/tech/ - Technology★

http://www.libertybsd.net

forgot the link

>>860253 (OP)

Regular OpenBSD for me thanks. If I don't want firmware and binary blobs or whatever then I simply won't download them. Any competent user can prevent the auto download.

>his BSD fork claims non-free binary downloads

Sort of, none of these binaries are in kernel, what they are are firmware and microcode that is loaded directly into devices like wifi and video cards.

If you don't want to do this then you can delete this with fw_update, firmware can be seen here: http://firmware.openbsd.org/firmware/6.2/

>cuck license

>>860302

>not having a communist license is cucked

>>860302

>not sucking Stallman's dick is cucked

>>860414

If your "ethics" means restricting peoples freedom then you can fuck off.

>>860420

>insert any ancap meme about bombing your neighbor for noise

>>860420

Don't tread on my freedom to pick up one of every item at the free market without payment! After all freedom means I can do all!

>>860427

If you bomb your neighbor over noise their security contractors are going to bomb you

>>860438

You have freedom to the property you own, you have no right to do as you wish with others property.

>>860445

So the end game of freedom is nuclear war. Fantastic.

>>860448

No because who is fucking crazy enough to bomb their neighbor over noise. Bombing your neighbor for noise is definitely not something your security contractors will back you up on. You will get fucked for doing it, and the world will go on.

>>860447

That's kind of how proprietary software works. The software is running on my computer and I'm supposed to submit to you just because you happen to be the distributor? That isn't freedom. You can't be the distributor of proprietary software and ask your users to promise submission and claim that's freedom.

>>860453

If I lend you my car then you have to agree to my terms. If you agree to those terms you accepted the restrictions.

Freedom includes the ability to constrain itself. Don't people have the right to kill themselves?

>>860455

That's all fine and dandy about cars but software is a different matter. The reason why I, as the user, am forbidden to study the source code of your proprietary software is because you feel the need to withold it from me. Whoever controls the software controls the computer so if you withold the source code to the software running on my computer, you are witholding my right to control my own computer. You political act of asking me to promise to respect your control over my computer is not a matter of freedom. The only way I can have freedom is to reject your promise of subjugation and remove the software from my computer.

>>860457

>you are witholding my right to control my own computer

You accepted running the binary on your computer that I gave you. I am not forcing you to do anything.

If you require to source of a program before you will run it then just don't run proprietary code. I don't have to give you the source to my software just because you demand it. If I want to give you access to some derivative of my property but not the root that is my business.

Now if you reverse engineer the binary I give you and we don't have a contract saying you won't attempt that, we have a different story :^)

>>860459

The force is in the fact that you asked me to make a promise to you. This promise means that my computer is under your control. The fact that users can choose to rescind the promise at any time does not change the fact: the user is under your control while they accept the promise. That can never be freedom. Freedom can only return when the user chooses to reject your proprietary software. Now you can say, "I refuse to give you access to the source code" but you cannot distribute proprietary software and call it freedom.

Reverse engineering binary software is not a solution. It is a completely impractical method of working.

>>860461

>The force is in the fact that you asked me to make a promise to you

There is no initiation of force when you voluntarily accept the terms of the license I present you.

> This promise means that my computer is under your control.

Yep

>That can never be freedom.

Making it illegal for a person to kill themselves, or making it illegal to sign yourself into slavery is not freedom.

Freedom includes the ability to bind itself. If it cant bind itself you don't have freedom.

>but you cannot distribute proprietary software and call it freedom

I am exercising my freedom to sell you software. You are exercising your freedom not to buy it.

>Reverse engineering binary software is not a solution. It is a completely impractical method of working.

>Reverse engineering binary software is not a solution.

If reverse engineering binary software was not a solution then DRM would work. DRM always gets broken.

>>860463

So you believe that voluntarily signing yourself into slavery is a form of freedom...

>>860464

And I suppose being able to kill yourself is also not freedom? Not free to do much after you are dead.

>>860465

I believe in the freedom to kill yourself. I also believe that with freedom comes with responsibility. So if you kill yourself, you had better be responsible for the proceeding consequences. In the case of voluntary slavery, responsibility goes out the door.

>>860471

Consequences? You mean being dead?

I don't have to be responsible with my own property. If I have a rare doll collection and I want to throw them all in a fire that is my business.

>>860475

I have never had a reddit account, and have never posted on reddit.

In this case lets call it Latex spacing.

>>860473

Consequences include the cost of body disposal. If you have life dependents, they need someone to care for them. This means they will need money to keep them living for as long as they remain dependent. It is wrong to move these burdens to the rest of society when they are your responsibility. If you have freedom, then you also have responsibility not to harm others.

Your freedom to throw your dolls in a fire doesn't necessarily harm the rest of society. If those dolls were made with lead, then you have the responsibility to make sure that the consequences of burning the lead dolls do not harm the environment in general or society.

>>860477

If you sign yourself into slavery those responsibilities become the responsibilities of whoever owns you.

>>860476

Apparently you never used LaTex either.

>>860478

Voluntary slavery means there is no mutuality, the slave cannot act to enforce anything owed to him by his master. Thus voluntary slavery can never be freedom. Freedom only happens when the slave leaves it, not in the act of agreeing to it and not during the term of the slavery.

>>860487

Most things cant be enforced. If someone decides to go on a killing spree and kills 20 people nothing will bring those people back alive. At best the killer can be arrested or executed.

If you want something to be enforced go find an enforcer with a good reputation and contract with them to enforce the particulars of your enslavement.

>>860481

paragraphs brah

remember to ignore the license tards whose job it is to derail every BSD thread

they are actually Microsoft employees who wish to create friction, they are Indians, and they shit in the street like animals

almost, but not quite, worse than the kikes they emulate with their subversion

>>860496

Actually they work for the NSA, who fear OpenBSD. They've completely subverted Linux, now they're trying to SHUT IT DOWN.

>>860493

Choosing to act in mass murders cannot be considered freedom, that would be an example of injustice.

The fact that you find a trustworthy enforcer to justly enforce the terms of slavery doesn't change the facts: the slave cannot have freedom by voluntarily choosing slavery even with the support of the trustworthy enforcer. The fact is that the slave can only have freedom when the slave has completed the term of slavery and is no longer a slave.

>>860502

I slave is not free. A free person has the ability to become a slave.

A free person can chain themselves to a rock and throw the key far away. A non free person is banned from chaining themselves to a rock.

>>860504

I can agree with this. Choosing to bind yourself to a rock doesn't necessarily harm your agency. It will restrict your physical movement but that's not the same thing as slavery. Slavery is different because the slave's agency belongs to the master, not the slave.

>>860508

And a free person is able to give up their agency, by killing themselves, cutting out parts of their brain until they are retarded, becoming a slave, etc.

>>860509

I don't believe that choice and actions necessarily means freedom. You can have choice without freedom.

>>860510

>You can have choice without freedom.

The slave that gets to pick the type of food he eats has more freedom than the one that only gets oat meal.

