a noticeable impact.

>>1058116

and acpi is worse than apm

>>1058533

And PCI is worse than ISA

Well not just, but recently.

>>1028144

The massive over provisioning in security is necessary. We need at least 1 hyper secure and safe OS to use for any purpose. Almost all of the other ones are swiss cheeses when compared to OpenBSD.

>>1060007

I wonder why does it say "Released on May 1st, 2019" when today is April 28th, 2019?

>>1060176

Future-based exploit mitigation. 65 is actually running 36 hours into the future. Our future.

Got it installed and running on a cf30. Only issue so far is audio/video hitches with mpv and chromium. vlc is flawless. Encrypted root within one minute. One of the best installers going.

Hopefully 6.6 is codenamed "Fireball" and focuses on improving performance. I think they could break down a little and do one release cycle to speed her up.

What's the software availability like on OpenBSD? Is there a way to gain a Linux compatibility layer?

>>1060851

>What's the software availability like on OpenBSD? Is there a way to gain a Linux compatibility layer?

Why would you do that? Just port systemd to it.

>>1060851

The linux emulation layer existed in the past, but was removed because it was too old and insecure.

>>1061018

And it won't ever come back, because of its insecurity.

Sorry if this is the wrong thread, but would it be at all possible to port a BSD userland to linux, like how GNU was ported to FreeBSD's kernel?

>>1027438

>he gives out false and misleading information in his broken english

>>1031642

get a job nigger

>>1061022

Some distros offer ports of various BSD utilities, but I don't think any of them feature the whole userland

I tested out OpenBSD on 2 machines. One was a P4 laptop, the other was a Sandybridge i7 laptop. For the first, the OS and its included utils ran fine. Running heavier programs was not a good idea so I stuck to simple terminal programs. One issue I did have was with captive portals, I never seemed to get OpenBSD to actually reach the portal web page. The Sandybridge computer ran OpenBSD fine, better than it ran FreeBSD. If I could figure out the captive portal issue, I would probably be good to go on installing it on my secondary. As a primary workstation, not possible at the moment. I require some bigger applications and GNU/Linux specific applications.

>>1031736

>pushing a full always-on (as opposed to optional NIC boot rom PXE) network stack in the motherboard firmware is a good thing

>things like "SecureBoot" are a good thing

>>1027438

How old? Is a Pentium II old enough?

>>1068506

That picrel. I think it isn't healthy for the hardware, nor for someone who is going to eat these fries.

>>1068506

What is this? Why would someone do this? Does it actually operate?

>>1068545

>Oil is nonconducting so of fucking course it still works.

My point is, organic oil would be fine, until bacterias started doing their stuff. From 100g of fat you can get about 108g of water. So even if it isn't conductive now, it could be later. And organic oil can contain different kinds of molecules, you don't know how exactly would they influence the integrated circuit. Mineral oil is abiogenic.

I was thinking of moving to openbsd but when i compared it's ports system to what i'm already used to with gentoo (portage) It seems rather limiting in comparison.

But i still would like to use a openbsd like system, maybe with portage?

I remember there was a gentoo project that managed to run openbsd (and freebsd) kernel and userspace flawlessly, so i think it definitly would be possible.

My question is where would i start if i wanted to make a gentoo based openbsd system? It's not an officially maintained project anymore and i can hardly find any documentation on how they did it anyware...

A Sad Instant message Received for CA and Dad's Girls

Multiple MSM outlets in Multiple Cities received Calls Calls and more Calls from Anonymous Sources disclosing GES, our Holograms, Staged Events etc. Multiple Glitches occurred during MP speech in "VA" as well and I Guess a bunch of audience members saw.

Most of all that F'in Scares me, our Interior Innermost Bunkbed access #s, locations are Known Somehow.

Dan J. Truman Better Do Something F'in Fast bc ITS HAPPENING, and Many More are Picking and Piecing Together.

The Piers Morgan Vault I'view, entire Family/Children Photo was the worst F'in Idea. We Will Never Ever Ever F'in See the Sun again if we [4,10,20] don't make something happn.

Boring Bunkmate Getting back

>>1068545

It's terrible. I've looked into it seriously. The oil needs serious cooling which means noisy fans. Even high viscosity oils are just way less efficient than water and so require that much more cooling. Essentially without using a massive radiator and fans to give the oil time to cool, it just keeps getting hotter. This is why most of the rigs you see in the fish tanks are very low power.

