/tech/ - Technology★

everything's a meme tbh

>cuck license

Of course it is a meme

>>883293 (OP)

the rat also tires to hide security related bugs. and netbsd is better for embedded systems and dragonflybsd is better for desktop use, imo

OpenBSD comes with more than enough software for most server usecases in the base system.

>>883304

Dragonfly BSD is not a desktop BSD. It is barely a stable server distribution. Please stop pushing this meme.

are there any people left here that know what they're talking about or is this just a constant stream of shitposts now? jesus christ, look at this thread

>>883325

I guess not?

>>883333

1) this is not news, and 2) it actually makes sense.

if you develop a standard, you'd better get it globally accepted, even if you also permit proprietary uses.

nobody stops you from putting resources in a more efficient implementation of the same standard with GPL.

if you are trying to badmouth RMS, you need to try harder. he is the real man.

>>883337

>nobody stops you from putting resources in a more efficient implementation of the same standard with GPL.

after it got enough recognition, I mean

>>883337

>nobody stops you from putting resources in a more efficient implementation of the same standard with GPL.

You can fork OpenBSD right now, and license it under the GPL.

>>883341

wait, wat

>>883341

I was talking about Vorbis encoders/decoders.

To write an alternative implementation of a standard, you don't even need to fork. And it can be licensed in any possible way.

Just as you can use whatever license for your new implementation of JPEG encoding for example.

>12 replies

>not a single person can deny the OP post.

Yep, it's trash confirmed

>>883293 (OP)

>OpenBSD is a meme

Good meme though

>>Filesystem

>default FS doesn't even support SSD TRIM, and I don't think OpenBSD supports

>anything modern like ZFS or BTRFS.

Yep, fs is weak part part of OpenBSD, but ffs support soft updates and there is ntfs ro support in kernel. Also it is back up OpenBSD filysystem with dump. I like this utility

>>Security

>"Only two remote holes in the default install!!!!!!!"

>Yay!

>I hope you realize that this literally only applies to a base system install with absolutely no packages added. In other words, not exactly representative or meaningful towards... anything really

Remember OpenBSD is not a linux distro. It's have big base system in which included:

ripd, ospfd, bgpd, eigrpd --- routing daemons,

httpd, slowcgi --- web stuff

vmd --- virtual mashine daemon,

smtpd, spamd --- email stuff,

OpenIKED --- ipsec vpn,

dpb --- port builder,

doas --- its syntax is much simplier than sudo's

tmux --- you propbably know

cwm --- window manager that use groups instead of workspaces

See this ? I didnt even mention PF and libree ssl, but this list isn't ended. You.can read more here: https://www.openbsd.org/innovations.html

>>Sustainability

>A few years ago, OpenBSD was actually in danger of shutting down because they couldn't keep the fucking lights on. How could anyone see this as a system they could rely on, when it could be in danger of ending at any time?

https://www.openbsd.org/donations.html

>>Standards-compliance

>"B-But OpenBSD is written in strictly standards-compliant C! Clearly that's better than muh GNU virus!"

>So you're not allowed to create extensions to the standard? You should only implement the standard and nothing more?

They just follow kernel style(9) in base system. It is good for code quality and portability.

Keep in mind that this is nothing like EEE, as the GNU extensions are Free Software, with freely available source code, as opposed to proprietary shite. People should be allowed to innovate and improve things.

> Free Software

You mean gpl licensed sofware ? They cant use it due general cuck licence.

Yes, it works in all sides, but you can relicense ISC as GPL, not viсe versa. So i won

>If you're gonna be anal about standards-compliance

Did you know ? There are some good programs in posix, pax(it's much simplier) for example. I appreciate it.

>>883344

Look at libre BSD

>>883361

I tried

And also songs

>>883365

>Yep, fs is weak part part of OpenBSD, but ffs support soft updates and there is ntfs ro support in kernel. Also it is back up OpenBSD filysystem with dump. I like this utility

Also it is possible to back up...

Sorry for mistakes. This text was written at night, on phone and author is not a native speaker

OpenBSD is a research OS that doesn't give a fuck about you or dumb lusers in general, but if your hardware and applications work on it, it's a very nice little system. The devs use it on Thinkpads so it tends to just werk there (as long as you use an Intel GPU).

>>883433

The radeon drivers work perfectly too.

>>883433

>OpenBSD is a research OS

Ah, so it was never actually meant to be used and is a meme system.