>>860512

I can't agree that people with more choice implies having more freedom.

>>860516

why

>>860517

The capability to make choices has no meaning without freedom. Let's take a computer program that chooses between three choices through the mechanism of a random algorithm. It doesn't matter what is the outcome of the three choices, the computer's capability of making a choice doesn't imply that the computer has freedom. Likewise, a conscious slave actively considering to make choices out of many options still doesn't have freedom. Freedom only happens when the slave is no longer a slave.

>>860521

>>860520

>Let's take a computer program that chooses between three choices through the mechanism of a random algorithm.

Fine get reductionist. Freedom and choice do not and can never exist. Human "choice" and human "freedom" is no different than a computer clunking away.

>>860522

I believe freedom exists in humans because of Descartes's philosphy: I think therefore I am.

>>860495

You have no idea of what you're talking about, "brah".

y o u h a v e t o g o b a c k

>>860525

I think therefore I am only applies to you no one else, the "in humans" part does not follow.

>860527

>I don't know what a paragraph is

>>860532

I would have thought, "I think therefore I am" universally applies to all thinking people. Living people who otherwise cannot think are a different class of people, they don't do this by definition.

>>860537

>universally applies to all thinking people

People that are not you are observably equivalent to computers and animals, I don't think you understand the point of the statement at all.

>>860465

Please exercise your freedom to suicide at your earliest convenience

>>860538

I understood it to mean, "I definitely exist as a consequence of being able to think".

>>860543

Which does not apply to anyone else

>>860544

I don't understand why you would say this. "I think therefore I am" proves what is stated from my point of view. Are you saying that all other living beings that look like humans are not necessarily "I think therefore I am"? That I could be the only sentient being in my own personal universal simulation?

>>860547

You based a previous part of your argument providing the example of a computers decision procedure. Humans are equivalent when examined at this level to computers.

I think therefore I am is not a consciousness proof of other people.

>>860549

I understood "I think therefore I am" as a consciousness proof of other people. Apparently, this is wrong. I don't understand the equivalence of humans to computers that you're stating here. I understand that humans are not equivalent to computers because I understand humans are conscious while computers are not conscious.

>>860551

Consciousness is not an observable property. Humans are observably machines.

I think therefore I am is interesting because it is consistent despite the potential for your own determinism.

>>860552

In that case, I would define consciousness as living beings that exhibit the same consciousness as me. I have no rational basis for this, it's my intuitive guess about people who are not me.

>>860553

Exhibiting this behavior still makes your comments about "choices" a computer makes wrong.

>>860554

So you're telling me a computer that was programmed to pass through one of three logic gates as a consequence of a random algorithm isn't making a choice?

>>860555

I am saying it ISSSSS,

are you a different person?

>>860556

I'm not a different person, I'm just clarifying. Now I am restating that just because the computer has made a choice doesn't imply that the computer has freedom. I will also restate that a person making conscious choices does not imply the conscious person having freedom. I think that a free person who has no choice but to wear one shirt still has more freedom than a slave who has the option to pick and choose from a million unique shirts.

>>860560

Only because you have valued other things above having a million unique shirts. A middle class person that is a wage cuck with a criminal record in modern America has many more things they can do than a perfectly unconstrained totally free person 10 thousand years ago.

>>860563

I don't agree with the implication that a "wage cuck with a criminal record in modern America" is less free than the free person from 10 thousand years in the past. Having a criminal record may mean fewer options but I think you can have freedom with the record. Choosing to submit to the daily wage to pay for whatever might mean you have fewer options but I think you can have freedom in that scenario. I don't believe the poor economics of your specific scenario affects your freedom. It is your ability to act in your own accord without harming others that determines your freedom.

>>860568

I am saying the modernist is more free

>>860569

Indeed you were. Anyway the point about all this freedom is that people who distribute proprietary software do not promote freedom, instead they promote subjugation. Users who choose proprietary software will only get their freedom back when they choose to reject the proprietary software.

>>860457

you are free to not use proprietary software if you do not agree to the restrictions. No one is holding a gun to your head.

Likewise, some people will not accept the restrictions of the GPL. They are free to do so. Calling them a "cuck" because you think they should restrict themselves to your favorite licensing terms is childish and makes you a bit of a little bitch.

>>860497

>Actually they work for the NSA, who fear OpenBSD. They've completely subverted Linux, now they're trying to SHUT IT DOWN.

most likely case. It's probably the next most widely used OS that hasn't been subverted.

>>860581

I am perfectly fine with permissively licensed free software on the basis that they're free software. What I don't like is people who distribute proprietary software then claim this is freedom. This is subjugating the freedom of willing users.

>>860573

Users who promote the GPL do not promote freedom they promote subjugation. They demand any labor / changes you do involving the code you use be distributed by you to the world.

GPL is anti freedom.

>>860677

Replace all those things on the left with communism which is the opposite of liberty and destroyer of freedom. GPL is strictly limits your freedoms compared to BSD.

>>860692

> The constitution of the USA is communism because it imposes taxes and thus restricts "muh freedom"

> GPL is communism because it imposes rules to corporations so that users are not slaves to their products

Yeah, no.

>>860705

Corporations are users of software just like everyone else. The GPL restrict the freedom ALL users not just companies. Nothing in a BSD license makes a person a slave.

>>860650

That's not how the GPL works.

>>860692

The ability to distribute proprietary software isn't freedom. If you ask people nicely to join your walled garden and respect your control over the garden, that isn't freedom either.

>>860760

BSD != Walled garden

>>860745

So, Microsoft is a user of Windows "just like everyone else"?

And, here I thought Microsoft were the designers of that software, had full control over it and its design, while users had none, and could make unilateral decisions about its privacy policies.

>>860760

>If you ask people nicely to join your walled garden and respect your control over the garden, that isn't freedom either.

But it literally is, you fucking retard.

>>860766

Frankly, I don't think you have the mental abilities to understand what the BSD license does in the grand scheme of things and no rules doesn't equal total freedom but very often the absence of (in this case software user) fundamental freedoms.

When Apple uses *BSD to create an operating system that is closed off from its users and abuses that power of the licensing allowed by BSD to subjugate them, then that is hardly freedom. Especially salient when a lot of *BSD stuff derives from GNU/Linux.

BSD is the pot-smoking kid in your high-school that has gadsden flag in his room and is ""totally" anti-rules" but drinks Coca-Cola, goes to Starbucks and has an Ipod.

>>860770

Then don't use the derivatives that are not BSD retard.

>>860768

BSD != Walled garden

>>860771

GPL is every communist high school kid that says "communism has never been tried" or "that was not real communism"

>>860774

He's also most likely to be the only one to have read parts of the constitution and understands that freedom is not the outcome of "no rules", otherwise the founding fathers would have not bothered, but are gained and defended through some binding set of laws.

>>860766

That's not always true. Something licensed under the BSD license isn't inherently free. You must judge each specific title and version of the licensed software to find out the status of that title and version.

>>860768

Asking people to submit to your control over their lives means the don't have freedom, it means they are subjects to your control.