OpenBSD works great as a workstation. The installer is so SIMPLE even a smart NIGGER could figure it out. If you can't figure out how to install OpenBSD you belong in a rubber room where you can be force-fed soy and HRT 24/7.

>>1027341

you niggers never cease to amaze me.

>"supposed extensive documentation and yet the lack of how to do supposedly simple things..." are you that RETARDED? You need instructions on how to simple things? You're the type of nigger to look up how to do something everyone else knows on wikihow. Maybe if your head wasn't stuffed in your BOYPUSSY you could actually read the docs, nigger.

>>1027374

what are you even ON ABOUT gramps? Did the nurse forget to apply your ass-ointment and change your diaper for you? fuck off cunt.

I've come back to say, my experimentation as a workstation "failed" and I'm back to using arch. However I have now started turning to OpenBSD for funstation stuff and even using it to learn actual firewalling rather than just simple broad spectrum rulesets via ufw/fail2ban. Doing the "simple" stuff under BSD is far more machine efficient at the cost that I cannot just do normie shit as the normies do it, and sometimes I'm just too tired.

>>1068360

How long have you been using BSDs for? Just use SVN, it's just better than the alternatives so they never normie'd it. Also OpenBSD and NetBSD are -very- different beasts and do -very- different things for -very- different reasons. OpenBSD is an extreme passion project made to be a practical operating system, its place is firmly the king of routers and places where "rules" are the highest law. NetBSD is more of an experimental engineering example, breaking boundaries and rules to be able to install just about anywhere and support just about any use case - just not to the peak performance as for example iirc it wasn't till 8.0 before they got USB3. Also the point on "NetBSDs" implementation being defacto, only the UDP/IP stuff. Even TCP, due to libressl, is intree for openbsd. Unless you go specifically for dropbear, openbsd's intree SSH system is defacto in your operating system. Yes even windows' powershell implementation even though they will never admit it.

I would use OpenBSD but I couldn't get the internet to work.

>>1027331 (OP)

You faggots know that OpenBSD is for servers right? 99% of use cases for linux is for servers too (unless you count andriod). Nothing is more cringe than going on /tech/ or /g/ and seeing people circle jerk over using distros which were clearly never intended to be used as desktop or workstation systems as their primary desktop OS. In fact circle jerking over "distros" in general is cringe.

Just use a normal desktop distro and get on with your lives.

t. sysadmin

>>1070928

I use Arch.

>>1070928

>99% of use cases for linux is for servers too (unless you count andriod).

Actually Linux is just a kernel, so it has only one use case - being a kernel. You wouldn't have to exclude Android if you used the GNU/Linux term.

Please check it out, hope it'll make things more clear.

https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html

https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html.en#usegnulinuxandandroid

>You faggots know that OpenBSD is for servers right?

>seeing people circle jerk over using distros which were clearly never intended to be used as desktop or workstation systems as their primary desktop OS.

In my opinion as soon as your operating system has available software both for server and desktop, you can use the system for both. But having a separate system for servers and desktops is useless and usually only corporations do this - they create two different products to make money, they don't want their desktop OS to be as powerful as their server OS. But in the free software world, if a distribution is well made, it is good for both desktops and servers. There are obviously badly designed distributions like Mint which try to mimic Windows (Home and Pro) and distributions only for servers like RedHat or Ubuntu Server, but those are products just like Windows Server.

But OpenBSD is none of these - it is worse than GNU/Linux as a desktop OS and worse than GNU/Linux as a server OS. The only advantage of OpenBSD is that is uses cuck license and you can make a proprietary system using its code.

>>1070939

based

based

based

>>1070939

How is OpenBSD worse than GNU/Linux except its licences? Config files and userland is more sane and simple then GNU/Linux. Man pages are far superior. If you know your ways with GNU/Linux, except speed, no portage and cuck licence, there is nothing wrong with OpenBSD.

>>1070980

>Man pages are far superior.

no

>>1070939

Nobody in the real world calls it anything but "linux". Nobody in the real world uses pretty much anything besides RHEL, CentOS, Debian or Ubuntu on servers. You sound like a kid who's spent a year on /g/ and distro hopped a few times and thinks that qualifies you to weigh in with your "opinion".