It's funny, you see shill threads across all the Internet if you look for them. Why do (((they))) fear OpenBSD so much? It's like some nanny state minder in the control center gets an actual acute case of heartburn every time a person installs OpenBSD.

I have it on one of my older laptops (a Thinkpad) and it's great. Stay salty OP and don't forget to die.

>>883433

>>883436

>OpenBSD is a research OS

False

>>883433

>research OS

what does it even mean

>>883457

it's shit intentionally

>>883457

It's the UNIX weenie's excuse for why it doesn't work.

    Doesn't it give you that warm, confident feeling to
    know that things aren't Quite Right, but that you'll
    have to wait 'til you need something to know Just What?
    Life on the Edge.

    Get with the program -- remember -- 90% is good enough.
    If it's good enough for Ritchie, it's good enough for
    me!

"It's State of the Art!"  "But it doesn't work!"  "That IS
the State of the Art!"

Alternatively:  "If it worked, it wouldn't be research!"

The only problem is, outside of the demented heads of the
Unix weenies, Unix is neither State of the Art nor research!

>>883325

I for one, and I'm sure others know what they are talking about. In fact I helped someone with openbsd in the questions thread recently.

I just choose not to reply to this guy anymore. He posts the same thing across many chans, and is not open to and discussion on his opinions. Its pointless to even point out the flaws in his arguments as he just ignores anyone who doesn't agree with him.

>>883514

literally the first time i've posted this, retard.

looks like I'm not the only one who notices these things

>>883522

You said the exact same thing last time I called you out. Funny how that works.

>>883528

Is this the same guy that calls Theo "The Rat" and such?

>>883528

>>883541

nope and nope!

Although I am the guy who posted that wayland thread, uwu

>>883522

I'm one of the ones he sperged out about a few days ago. He also accused me of being some guy he'd argued with about OpenBSD on imageboards before, but I'm not. I guess he thinks he can peer through the mists of anonymous imageboards to see that everyone who disagrees with him is one--and no more than one--person.

I suspect he's a delusional off his meds.

>>883301

>communist cuck

>giving away software

>>883313

What's so unstable about Dragonfly? Seems like it would be *more* stable than FreeBSD given how the SMP code is less hairy.

>>883436

That doesn't mean anything. Unix was once merely a research OS. MINIX3 is a research OS, and it's in every Intel system now. On top of that you have OpenSSH used in many places, as well as LibreSSL. And sure you won't find many desktop OpenBSD installations, but there's plenty of firewalls running it.

>>883606

>That doesn't mean anything. Unix was once merely a research OS

and now its not, its that simple

>>883608

The resident Unix-hater would disagree that Unix (and Linux as well) ever became production worthy, or useful in any way besides sending computing into the dark ages.

What is the point in """security""" anymore if all practically usable CPUs are inherently botnet at this point? In a few years Intel platforms will probably contain an ME of a Pentium III tier processing power and a Linux 2.6 kernel, all hidden and capable of doing whatever whenever out of any of the user's control.

>>883627

There is no reason to use anything more powerful than a Core Duo, unless you're into gaymenz.

>>883639

>"""modern websites""" struggle on it

>it's cucked by spectre anyway unless you go all the way back to a fucking Pentium MMX 233 MHz

>>883293 (OP)

For me personally none of those complaints are that important. There are lots of pros to using OpenBSD. Especially since everything is done under one roof unlike Linux and without insanity of FreeBSD community.

The only thing that I dislike about OpenBSD is that Theo is a sperg. I cringe every time I listen him go off on his autistic tangents. The OpenBSD crusade against GPL software is also completely pointless. Yes, I get that you don't want to use GPL libraries, that kinda makes sense, but refusing GPL in general is silly. And I don't even care at all even if my software uses cuck licence. As long as I control the software I am happy. But if I had to choose I would prefer GPL.

>>883437

OP probably read about OpenBSD and expected it to be like Linux. It's looks like typical rant thread after you get frustrated with something.

>>8835642

Why do you absolutely need to use modern websites again? the only times I use a browser besides w3m-img and links is fleabay.

>>883647

lol, looks like I inadvertently showed one of the weaknesses of using links for everything -- I meant to reply to >>883642

>>883645

I don't know about you, but when I first tried out OpenBSD it was like seeing in color for the first time. Things just made sense. The documentation was all there. Once I can replicate my setup perfectly, I will never use loonix again.