>>860777

Unrelated

>>860779

Something BSD licensed is inherently free. The only *check* you are doing is if the software is all under the license. Same thing you do with everything.

>This code used to be MIT but now it's GPL

>>860779

>Submit to your control.

BSD does not ask that

>>860777

Freedom is gained from nuclear weapons and tanks. Law is secondary.

>>860777

Nothing in the constitution says a person MUST do a thing. The constitution is a document that sets limits what the Government can do the person. Rights are not granted by the government. They are granted by "God". The constitution's sole purpose to keep the Government in check. That is it.

Comparing the GNU & communism to the constitution makes no sense.

>>860784

That's false. Did you know that people are allowed to fork free BSD licensed software into proprietary BSD licensed software. The BSD license doesn't change during the fork, it remains under the BSD as before.

What does change is the fact that the software is no longer free software.

>>860785

BSD actually permits this. There is no requirement for BSD licensed software to be free software. For example, Comodo Dragon was forked from the liberally licensed Chromium. Comodo Dragon hasn't changed its licensing from that but it is now proprietary software.

>>860253 (OP)

So it's literally never going to work with AMD GPUs or Intel wifi. Great fucking job, retards.

>>860253 (OP)

>claims

It's open source, check it yourself. Protip: yes. Protip: they tried hard to hide it by redefining the word blob to mean driver even thoug heveryone else in the entire world has always, does and will always use it to mean any binary of unknown content. When properly confronted with it, they at least have the decency to admit it, though, but they of course damage control like crazy. Jewgle it.

>>860283

Enjoy your placebo security.

https://media.ccc.de/v/34c3-8968-are_all_bsds_created_equally#t=415

Reminder that your one and only line of defense is auditing, and the openbsd team are not even able to do that right as shown above. Not to mention you can't audit the binary blobs.

>>860834

t. the "butthurt about actual security" rat

>>860841

>everybody I disagree with is $BOOGEYMAN

Couldn't you make me a Jew at least instead of some nobody?

>>860848

t. the "if I fix privilege escalations in CVE-less commits, that means this security flaw never existed" rat

>>860850

What are you even talking about, nigger? I had to double check this wasn't /sudo/.

Please can we stop the tech religious wars. It's kind of funny how all these words terms are referring to the same thing:

- Linux operating system

- GNU operating system

- Linux distro

- Free software distro

I just consider free software to be a single operating system. BSD and Linux shares the same packages and runs 99% of the same code in practice, making them pretty much the same operating system aside from kernel, compiler and libc. 3 small things. Arguing over licenses is a form of political correctness. Corporations will fuck people no matter what software license you use; If Clang wasn't BSD license then they'd just shove a proprietary equivalent down peoples' throats.

>>860854

Have you tried increasing your IQ past the freezing point?

>>860797

Absolutely wrong. The proprietary bits are not BSD licensed. It's like you have no idea how derivatives works.

>>860797

False.

Derivative proprietary code of BSD code is not BSD code.

>>860921

This is why the notice is mandatory with binary release too? Sure.

>>860925

Derivative work of BSD that is proprietary is not BSD. It's really fucking simple. If it WAS BSD code then when OSX source code leaked it would be free software and I could go give away OSX copies (minus trademarks) without worry. But it is not BSD, it is proprietary software. Learn the difference.

>>860925

The pieces of code that are BSD are still under the BSD license. The derivative work is not under the BSD license. If you add two proprietary files to an existing BSD project you must still obey the terms of the BSD license for the BSD code. The proprietary / derivative code is NOT BSD licensed.

>>860928

That's not right as you can't call it your own work and the notice has to come with the binaries. This is why the minix guy wanted a notification about intel amt (aside internet points).

>>860934

Wow you are a smart one let me repeat that for you again.

>The code that is BSD is still under the BSD license

That means when BSD code is used it must be attributed.

The DERIVATIVE code AKA additional files and modification, etc. Can be under whatever license the author wants, proprietary being one of them.

So if I write a program with BSD code, I must attribute that the BSD code is used, the code I WRITE is not forced to be BSD though.

It's really not complicated brah

>>860833

And your solution is what, exactly? Run Linux instead of OpenBSD? Get real, faggot. Linux has more holes than swiss cheese.

>>860996

The solution is to run an operating system with a non-cucked license.

If Linux was as insecure as you say, it would not run on 99% of servers and super-computers.

>>861015

>If windows was as insecure as you say it would not by run on 99% of desktops

Also, remember :

"permissive" = submissive.

>>861017

>Freedom is slavery

BSD > GPL

Here's why.

I can use BSD code on Android, iOS and WP7 without resorting to linked libraries, GPL cannot.

Linked libraries are banned on Android, iOS and WP7, BSD code isn't.

Many people contribute back to BSD projects rather than fork them into proprietary code.

The best examples are FreeBSD, LVMM/Clang and Minix3.

Also people can use your code with minimal fuss, and you are required by law to be acknowledged for your contribution.

>>861018

The freedom you're talking about is the BSD-style "anarchy freedom", that includes everything including taking away that freedom from others, because, "hey, it's freedom". "If I can't have slaves you're treading on muh freedom." "If I can't take code developed by others and put my name on it and change it and sell, you're treading on muh rights."

Freedom is gained through a fundamental act of declaring it. Cf. Constitution of the USA and pretty much any other constitutional text ever written

>>861026

> Corporations > Users

> Here's why.

Yeah, no.

>>861028

>includes everything including taking away that freedom from others

Wrong

>If I can't take code developed by others and put my name on it and change it and sell, you're treading on muh rights."

GPL is dependent on corporate style intellectual property a very non free concept.

>>861029

The license terms do not magically only apply to corporations, GPL terms apply to corporations and individuals all the same. GPL restricts the freedom of everyone.

>>861028

>Freedom is gained through a fundamental act of declaring it

Freedom is gained from nuclear weapons and tanks

>>861015

The license doesn't have jack shit to do with how secure the OS is. This whole license talk is used to derail threads constantly, that's all it's good for. It's probably some cianiggers trying to get people brainwashed into conforming into their carefully controlled system of thinking that doesn't allow for any real individuality since it always places the herd before the individual. My freedom is simple: I do wtf I want to, fuck you.

Aside from that constant distraction, the entire focus of Linux is on performance, having lots of features, and stuff like desktop environments. You get bloated junk like systemd deployed everyfuckingwhere. OpenBSD has an entirely different focus, with predictably different results. If you can't figure out why OpenBSD ends up more secure, then you just don't understand how actions map to consequences.

>>861038

But without SystemD how does OpenBSD boot?

>>861038

>OpenBSD ends up more secure

Only if you ignore DoS attacks.

>>860996

Except that's false if you configure it properly.

If you are still brianwashed and have to delude yourself into thinking any bsd is even remotely as secure as the most open linux setup, go for freebsd which at least has many layered mitigations to contain such problems.