Yeah you can install a desktop environment on OpenBSD, just like you could install gentoo, but nobody besides autists and neets have time to fuck around doing that. You can use some obscure fly-by-night distro as a server but if it's in a real world application where it actually matters you'd be retarded to do so.

>>1071186

The people in the real world either don't know what they're saying or they're intentionally being confusing by overloading the term Linux to simultaneously mean multiple ideas.

>>1070992

Yes they are. OpenBSD has really good docs in general.

OpenBSD is "GNU/Linux 15 years ago when it really sucked in hardware support and in general". Hard pass, IMO.

>>1071256

Provide an example or you are a double faggot.

>>1071276

based.

OpenBSD cares about security. That's why they refuse to replace unsafe C/C++ with Rust. Absolute braindamage.

>>1070980

>How is OpenBSD worse than GNU/Linux except its licences?

I know it's not actually feature of an OS itself, but it has smaller community and hardware support. Compared to basic GNU/Linux distribution OpenBSD isn't that bad, but compared to in my opinion the best GNU/Linux distribution - Guix System OpenBSD is totally unusable and lacks a lot of features - binary bootstrapping, reproducibility, functional package manager, whole-system configuration, etc.

>>1071276

>OpenBSD is "GNU/Linux 15 years ago when it really sucked in hardware support and in general". Hard pass, IMO.

>>1071327

>OpenBSD cares about security. That's why they refuse to replace unsafe C/C++ with Rust. Absolute braindamage.

These anons probably are right too. I saw once an OpenBSD dev shouting at someone who wanted to use Rust and he was such a UNIX weenie bitching about POSIX not implemented entirely. Yes fuck security, let's implement POSIX entirely!

>>1071186

>Nobody in the real world calls it anything but "linux".

I don't care how 'the real world' calls the system. The fact almost everyone is making a mistake, doesn't mean they're right. If everyone in 'the real world' called banana an apple, would you do the same? They don't say "GNU/Linux", because they make more money saying "Linux". http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html.en#companies

< Mandrake said it would use the term “GNU/Linux” some of the time, but IBM and Red Hat were unwilling to help. One executive said, “This is a pure commercial decision; we expect to make more money calling it ‘Linux’.” In other words, that company did not care what was right.

>Nobody in the real world uses pretty much anything besides RHEL, CentOS, Debian or Ubuntu on servers.

Almost nobody in 'the real world' uses free as in freedom OS as their daily driver, does it make Windows good? No it lacks basic things like a proper package manager, has two web browsers installed by default, three consoles (CMD, powershell and a new Terminal) and actualizations break everything. RHEL with systemd is a cancer, they want to dominate GNU/Linux ecosystem and kill all diversity, it is bloated as fuck. Debian, Ubuntu - the same systemd and also ubuntu has Snapp packages, which are centralized and are very weak solution to known package management problems, GNU Guix solves them better. Corporations use these systems, not because they're the best, but mainly because companies behind these systems offer support for them and also because marketing brainwashed them. The same situation is with 'Linux' term, it is so overrated - it is only a kernel, but they advertise it as an complete OS. Don't know anything about CentOS.

>You sound like a kid who's spent a year on /g/ and distro hopped a few times and thinks that qualifies you to weigh in with your "opinion".

Sorry, but 3 years on /tech/, not on /g/ and I'm using GNU/Linux for 5-6 years now. All these commercially used distributions have some common problems - they're 'binary based', builds and the environment are irreproducible, which means there could be malware hidden and you never know, they have systemd - which is a buggy and badly designed piece of software https://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page and these distributions have some freedom issues too http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html

AFAIK only three distributions solve this problems - Guix System doesn't have systemd, provides reproducible builds and a functional - source based package manager and is a completely libre distribution. NixOS does the same, but it has systemd. Gentoo is source based, systemd is optional, but builds don't seem to be reproducible.

I agree there are a lot of meme distros around, but RHEL, Debian, CentOS or Ubuntu, aren't only distributions worth using. Systems like Guix System, NixOS, Gentoo bring innovations, even though they're not backed by big corporations nor have massive marketing involved.

>>1071374

>They don't say "GNU/Linux", because they make more money saying "Linux".

Do you honestly think the thousands of server admins around the world are getting kickbacks from Redhat and IBM for saying "linux" instead of "ganoo slash linux"? Jesus Christ, take a step back and listen to yourself. No, people who actually use Linux every day for their jobs aren't fucking autists, and we don't say "ganoo slash linux" 200 times a day when referring to linux because it sounds fucking retarded. Nobody gives a fuck about Stallman and his commie ideas either, we just use linux to get shit done get out paychecks and go home.