>>883650

I agree. Their man pages are great. I only wish their FAQ would have more content. I bought Absolute OpenBSD recently, can't want to start reading it.

>>883639

>There is no reason to use anything more powerful than a Core Duo, unless you're into gaymenz.

or into photo editing, or into realtime audio processing for music playing, or …

>>883627

You don't have to buy x86 shit. It's the nastiest and most botnet architecture ever made in the history of computing. For now there's cheapass ARM boards, but pick one that doesn't need blob for booting. https://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/single-board-computers

Otherwise if you got lotsa money, you can try RISC-V and POWER.

>>883293 (OP)

You could just say, their peer reviews is next to useless. Of course they can't find remote holes if nobody cares about your shit, but they also tend to lie about their security to keep that shitty title. Their scheduler and extreme NIH syndrome makes the whole system pathetic.

>>883666

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWeO5IkCssk

It's a router OS

That's why cuckflare and fastly keep it in the CDN repo, they use it for 'muh secure router software'

i bet that CDNs are virtualizing openbsd as a software-defined networking router

>>883700

joking?

>>883762

90% joking, but 10% serious.

Babylon 5's CGI was made using Amiga after all.

>>883683

>Of course they can't find remote holes if nobody cares about your shit

retardation, of course they care, it's a router OS.

They can't find remote holes because they are anal about code correctness and simplicity which makes their code easier to understand and mantain.

>>883643

>The only thing that I dislike about OpenBSD is that Theo is a sperg.

That's an advantage.

>>883817

>>nobody cares

>of course they care, it's a router OS.

Are you saying that if I just buy a router right now, it'll likely be running OpenBSD out of the box?

>>883817

Their pre-heartbleed openssl mitigations showed their "code correctness".

>>883826

Nope. Nobody uses OpenBSD.

>>883627

https://www.sifive.com/products/hifive-unleashed/

Still has some proprietary ram controllers and shit but it's moving along compared to 5 years ago when you were stuck with buying closed source Instruction Set Algorithms, as time progresses the community can write open source firmware for it. The future is (open)RISC(-V) for most processor manufacturers as they want to outsource firmware and microcode to the world rather then use obscurity for feigning security as Meltdown has fully proven this is a shit policy to use.

It is official; Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming close on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a cockeyed miracle could save *BSD from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

>>883645

Wrong, it looks like typical anti-OpenBSD shitposts made by actual paid shills. Identical to them in fact.

>>883887

t. cuck

>>883887

>paid shills

<paid to shill free software that respects user freedom instead of cuck licensed cuckware

wew

>>883883

OpenBSD really just needs to become a cryptography group dedicated to LibreSSL, OpenSSH, etc. OpenBSD the OS is, as this thread suggests, a bad meme and not worth existing, but its crypto tools are seriously excellent and vital for everyday operations on other OSes like, well, everything.

We don't need FreeBSD at all. Ubuntu Server allows you to install its one big feature and selling point, ZFS, with one terminal command, and other distros likely have their own methods with varying difficulty.

NetBSD is nice for having a portable set of utilities that have been ported to places like minix, and I heard potentially seL4 at some point. However, we most definitely don't need NetBSD for this purpose. We have Busybox for our lightweight coreutils needs, which has seen success in the embedded market as well as in Alpine Linux.

>>883911

IIRC NetBSD is somewhat broken and won't self-compile on certain architectures, so it has to be cross-compiled.

>>883923

Fake graph. It likely is just showing the mainline generic kernel. Few modern distros take advantage of a full fat Linux kernel with every available module

>>883925

You know those modules are still on the system right?

>>883926

I don't know that much about this shit so no bully but I thought by default most distros just have enough modules to get a basic system up and running and everything else is installed from the repos at the late stage or the installation process

>>883894

>>883895

t. paid Redhat shills

>>883936

That looks like a fucking washing machine

>>883911

>We don't need any OS that isn't linux

I wonder who could be behind this post??

>>883923

>Linux kernel has more driver support for more hardware

>OH NO ITS BLOOOOOAT

wew

>>883940

No, but we certainly don't need *BSD.

Just stick with GNU/Linux until Genode/*L4 gets into a usable state.

>>883936

https://mail-index.netbsd.org/port-vax/2016/09/20/msg002915.html

It hasn't worked for a long time, I think GCC hasn't self-built for over 10 years, which was before NetBSD introduced tiers.

>Or how many VAX 11's are actually still operational?