>>861043

And privilege escalation, and arbitrary execution via buffer overflows which can be done remotely if an ssh session is available "but that's not a remote execution bug therefore it doesn't count" -t. the rat.

>>861045

FreeBSD doesn't have as many mitigations as OpenBSD.

Also, I used to run Linux servers and it was a PITA having to do everything manually that OpenBSD was already doing by default. Fuck that, I'll never touch Linux again. It's not worth my time.

>>861050

The only mitigations openbsd has are wishful thinking and that's the problem. The entire security model is based around the assumption that you only run code that is correct, except there is no tool to prove that the code is correct, packages in ports are not actually audited, and base packages have severe, very old (decade, decade and a half) critical security vulnerabilities that have not been addressed.

You don't need 20 thousand mitigs in one layer that can be bypassed altogether. You do need layers of mitigs so that every mitig, not just one, needs to be bypassed. That's why but linux and freebsd are infinitely more secure than openplacebo. Due to the pax patchset, linux has more mitigs, at the base, than openbsd anyway, if setup. If not setup, just the fact that most distros have apparmor or selinux enabled by default is a significant increase in security alone that cannot be claimed by openplacebo.

>>861050

Linux is not worth your time if security is not worth your time. Or if software availability is not worth your time. Or if performance is not worth your time. Or if you don't care about 99% of server setups. Or if you're paid to claim so.

>>861057

>base packages have severe, very old (decade, decade and a half) critical security vulnerabilities that have not been addressed.

Source?

>>861064

https://media.ccc.de/v/34c3-8968-are_all_bsds_created_equally#t=415

>>861080

I watched the whole thing earlier and it said OpenBSD was the best.

>>861080

Just show me the bug

>>861090

This is a live demo of decade-old bugs in an up-to-date 2017 openbsd (and other bsd's)

>>861082

Only with regard to attack surface on the base system. For example the exploits demonstrated here could have 0 practical impact on the FreeBSD system due to further mitigs whereas all demonstrated exploits on OpenBSD give you the keys to the kingdom on account of no further mitigs being available. That's the point: so long as you have even just ONE exploit open for even one second, the entire OpenBSD system MUST BE CONSIDERED COMPROMISED whereas you don't need to make such assumptions in FreeBSD. Not to mention if you use ANY software in OpenBSD chances are your system is already wide open, again due to no mitigs. The reason why this presentation is particularly relevant is because OpenBSD proponents just can't stop spouting the nonsense claim that the base system is perfectly secure and bugfree because it's being audited. Humans are imperfect and there are severe security bugs (as demonstrated here) which have been there for a very long time without anyone noticing, thus even a basic OpenBSD install IS PROBABLY VULNERABLE to remote execution as long as ANY network-facing service is open.

>>861086

Not an argument.

>>861098

Also, increased attack surface is not the same thing as increased vulnerabilities, but it is the same thing as increased likelihood of vulnerabilities.

>>861098

> Not an argument.

Nice, now we also know who keeps repeating this matra incessantly. You're making yourself easy to spot. It's almost to the point where you might as well be a tripfag.

>>861098

Name these "further mitigations" you are referring to.

>>861098

Obviously SOME bugs exist, every usable operating system has bugs. This does not mean it is not more secure than alternatives.

>>861080

>>861057

>Says OpenBSD is dogshit

>cites a talk that heaps praise on OpenBSD

>Only BSD to do responsible disclosure and patches

Do you even watch the talk?

>>861098

You've managed to say a whole lot of shit without actually giving any information

Is ASLR only for base? No

is RETGUARD only for base? No

Is W&X only for base? No.

Is Xenocara only for base? no

I could go on but there are plenty of ways OpenBSD is hardened for ALL programs, I amazed that when they say at the end of the day they're only responsible for the code they write others take that and assume third party apps are going to just be more insecure because.... reasons?

https://www.openbsd.org/papers/bsdtw.pdf

>>861108

You could at least watch the video instead of being butthurt that someone hurt your precious security by wishful thinking OS. Then again you actively hate security so that's to be expected.

>>861105

It does, because every alternative has a security model that entails bugs except for openbsd. There are bugs in all non-trivial software (and even a lot of trivial software). Other OSs assume this to be true and include ways to contain or mitigate exploits based on those bugs. OpenBSD says "nope, bugs don't exist, everything is perfect, mitigations are bloat". You need to have brain problem to think that's a more secure approach and as seen in this presentation it's a practical fact it's less secure as a result.

>>861110

We did. Can you fucking read? Did you fail to at all comprehend the content?

>>861111

OpenBSDs claim to fame is mitigations for everything by default, are you retarded? Your argument can only come from misreading or not understanding the claims made.

>>861111

Name those mitigations you are referring to. OpenBSD has a long list of mitigations.

>>861104

MAC/ACL and seccomp are very obvious ones.

>>861114

Yes, openbsd has lots of mitigations. That get pwned all at once if there's any bug on any software, based or not, anywhere in the system, which is demonstrated to be the case. Not to mention they stole those mitigs from PaX group in the first place. Might as well have nothing at all.

And by the way, PID randomization is a huge security flaw, it's no mitig at all.

>>861113

>reality doesn't real because they CLAIM SOMETHING

The absolute state of openbsdtards.

>>861118

Is English your first language? PaX never claimed their mitigations were stolen, their claim was that they had the mitigations first. OpenBSD however were the first to have them turned on by default.

You claim they get pwned but have yet to cite anything.

I think you're just a butthurt FreeBSD fag or a purposeful troll.

>>861119

>Attacking a common expression

They DO implement them faggot

>>861120

>if I ignore proof and citations I win!

The absolute state of openbsdtards

>>861121

OpenBSD's only security is security by wishful thinking, are you retarded? Your argument can only come from misreading or not understanding the facts laid out.

>>861123

>>861124

>Gets asked for proof

>give no proof

>accuse others of not showing proof

This is some real schoolyard bullshit.

I gave you a list of mitigations that work on all programs along with a pdf for citations, you have given no refutations or citations.

Finish English class.

>>861126

>ask for proof

>be given proof

>pretend the proof doesn't exist and ask for proof again

>be pointed to the proof again

>ignore both the proof and the pointer to the proof and pretend the proof doesn't exist

>spread tears all over the thread

The absolute state of openplacebotards everybody!

>>861115

This is laughable. The number of Linux servers with SELinux enabled and properly configured is miniscule. It creates a lot of extra work and puts the burden squarely on the shoulders of sysadmins who are usually overworked to begin with. Contrast that with the OpenBSD equivalent (Pledge) which is enabled by default and needs no tuning because the OpenBSD devs take care of all necessary integration with the base system (which on its own includes a decent number of network daemons), and they've been starting to apply it to various ports.

But hey, if you want to do it all manually in Linux, go ahead. Not my time you'll be wasting.

Pledge talk here:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=FzJJbNRErVQ

>>861151

Pledge is to selinux what openbsd is to a potato.

(Hint: the potato actually has uses, and it does not have software exploits).

>>861225

>delusional /g/ tard still spewing nonsense without a source

>despite being called out on his shit by multiple people.