>Almost nobody in 'the real world' uses free as in freedom OS as their daily driver

The real world in this context means "the vast majority of linux use cases where it actually matters", meaning SERVERS. So yes you are right, in the real world people don't use linux on the desktop at all. They run linux on servers and on their server they use RHEL, CentOS, Debian or Ubuntu.

>Sorry, but 3 years on /tech/, not on /g/ and I'm using GNU/Linux for 5-6 years now.

Yes 3 years on /tech/ and zero years in the real world, which is why you are totally missing the point of my post.

>RHEL, Debian, CentOS or Ubuntu, aren't only distributions worth using.

Unless you are doing it as a hobby, in your mom's basement, then yes, they are. I have worked with linux, as a job, for over 10 years now and have never once heard anyone mention Gentoo, refer to linux as "ganoo slash linux", or mention Stallman (other than to make jokes about him), in a professional setting.

>>1074776

>Do you honestly think the thousands of server admins around the world are getting kickbacks from Redhat and IBM for saying "linux" instead of "ganoo slash linux"?

It's not like that. RedHat wants to make more money, so they call the system "Linux" and they spread this name making people think it's the proper name.

>No, people who actually use Linux every day for their jobs aren't fucking autists, and we don't say "ganoo slash linux" 200 times a day when referring to linux because it sounds fucking retarded.

Are they using Linux API by hand at work or what? If they say Linux to refer to the kernel, it's right, but while talking about the complete operating system, it is wrong, because we don't name operating systems after their kernels, there the "GNU/Linux" name is proper.

>They run linux on servers

Guess they're not using only the kernel on their computers. There's something called GNU libc, which translates POSIX and other calls to calls of the Linux kernel and there's GNU bash, a shell probably every admin uses. Linux is just a small part of the overall operating system, and it wasn't even the first component, so I don't care how many "real companies", distributions and people call the entire thing "Linux", but they're wrong. And again Debian is called "GNU/Linux" by its developers.

>Yes 3 years on /tech/ and zero years in the real world, which is why you are totally missing the point of my post.

Not an argument, I don't care what name people in "the real world" use, as far as they're wrong.

>Unless you are doing it as a hobby, in your mom's basement, then yes, they are.

We're all admins of our machines.

>I have worked with linux, as a job, for over 10 years now and have never once heard anyone mention Gentoo, refer to linux as "ganoo slash linux", or mention Stallman (other than to make jokes about him), in a professional setting.

Lol, that's because they don't even know the history of the system they're using. It's like you were a professional driver for 10 years and called your car a banana and told me "I'm a professional driver of my banana, so you're wrong calling my banana a car!". No matter how many people repeat the mistake or if they're professionals or not, it doesn't make it not a mistake.

>>1074776

>>1074777

Also, have you visited the website of Debian for 10 years once?

https://www.debian.org/intro/about.en.html

<A large part of the basic tools that fill out the operating system come from the GNU project; hence the names: GNU/Linux, GNU/kFreeBSD, and GNU/Hurd. These tools are also free.

This also means Ubuntu, which is based on Debian unstable (or testing, don't remember), should be called a GNU/Linux distribution too. So even while ignoring RHEL and CentOS, 2/4 distributions you have listed are actually GNU/Linux distributions.

And somewhere they called Debian an universal operating system, maybe in the installation program, or on a wallpaper, anyway what it means is that Debian is meant to be not only a server OS. I'm using Devuan - a fork of Debian, but without systemd, as my desktop OS and it works well.

>>1074806

<It's called vim/Linux because a large part of the text editing tools that fill out the operating system come from vim.

<t.vim

<It's called firefox/Linux because a large part of the web browsing tools that fill out the operating system come from firefox.

<t.mozilla

>>1074815

Nor vim nor firefox were started as operating systems, the GNU project was intended to be an OS, since its manifesto in 1984.

https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html.en#many

And GNU emacs is an operating system by itself, so vim doesn't even count.

>>1074819

Fuck off gnutard, nobody cares about your shitty politics and shilling. Stick your faggot site up you gay ass.