VAX-11s specifically? Perhaps a few hundred? I know of about a dozen in museums and private collections.

VAXen in general are still fairly common, I must have seen at least 50 MicroVAXen piled up in the attic of the LCM in Seattle. I personally own 5 (MicroVAX 3100s & VAXstation 4000s), running NetBSD versions from 5.0 to 7.1. I think most people are still using 1.x releases though.

>>883944

BSD is used in countless commercial products as well as by a large number of home users. It's very popular in Japan, the US, Canada, Europe, and even China.

The fact that it exists and is useful gives you shills such ass pain.

>>883950

The statement was that NetBSD is "somewhat broken" and can't self compile. Which is untrue. The Teir1 stuff works.

>VAXen in general are still fairly common,

"common" is a relative term. The number is small. Your own link points that out. So few users that broken stuff goes unnoticed or lacks interest in fixing. I think you would be really hard pressed to find a VAX actually online doing something in production running NetBSD. The ones that are still out there are running VMS/Ultrix/etc to support some legacy application. What ever the number is on /vax it's not a big enough number to hold up a release. So it was kicked down to Tier 2.

Not knocking the VAX architecture. I run m68k and ppc both of which are Tier 2.

>>883965

>socialization

>here

hahahahahaha

I would like to run OpenBSD on my server but the package shit really gets me. What's the point of a secure base if my packages don't get patched?

>>883989

They patch things, what kind of crack are you smoking?

>>883960

The only reason BSD is used in consumer products is the cuck license that allows the corporations to make the software on the end user machines proprietary and thus deny them their freedom. GNU/Linux is technically superior AND preserves freedom.

>>884037

BTW this shows that companies would rather sell you inferior products if it means more power and thus more profit for them, how about that corporate cocksucking lolberts?

>>884039

Then don't buy it?

>>884043

What I do is irrelevant, the reality is that plenty do and thus make freedom respecting hardware unviable.

>>884062

this

BTFOs

the

BSDfag

>>884035

did you even read the post I was replying to?

this isn't about "muh feminizts". I hate them too, but that's not even what this was about.

OpenBSD is a networking powerhouse, it is developed by people who use it in their jobs.

OpenSSH, LibreSSL, OpenIKED, pf, OpenSMTPD, OpenBGPD and dozens of other tools OpenBSD provide in base are easy to use because they're made by people who actually use it!

Systemd made a resolved and it sucked, uni students or development by committee make abortions of software, feel like OpenBSD doesn't have a feature you want? Submit a patch.

Long live OpenBSD!

>>884093

These anons' greatest priority is to use software that hasn't been touched by an SJW. They might be obnoxious LARPers, but I don't think that's the case.

The reason why I hate politics getting into software and tech is that it divides the dev teams and communities, the only power the open source software has got. I really think this is because the growing corporate influence ( no, not red hat, but microsoft for example ).

I don't think any OS or DE will die because of this, microshaft just wants to keep these projects weak to not be able to compete with wangblows.

>>884157

>divides the dev teams and communities

It can happen without SJW. Even OBSD is an example.

>>884164

Autism

>>884037

>>884039

Go back to Redhat.

>>884093

No, I instantly recognized the post you replied to from just glancing at it. It's stale pasta that got posted on slashdot like 6 gorillion times since 1999.

Your own first paragraph is what I was actually replying to. You're basically making demands about what other people should do. But it doesn't work like that. The people who actually do the hard work are the ones who get to call the shots about what and how things get implemented. The thing about feminists/SJW in tech is that they rarely (and probably even flat-out never) do any real work but still want to be able to make decisions for everyone else. Well that's not gonna fly, except in pozzed environments.

But it's not just an SJW thing. There's a lot of people who post stuff like "we need this and that" when they should instead be posting "I'm doing this and that". The later will actually get you somewhere (or at least has a chance to), the former is just a waste of time.

openbsd is just ok, but I don't want to use it since I need R/W support for ext4, since I have to use linux

How's it feel to know that all the Soros bux in the world can't ruin OpenBSD, huh shills?

>>884035

>WHO DA FUCK CARES IF IT WORKS

>WE WUZ HONKYS AN SHEEIT

>IF YOU BE HATIN ON OPENBSD YOU BE ANTI-WHITE AN ANTI-MALE

>>884904

That must be a really old screenshot, because it actually looks like an Amiga. Now they're basically copying the boring modern desktop look.