>>861151

>what are selinux policies in distro repos

>what is sec-policy/*::gentoo

>>861261

>if I pretend the source doesn't exist, I WIIIIIN

The absolute state of openbsdtards. If plege is improperly or not implemented in some software, it has full system access whereas if a software is not excepted from a mac rule, it is fully restricted. Exactly the opposite paradigm. This means you can run poorly programmed software (such as openplacebo software) without fear of the system exploding (unlike on openplacebo where any security flaw anywhere means a hosed system and pledge does literally nothing to even remotely address that)

>>861291

>if I pretend openbsd only has one exploit mitigation then it's so

>>861306

Your butt sore needs looking after, if it grows any further it might become the nerve center of your being.

>>861026

>I can use BSD code on Android, iOS and WP7 without resorting to linked libraries, GPL cannot.

>Linked libraries are banned on Android, iOS and WP7, BSD code isn't.

"I am good goy and enjoy eating shit my corporate masters allow me to use."

>Many people contribute back to BSD projects rather than fork them into proprietary code.

False.

>The best examples are FreeBSD, LVMM/Clang and Minix3.

Intel used Minix for Intel ME on billions of CPUs and Andrew Tanenbaum didn't even know about it. Not a single contribution back from a multi billion dollar corporation that used his software to take control away from people.

Corporations LOVE permissive licences, because they give them competitive edge over others and enable them to not be transparent at all. Every now and then they throw some crumbs. Just like Trickle-down economics, made by jews to fool goyim. Not that I mind that :^)

<inb4 commie

I 100% believe in some form of capitalism. The only thing is that everything needs to be 100% transparent. No intellectually property, no hiding of production process. Everything 100% transparent or you can't enter the market. 24/7/365 struggle between competition. Let weak die and strong survive. Also ban any kind of marketing.

>>861317

>>Many people contribute back to BSD projects rather than fork them into proprietary code.

>False.

This isn't false, it's just misleading. Many people do contribute to BSD projects, and many people, and many large corporations, do fork them into proprietary code. The two aren't mutually exclusive. The person you're replying to omitted that even if "many people contribute back to BSD projects", that doesn't mean that the big corporations aren't using it for their proprietary projects without returning a single line of code or paying a dime. I'm sure it was just a (((coincidence))) that he (((merely forgot))) to mention that :^)

>>861307

Go and watch the video that was linked.

>It's foolish to believe that one mitigation should cover a wide range or all issues

Following your previous posts this is exactly what selinux does. Now as soon as your program doesn't work in selinux you give it an exception. After this the program is not limited at all, whereas in openbsd if a program doesn't implement pledge() it still has to go through all the other mitigations.

Of course you have already been told this multiple times you just continue to ignore it.

>>861323

>Many people do contribute to BSD projects

Yeah that is true, but they do it because it is easier and cheaper (in long term) to dump some quick patch and let BSD people to maintain their code for them. Maintaining their fork costs money and corporations that do fork usually don't keep up with upstream at all. But still the end result is the same, the user/consumers are fucked by greed. If any real monetary opportunity arises to compete with upstream they will fuck you in the ass. BSD people are only relying that people won't compete with them because kernel dev is a necessary money sink, not profitable.

>>861335

I haven't seen such a retarded post since I quit going to cuckchan. Truely placebotards are in need of assistance

>>860921

>>860919

That's not how the BSD works. The BSD derivate never stops being under BSD. It is now BSD licensed proprietary software. If you were allowed to relicense the BSD code, then you would be allowed to use the code without attributing the copyright holder of the BSD code!

>>861365

You are not changing the license of he BSD code, you are setting the license of the derivative code. I can only assume english is not your native language.

>>861461

That's correct that the BSD code remains BSD code. The problem is that the BSD code is now proprietary software. This is the meaning of proprietary BSD licensed software.

>>861464

No the BSD code is still open source and the license must be obeyed, there just happens to be some other code in the executable with a different license.

>>861464

By this logic GPL code can become proprietary because it allows dynamic linking with proprietary code. The difference between dynamic and static linking is minimal in this context.

WE MUST STOP ALL THESE PROPRIETARY GPL APPLICATIONS.,

>>861466

I posted a typo *lgpl

>>861465

>No the BSD code is still open source and the license must be obeyed

There is no requirement in the BSD license for the distributor to distribute the source code to the BSD program!

>>861466

In order to distribute LGPL software, the distributor must also distribute the source code to the LGPL software. The fact that the software is linked with proprietary software doesn't change the requirements of the LGPL software. This is not true for BSD licensed software; there is no licensing requirement for the source code to BSD licensed software to accompany the software.

>>861481

The company got the source code from somewhere the user can go get it from somewhere else too. Your reservation is that they don't have to mirror a repository lollololololol.

>>861486

Anybody who distributes BSD licensed software without the source code, that software is BSD licensed proprietary software. That's what I've been saying all along. BSD licensing does not imply the software is also free software; you have to check on every instance of the software whether it is BSD licensed free software or BSD licensed proprietary software.

>>861490

>Anybody who distributes BSD licensed software without the source code, that software is BSD licensed proprietary software.

Wrong BSD is an open source license. Software being open source does not mean I have to give you a copy when you demand it.

>>861493

BSD is an open source license. BSD is also a proprietary license. There is no requirement for BSD licensed software to be free software.

Software being open source does actually mean you have to give me a copy when I demand it. The reason why open source exists is right there in the name. protip: you open the source of the software in open source software

>>861498

>BSD is also a proprietary license

Wrong

>Software being open source does actually mean you have to give me a copy when I demand it.

Wrong. It means when you obtain a copy you are free to do what you want with it. Compelling action is fascist and anti freedom.

>>861500

There is nothing forbidding users to distribute a computer program under the BSD license without source code. This is completely allowed. This means that this program is BSD licensed proprietary software.

You also misunderstand the purpose of open source. Open source exists because the people of open source wants everybody to access the source code and improve it. Open source exists because the people of open source wants to promote the open source method of developing software.

>>861502

> This means that this program is BSD licensed proprietary software.

Wrong

>Open source exists because the people of open source wants everybody to access the source code and improve it

Open source exists to respect peoples freedom, not fascistly compelling them.

>>861503

Who is fascistly compelling anything? This is irrelevant to anything.

>>861504

You are forcing users to take actions this is authoritarianism.

>>861507

I agree.

>>861509

fascism has no place in software

>cuck license

>>861512

>being anti fascist GPL is cucked

take that nazi cock up your ass

>>861513

I'm not the cuck

>>861516

cluck cluck cluck cluck

>>861511

>>>/leftypol/

>>861520

>Advocating that the fascist GPL is for "freedom"

>>861521

>>>/leftypol/

>>861526

leftypol is fascist which is why they support the GPL

>>861527

>>>/leftypol/

>>861528

>4/g/

>reddit

please leave

>>860448

>taking the ancap meme seriously

Premium autism

>>861529

>>>/4chan/

>>861533

You got the link now you just have to click it

>>861534

>>>/4chan/

>>861535

One little click, that's all it takes for you to be where you belong.