>>1074829

This is /tech/, not /windows/. Better prove arguments on the website are wrong instead of behaving like a monkey and spreading shit everywhere. Do you really think that calling me a gnutard will solve the problem? And 'politics' is a buzzword, because what you do can be called politics too.

>>1074819

>What we say is that you ought to give the system's principal developer a share of the credit. The principal developer is the GNU Project, and the system is basically GNU.

>There's nothing wrong in calling the system “GNU”; basically, that's what it is. It is nice to give Linus Torvalds a share of the credit as well,

>GNU/X11

Ok Firefox. no wait Windows/Firefox, Mac/Firefox and GNU/Firefox. wait let me give proper credit here. Windows, Mac, GNU.

There we go. Hope nobody thought I was saying Firefox wrote Windows.

>>1074832

This is /tech/, not /leftypol/. Now kill yourself you motherfucking scum, you don't deserve to be even beaten to a pulp, a boot is too valuable for the inbred waste like you.

>>1074838

>Ok Firefox. no wait Windows/Firefox, Mac/Firefox and GNU/Firefox. wait let me give proper credit here. Windows, Mac, GNU.

Again, firefox wasn't started as an operating system, GNU was. They made everything but a kernel, but they started developing one - the Hurd, which is still work in progress. Linux was started as a MINIX clone - it was intended to be a complete operating system, but they made only a kernel. Torvalds even ported GNU software to his Linux, and people eventually merged two things, creating GNU/Linux. And you probably don't seem to know how important pieces GNU people wrote, the first thing they had was GNU Emacs editor, and RMS started writing a free compiler - gcc, so the system has its own compiler, then they wrote things like bash - the shell of the system, libc - a C library used by programs to communicate with the system, coreutils - things like ls, cd, etc, findutils - tools for searching files and directories and many many more, you can't have an Unix-like OS, without these things, and if you think only a kernel is enough, please try using the NT kernel, without basic tools Windows provides for them. And Unix for a long time didn't have a graphical shell, or a browser so X11 and firefox aren't the most important components of the system.

Torvalds' mail when he calls GNU a system:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?_escaped_fragment_=msg/comp.os.minix/dlNtH7RRrGA/SwRavCzVE7gJ

Hello everybody out there using minix -

I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and
professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones.  This has been brewing
since april, and is starting to get ready.  I'd like any feedback on
things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat
(same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons)
among other things).

I've currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40), and things seem to work.
This implies that I'll get something practical within a few months, and
I'd like to know what features most people would want.  Any suggestions
are welcome, but I won't promise I'll implement them :-)

                Linus (torv...@kruuna.helsinki.fi)

PS.  Yes - it's free of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs.
It is NOT protable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never
will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that's all I have :-(. 

The most interesting parts are:

<I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu)

And this, where he talks about porting GNU software to his kernel. Without having these tools already, Linux wouldn't be as successful as it is now, without GNU. Linux also was initially a proprietary kernel, but he went to a talk about free software and then he had changed his mind.

<I've currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40), and things seem to work.

>There we go. Hope nobody thought I was saying Firefox wrote Windows.

Learn English. GNU Linux would mean Linux is a part of the GNU project, but GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux means that both GNU and Linux together make the system whole.

>>1074846

>GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux means that both GNU and Linux together make the system whole.

No. It means Linux is a secondary contribution to GNU, aka the entire OS, exactly like X11 or Firefox. They explicitly say this. Go read your own link.

>>1074838

Firefox isn't part of the operating system. It is an application program that's distinct to the purposes of the operating system. X11 is part of the operating system but by itself it forms a lesser part and therefore demands lesser of a naming dominance.

>>1074996

Let me just quote from the article again since you guys keep trying to invent positions that GNU does not hold in order to rationalise their arrogance.

>Since a long name such as GNU/X11/Apache/Linux/TeX/Perl/Python/FreeCiv becomes absurd, at some point you will have to set a threshold and omit the names of the many other secondary contributions.

>There is no one obvious right place to set the threshold, so wherever you set it, we won't argue against it.

Key points. The order is irrelevant just that GNU comes first. You can omit any "secondary" applications from the naming convention. So I conclude GNU/Firefox is what Firefox, on the GNU OS, should be called. According to GNU calling it Firefox implies they wrote the OS.

>>1027459

I think I actually learned the most from the pc-bsd handbook pdf that was on the desktop after install back in 2011.

Really made File Hierarchy click.