>>861552

Looks like cuck chan is overrun by GPL shills too. You should stay with your own kind.

>>861553

That's right my 4chan friend. Please go back to 4chan.

>>861581

> can't read the comma

>>861577

nice one newfag

>>861583

I can read the comma.

The comma means that Juniper took something that was originally open source and made by volunteers (FreeBSD) and because that something has a cucked license, Juniper then transformed it into their own, mostly closed source (proprietary) product.

>>861585

No it means there is proprietary code, and there is BSD code. The proprietary code does not change the license magically.

>>861585

The proprietary portions are not BSD licensed.

>>861588

The BSD licensed poirtions are proprietary. Users are not allowed to access the source code to the BSD portions.

>>861596

Wrong.

>>861587

>>861588

Can users audit, improve JunOS and give to others the audited and improved result?

No.

The fact remains that *BSD is routinely used by corporations like Juniper to create closed products, such as their routers and switches, on top of software that was only made possible by the free collaboration and reviewing of volunteers ; ironically annihilating what made it all possible in the first place.

BSD is a cucked license. Everyone who believes in free software - the idea that there are such things are fundamental rights for software users (like there are fundamental rights for citizens) - should stay far away from BSD software.

>>861598

Can you show me the source code to the BSD portions of Junos OS?

>>861611

Sure thing: https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd

>>861614

I didn't ask for the FreeBSD code. I asked for Junos OS BSD code.

>>861604

>fundamental rights for software users

Yep and BSD has more personal fundamental rights, you DONT have a right to others work unless they want to give it to you.

>>861615

You asked for the BSD portions, there they are.

>>861616

You have shit reading comprehension. I asked for Junos OS BSD code. FreeBSD is not what I asked.

>>861617

You asked for the BSD portions of Junos OS, I linked you to them.

>>861618

You still have shit reading comprehension. Thank you very much for you high level trolling. It was very subtle.

>>861619

You asked for the BSD licensed portions of Junos OS, I linked you to them.

>>861621

>letting other people use software you wrote without paying you

hahaha cucked GPL fanboy

>>861618

He can't give you the portions you're asking for because the BSD is a so-called "submissive" license, which means that seme alpha male corporations can have their way with BSD.

Which is actually was has happened with MacOS and Juniper and countless others.

>>861623

hahaha GPL cuck letting corporations use your software without them paying you for it

>>861622

>>861624

> the rat

>>861623

>>Link to the software

>you did not link it cuck lolol!

high IQ ones here I see

>>861625

Keep working for free on your "open source" aka free for corporate use GPL shit.

>>861625

You do all the work while all those corporations use your software and make billions. Look at how much money they have made on the back of Linux.

>>861552

>waaah someone knows the truth about my placebo security by wishfull thinking waaaah 8chan please be my safe space

The absolute state of openbsdtards everybody.

>reality, hard fact and clear, repeatable demonstration thereof is abladfaced lie

This is not normal. But on openbsd, it is!

>>861632

cluck cluck cluck cluck keep serving your corporate masters GPL boiiii while google and amazon fuck your wife making billions off your hard labor

>>861630

Most Linux kernel developers are paid for their work (unlike b$d cucks)

It also does not surprise me that openplacobotards cannot even imagine that a person might pursue higher aspirations, like end-user freedom, and not just muh money. GPL achieves their goal.

>>861632

All you can do is lie on imageboards. If you actually had any brains, you would find exploits for OpenBSD and then make a name for yourself in the security community. But you're just another GPL zealot who has no skills to speak of. Not only that, but your outright toxic personality is turning people away from GNU.

>>861636

>higher aspirations

aka getting cucked by corporations

As a user I want the freedom of public domain software, as a developer I want the control selling my own proprietary software.

BSD is more free than GPL for users. For developers GPL is is more cucked than proprietary, but not as cucked as public domain.

>>861639

>>higher aspirations

>aka getting cucked by corporations

This the sole purpose of submissive licenses.

>as a developer I want the control selling my own proprietary software.

I'm sure you also want the control of owning slaves. You stomping and whining that you want something does not mean it is just, lolbert. But apparently there are morons who you can convince to license their cuckware under BSD.

>BSD is more free than GPL for users.

Wrong. BSD code can be proprietary, GPL code not. Ask Appletards.

>For developers GPL is is more cucked than proprietary, but not as cucked as public domain.

So you agree that submissive licenses like BSD are ultimate cuckoldry.

>>860253 (OP)

Great, they should be added to the FSF's RYF OS page.

>>861642

1 BSD is not proprietary. 2 GPL is cucking for corporations. 3 you have no right to anyone's labor.

>>861642

No public domain is, proprietary being the least cucked.

>>861627

>>861630

What you're describing is the BSD license.

If corporations use GPL stuff, by which they're bound to make open their modifications/improvements and let others modify/improve those changes, how is that "free" for corporations?

They're not giving back the labor of their salaried staff to the community ergo me and you and everyone else.

In a BSD scenario, those corporations do changes/improvements and keep them to themselves, while having profited from volunteer work.

>>861151

May favourite part of that video is when Theo btfos the rustnigger. Happens at about 36mins

>>861650

You mean the rat?

>>861646

>No public domain is, proprietary being the least cucked.

BSD is almost the same as public domain, they just use it because their are problems with putting things into pd.

>>861645

>1 BSD is not proprietary.

It can be. If it is not, then surely you can give me the source to the BSD licensed OS running on my CPU?

>2 GPL is cucking for corporations.

Wrong, it is neutral to them. They have the same rights as the end-user and can contribute like him to the collaborative work that benefits everyone.

>3 you have no right to anyone's labor.

But I do. I can legally take BSD cuckware, make modifications and keep everything to myself and sell the "new" product to everyone without giving them the rights I was given, including to the original authors who did most of the work.

>>861650

I watched the video.

Basically, he goes full autistmo mode and repeats an article he wrote in 2014 and basically just starts to become really tense and asks :

"O-ok, where is grep and where is sort and where is <baby crying baby is hungry>"

Someone should have shouted to the rat :

"What is github? The website where companies that use BSD don't republish their code"

Because, if he knew, he'd know that most of the things he talked about HAVE been re-written in Rust.

Shouldn't be surprised coming from someone who went to a tier-4 uni

>>861653

>It can be. If it is not, then surely you can give me the source to the BSD licensed OS running on my CPU?

Sure thing: https://github.com/Stichting-MINIX-Research-Foundation/minix

>It can be.

Wrong

>But I do.

They gave it to you, if they don't want you to have it you have no right.

>without giving them the rights I was given

They still have all the rights dictated by the BSD license, they just have to get a copy source, which they have no right to force you to send them. I am sure they can find the source with the original author who so nicely gave it to you though.

>Wrong, it is neutral to them.

BSD license is the same for users and corporations. A corporation has no more right to demand the source code be uploaded than any other user.

>>861659

>most of the things he talked about HAVE been re-written in Rust.

Wrong something with the same name has been written but its not the same thing. If I write a thing that prints out "hello world" and call it firefox its not firefox. The applications written in rust do not follow the standards and do not have the same functionality. You cannot just replace utilities that people have depend on for decades with an alternative that has a 10th of the functionality and is not compatible.

>>861663

Which Rust re-writes do you specifically mean?

> cucked BSD user goes running off

>>861665

Any core utils.

>>861667

>>861666

Do you mean the GPL licensed core utils or which ones?

> cucked BSD user sinks further

>>861668

Not rust core utils are compatible under any license, proprietary, GPL, MIT, BSD, etc.

>>861669

*No

>>861659

You're talking about uutils, the ONLY attempt that isn't even finished or production ready and has had no attempt to run on OpenBSD.

Theo goes more into detail here:

https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=151233345723889&w=2

rustc won't even compile on 32 bit archs, you can even find a rust contributor defending Theo in a HN thread (steveklabnik):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15843631

Rust, the closest thing to replacing C can't even pass the test of "base builds base".

Rust also only has tier 1 support for x86

https://forge.rust-lang.org/platform-support.html

Come back to the OpenBSD guys when you have more than a toy, not just bitching to the devs to do work for your magical fantasy.

>>861673

The Rat asked where is grep, implying the absence of such a tool written in Rust.

Who would want their software to run on a cucked software like RatBSD?

>>861685

There is no compliant grep utilities written in rust. Any rust implementations of any of these utilities are missing 90% of the features.

>>861687

Can you specify, where grep is concerned, which grep specifically you mean : GNU Grep perhaps?

>>861685

Yes, where is POSIX grep? I can see ripgrep, not compliant, I can see haskell cgrep, not compliant.

All these tools want to do something different from stock grep and that's okay but don't parade them as replacements.

>Who would want their software to run on a cucked software like RatBSD?

Why are you bringing it up at all then?

>>861688

http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/grep.html

>>861688

GNU grep, OpenBSD grep, pure posix grep, any of the important ones.

>>861689

"All these tools want to do something different from stock grep and that's okay but don't parade them as replacements."

ripgrep is a pattern-matching search tool like Grep.

Ferrari's (ripgrep) and normal cars (grep), aren't the same, but they're all cars and will fulfill the same function of taking you from A to B.

>>861702

No you are replacing your fully featured truck that you use to haul shit around with a motorcycle that cant turn left.

>>861702

>replace grep with ripgrep

>all scripts break

>cars are cars guize

Stay away from OS development

>>861691

> OpenBSD grep

I've never heard of this one and it does hardly qualify as important by any human standard

>>861705

https://man.openbsd.org/grep.1

>>861706

GNU Operating System

Development started : 1984

Linux

Initial release date: September 17, 1991

OpenBSD

Initial release date: June 1, 1997

I'm pretty sure anyone can figure out where this so-called "OpenBSD Grep" came from.

>>861709

BSD started it 1977

>>861711

which is when the cuckery started.

Thankfully UNIX came before.

>>861712

Keep on going GPL devs while corporations make billions using your software and 99% of you beg for money.

>>861713

This was already answered. Stop projecting BSD's flawed licensing terms' effects onto other licenses.

The GPL binds corporations by making it impossible for them to take code and modify it without publishing the modifications and allowing others to modify/improve those changes.

Meanwhile, the BSD does exactly the contrary by making code available and leaving corporations free to close off their modifications afterwards, without giving anything back, which they happily do.

It is truly a cucked license.

>>861717

Corporations make have to contribute changes they make but 99% of corporate users contribute nothing and make billions. Even when they do contribute they are the ones exploiting your labor for the bulk of the code.

>>861709

From themselves, they initially had GNU Grep and replaced it with their own POSIX implementation.

Your ability to move the goalposts is impressive.

We were talking about "safe" POSIX utils implementations, remember?

All early code originated from NetBSD. I don't know what grep they used, but it would be odd for them to want something different than BSD license. Even SunOS had its own core tools, rather than the bloated GNU shit.

>>861719

No, we were talking about rat's claim that there was no grep tool written in Rust, which was shown to be false.

>>861709

> DOS existed before Linux, ergo Linux grep comes from DOS.

This is how stupid you sound.

>>861723

The claim is there are no compatible grep tools written in rust (which there are not) way to misquote. Can't replace grep with a shitty alternative missing all the features.

>>861719

you were the only one who came up with the POSIX stuff out of nowhere, which had no part in rat's autistic outburst answer.

>>861723

In the video (that you didn't watch) he says there's not *exact* replacement. No fool except yourself is going to want to introduce random changes into production systems.

>>861726

>Brought the POSIX stuff out of nowhere

When talking about replacing a POSIX utility with one from a different language its not a random detail. You will break every script written in the past 30 years.

>>861723

>>861726

ripgrep is not grep, his claim is true.

You can't just call "pattern matching"

I watched the video and gave you the mailing list where Theo expands his point.

Theo asks if ripgrep is POSIX compatible at the 36:35 mark: https://youtu.be/FzJJbNRErVQ?t=2191

>>861729

*can't call "pattern matching" grep

>>861730

Really perl has pattern matching lets just get rid of grep and alias perl to it. I am sure perl has more features than ripgrep. This wont break anything for sure.

Fucking christ my shitpost drowned in all the retardation. Get your shit together guys.

>>861727

In the video, that I stopped watched when he mentioned the 10th utility that wasn't re-written in Rust, even though it was re-written in Rust then, the person that asked the question mentions Redox (an operating system written in Rust) and ripgrep (grep written in, surprise, Rust).

Then, The Rat, does what every schoolboy does when he finds himself rebuked :

"But can it play AAC 128kbps encoded MP3s in my car? So, it's not the SAME car!!"

That's what you get when you let someone who attended a German expressionist university write an OS.

>>861735

"Does its manual page have exactly all the options that Grep has?"

Haha, you can't even make that shit up.

>>861735

>>861736

OpenBSD, Linux, FreeBSD, wont replace their grep with a shitty rust grep that is not compatible, the rust version does not have the features needed, it would break tens of thousands of pieces of software.

>>861737

So, you mean ripgrep, which is faster than all other grep tools?

>>861739

Obviously its faster when it has 1/10th of the needed features and is only optimized for one CPU type. You want a utility that breaks the thousands of scripts using grep, and cant be compiled on arm, sparc, risc, etc.

>>861741

what scripts?

>>861743

any script that uses grep features

>>861744

This is literally a requirement for every POSIX OS.

>>861751

I think its just one guy making every fucking rust post on this board

>>861751

In some ways it's better than grep.

The rat asks "where is the grep ... of Rust", which doesn't imply any kind of 1:1 identity/relationship.

The whole POSIX business, as I said earlier, only comes once the rat is being rebuked when the person mentions Redox/ripgrep.

>>861745

If it's the kind of scripts I think you mean, the world will not lose much if they're being re-written for a safe/fast/modern grep.