Honestly wish it had wifi for my laptop at the time, pc-bsd was really awesome at the time compared to ubuntu and fedora.

I looked into true-os, just missing that comfiness it had before

>>1074975

>No. It means Linux is a secondary contribution to GNU, aka the entire OS, exactly like X11 or Firefox. They explicitly say this. Go read your own link.

I know it is a secondary contribution, but Linux actually makes GNU usable. Or is the "GNU/Linux" name just a compromise to calm down people thinking "Linux" is the whole OS?

I think GNU/Linux is actually useful term because Linux doesn't supply the userland and you could be running Busybox/Linux instead of GNU/Linux.

>>1070815

you probably need the firmware. connect to internet using a cable (if it works) and run fw_update -a after installation

>>1075009

That's a strawman position of Stallman/GNU project. The GNU/Linux name is important specifically because people conflate the Linux name to refer to multiple different things simultaneously despite not being a part of the Linux project. Firefox is not part of the operating system despite the fact in the example the name of FreeCiv and Apache are included. Firefox is an addition that's well beyond a tertiary contribution to an operating system and that's because it's not a contribution to the operating system. It's an application program and it's not part of the operating system.

>>1070928

Okay, now go larp on reddit while we talk.

>>1075119

GNU/Linux is just a way for gnutards to shove their ideology in there tbh. "Linux" is just a commonly used term and nobody beyond those who want to force people into a certain way of thinking bother with this newspeak.

>>1027604

This ain't school nigger I wanna get the job done and forget about it.

>>1028408

You can trivially nearly completely delete intel ME, whereas old CPUs are completely vulnerable to actual, exploitable vulns like spectre et al.

>>1075161

The commonly used term of Linux is intentionally designed to be confusing by conflating multiple different ideas under the same label. If you want to use it, then that's your choice but those who use it are intentionally being confusing.

>>1075149

>that direct quote is a strawman

lmao

>now let me tell you what I imagined stallman meant based on nothing but my own oestrogen intuition

yeah how about no

>>1075161

>GNU/Linux is just a way for gnutards to shove their ideology in there tbh.

GNU was started before Linux.

>to shove their ideology in there

In what actually? In the kernel? Linux is just a kernel and we're not trying to make people thing Linux was written by GNU, on the other hand Linux developers actually try to achieve this with GNU - on their website they say that making the kernel 'jumpstarted' the system as a whole.

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/projects/linux/

<It is this kernel which, after its initial release by Linus Torvalds in 1991, jump-started the development of Linux as a whole.

This is obviously false, because the GNU Project and efforts to create the OS were started in 1984, but the Linux Foundation tries to take credits for things written by the GNU Project earlier. So if someone is trying to 'shove their ideology in there', those are Linux developers and the Open Source movement.

>"Linux" is just a commonly used term and nobody beyond those who want to force people into a certain way of thinking bother with this newspeak.

Making people think Linux as a kernel started overall operating system and efforts to create one is what actually is trying to force people into certain way of thinking. We just want our work to be respected. And it doesn't matter if it is a commonly used term, it it is wrong.

>>1075392

Only linux-libre distributions developed by the FSF or GNU Project are appropriate to refer to as GNU/Linux. After all, any proprietary software is explicitly against their goals.

>>1075626

>Only linux-libre distributions developed by the FSF or GNU Project are appropriate to refer to as GNU/Linux.

Yes, but that's only because Linux-libre is a GNU package, they're not spreading on the website they wrote Linux. And still, they call a distribution with Linux-libre a GNU/Linux-libre distribution, they're not removing the "Linux" part from the name as Linux developers do for the "GNU" part and more generally from the history at all.

>>1075626

>>1075656

>Only linux-libre distributions developed by the FSF or GNU Project are appropriate to refer to as GNU/Linux.

Wait, no, it doesn't matter, because the GNU parts are still in there. If we treated Linux-libre as a GNU kernel, the system should be called just GNU, but the GNU Project didn't write Linux, so it would be a bit mean. No matter what the kernel is, GNU parts are always present in a GNU/something distribution.

>After all, any proprietary software is explicitly against their goals.

Anyway, parts written by them are free and will always be, so giving credit to the GNU Project for things they wrote is appropriate, even if a distribution isn't compliant with the FSDG. Using the "GNU/Linux" name helps promoting the GNU system and by this people will find distributions respecting their freedom more.