>>861755

>, the world will not lose much

Lots of things would *benefit* from being rewritten. It would just take an absolutely incredible amount of time. And is not worth the effort just so you can have your shitty rust grep.

>>861754

>The rat asks "where is the grep ... of Rust".

On a POSIX OS grep sure as hell does imply POSIX compliance. Linux, BSD, OSX, Solarius, etc are all mostly compliant POSIX systems.

>>861754

>rebuked when the person mentions Redox/ripgrep.

How about you keep your non compliant ripgrep in Redox then and stop trying to shill it for everything else.

>>861751

>The rat asks "where is the grep ... of Rust", which doesn't imply any kind of 1:1 identity/relationship.

Yes it does, Theo is the head of a POSIX OS, his question of ripgrep being grep compatible happens BEFORE your quote of "does the man page have the same options", thank god OpenBSD keeps people like you away from them, Rust can have you.

Here's a fun thing to do, browse the openbsd util (ls, cp, grep etc.) man pages and look at the STANDARDS subsection, you will see a lot of things like "The utility is compliant with the IEEE Std 1003.1-2008 (“POSIX.1”) specification."

That is important.

>>861761

Meant for >>861754

I had a look at ripgrep's options and compared them with POSIX :

-E x

-F x

-c x

-e x

-f x

-i x

-l x

-n x

-q x

-s x

-v x

-x x

x means the same option is found in rg

http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/grep.html

https://github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep/blob/master/doc/rg.1.md

Thoughts /g/?

>>861760

It is POSIX compliant from what I could gather or very close, but I'm awaiting thoughts from /g/ /tech/

>>861765

The requirements listed there are the minimum for POSIX compliance. You are missing many many additional features of for example GNU grep that make it impossible to replace with ripgrep on Linux.

https://beyondgrep.com/feature-comparison/

>>861758

If by shitty you mean everything that OpenBSD isn't : fast, modern, safe, then I'd prefer that and forego sysadmin scripts

>>861769

ergo it is POSIX compliant.

>>861766

Then stay with GNU/Linux and don't comment on OpenBSD because you're unwilling to view a 3 minute Q&A segment and an email to understand OpenBSD's point.

I don't go around shitting on Dostoyevsky because I haven't read his books, you should do the same.

>>861765

Do those flags cover POSIX BRE? I don't know, ripgrep hasn't said it's POSIX

>>861772

>>861768

Having the same flags is not enough for POSIX compliance. It is missing POSIX BRE

https://github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep/issues/542

Not to mention the many more features needed for it to replace grep on linux / bsd.

>>861771

By shitty I mean missing basic features

>>861779

It has 90% of features of Grep as prescribed by POSIX standards.

"Philosophically, I very much dislike BREs. They feel like a legacy to me, and from my own personal experience and from hearing about the experience of others, have led to a lot of confusion. At least conceptually speaking, I'd rather support one syntax instead of one syntax and one legacy syntax that is almost-but-not-quite-like the other syntax.

Motivation wise, ripgrep was never, is never, and will never be a drop-in replacement for any of the standard Unix tools like grep or sed. While there's a lot to be said for keeping behavior similarish because it corresponds to what people know, I'm generally not in favor of adding things to ripgrep just because that's how some other tools does it. I think the features need to stand on their own."

I, personally, know that if I were to create a new <insert> tool, I would want it to be its own and not recreate 1970s memorabilia all over again.

>>861783

Then it's not grep and will never be grep.

That's fine, that is okay! But that "1970's" stuff is running the planet right now and if you want to go your own way then replace POSIX with those tools in your own life.

Redox, uutils and ripgrep might be the future, but you actually have to you know... use them.

>>861783

POSIX is the bare minimum and it does not even meet that.

>>861754

OpenBSD supports more hardware platforms than Rust does. It also cares more about POSIX compatibility than GNU or Linux. So this halfass Rust program isn't going to cut it, it just doesn't meet the high standards of OpenBSD. Only some of the dankest Linux distros might consider it acceptable.

>>861792

> you know your operating system has low standards when it compares itself to a programming language released 2 years ago

>>861798

>Only supporting one CPU architecture is okay for a real operating system

>>861798

Nice toy language / utility. Come back when it supports more than x86, and can deal with trivial POSIX compliance.

>>861798

And no cross compiling does not count as a solution

>cuck license

>>861810

GPL devs cuck away as corporations use the software they write for free making billions of dollars

>toy language

>>860302

>>860677

>>861015

>>861810

>>861717

>>861712

>>861512

>>861581

>>861604

>>861621

>>861636

>oh no I'm getting btfo'd

>better call everything cuck!

>h-ha-ha

>>861824

>starving children in Venezuela

<we should care about starving shitskins

Go back to reddit, licensecuck

>>861824

Open source discussions will generally devolve into licensing discussions.

Interestingly this only ever comes from GPL people.

This rustfag is especially cancerous however as he is calling everything a cuck licence while promoting Rust, which is permissively licensed.

>>861836

>we should care about starving shitskins

Yeah, you need to go back to reddit

>Most of the problems with BSD threads

The problem with bsd threads is that they exist at all. Go be a cuck somewhere else

>>861836

>We should empathize with all victims of Communism.

More like victims of oligarchic USA.

https://www.mintpressnews.com/us-led-economic-war-not-socialism-tearing-venezuela-apart/218335/

> If we don't speak out for them, noone will speak out for us when our countries are being invaded

You think Syria is communistic or what?

Also nice job at not making it about politics, genius.

>>Interestingly this only ever comes from GPL people.

>I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed.

Yeah, you are blind on your right eye. Look at the FSF bitcoin donation thread and tell me there are no ratBSD cucks shitting it up.

>>861840

>Communism always fails because of the USA

hahahahahaha

>>861840

>He outs himself as a literal communist

hahahahahahahahaha

No wonder you are so anti freedom. Go starve somewhere else because of your retarded policies.

>Indeed, corporate-owned, mainstream media advises Americans to look at the inflation and food lines in Venezuela, and then repeat to themselves clichés they heard in elementary school about how “Communism just doesn’t work.”

>Americans have been trained by decades of Cold War propaganda to look for any confirmation that “socialism means poverty.”

Thank you for confirming it, /pol/roaches.

>>861852

>elementary school about how “Communism just doesn’t work.”

In elementary school I learned about how evil Hitler was, how martin Luther king was the greatest man ever, how evil corporations enslaved poor children and almost destroyed the country in the 19th century, and how evil the USA was. I went to a normal public school in a republican state.

>>861855

>I've experimented with the BSDs before

<experimenting with cucking

degenerates out

>>861858

u2

>>861857

>/leftypol/

>>861855

There's texlive and texworks in packages, what's your workflow?

>>861863

>There's texlive and texworks in packages, what's your workflow?

I use TeX Live in conjunction with emacs because I like it more than anything else despite being objectively bloated as sin.

I do independent research, and I have to deal with lots of old books. The worst offender I have to deal with is old alphabets from different languages.

>cuck license