[–]▶ No.935786>>935788 >>936286 >>944141 >>944534 >>956561 >>958934 [Watch Thread][Show All Posts]
BSD thread?
Please explain this linux atheist why people recommend DragonflyBSD over FreeBSD (other than the SJWism), and where OpenBSD and NetBSD come in. I'm using VMs right now, but I actually have a toaster computer I'm looking to turn into a generic home server and I want to see if a BSD would suit me more than linux.
I played with OpenBSD for 2 days in a VM, it was pretty nice. I just installed every package set and booted it. FVWM was a pretty shitty and clunky WM, but I could easily learn how to install a different WM/DE and replace FVWM with something else from the man pages alone. I ended up installing XFCE4, firefox and random desktop programs to see how they worked. I noticed the single core VM I was running it in was still responsive even when hammering the CPU, whereas I've ran linux on single core PCs this decade and whenever there was too much CPU load even a pure commandline system would go unresponsive. OpenBSD felt like everything was more integrated and I was happy with every default package. I think every linux user has this list of software they want to avoid because of bad experiences and they often have to actively replace them when installing just about any distro. I know that's my case, but everything I tried that was default or exclusive to OpenBSD felt good enough for me. I didn't have any qualms with any of the OpenBSD software I tried but I didn't try everything. The partition scheme looked weird though, there were a trillion partitions and I couldn't understand why things were like that. I didn't bother learning it either because I was just installing on a VM, but that would be something to look into if I end up having an OpenBSD-based home server.
I want to avoid FreeBSD because of its SJW faggotry, and I hear people say DragonflyBSD is the alternative to it so now I'm downloading DragonflyBSD.
I'm trying NetBSD after and I have this feeling it's somehow worse than the others but might be the only choice on some hardware, I haven't tried it but nobody has given me a reason to use it on a x86 machine, all I hear is "yeah NetBSD runs on everything!".
What are the opinions of /tech/ anons?
▶ No.935788>>944542 >>944612 >>976347
>>935786 (OP)
DragonflyBSD is the most performant of the modern Unix-like OSes currently available.
I'm not sure how secure it is. That's where OpenBSD might be more desirable.
▶ No.935794>>944534
I use Linux even though it's shit because I actually want to run software, but OpenBSD is pretty nice, I sometimes play with it in a VM, most of the tools you can learn to use within the first 10 lines in the manpage, it's mind-blowing how obtuse sudo is in comparison to doas, the same goes with pf and iptables.
▶ No.935795>>944534
Another reason to use OpenBSD over Linux is that since GRSec went private, hardened gentoo has died as a project.
https://lwn.net/Articles/731477/
▶ No.935817>>935823 >>935831 >>936195 >>946304 >>948133 >>976347 >>977114
* DragonflyBSD is free of leftism AND anti-GPL rebelling kids. It's also the most performant of the BSDs, has a bright future ahead with very up-to-date Linux KMS drivers and HAMMER2 becoming very usable. Also, there's synth. Bonus: very big repos (similar to FreeBSD).
* Never use OpenBSD if you want anything else than security, their lack of modern FS, package build-time configuration and general multithreaded performances (the kernel is still big locked in a number of places) makes it very hard to recommend; for workstations/desktops at least. Otherwise, it's a very clean OS following the UNIX philosophy and using CVS to deter the faggots from contributing.
* NetBSD doesn't have any advantage anymore, honestly. It _seems_ more focused on code quality and has some interesting concepts like rump or NPF (supposedly very performant) but that's not enough, right now. I'd say watch it closely, it might get some goodies making it a good choice (ZFS is coming along).
* FreeBSD is just a GNU/Linux wannabe, doesn't mind the bloat at all. It's not even the most performant anymore, just the most used (and thus with the biggest repos, most tutos, etc...). With the leftism added, it's really the Debian of the BSDs.
tl;dr wait for Dfly 5.3
▶ No.935823>>935919
>>935817
DragonflyBSD is x86-64 only though.
What if I have a 32 bit system or a powerpc/arm machine? Should I go for OpenBSD or NetBSD in such a case?
▶ No.935826>>936875 >>978773
OpenBSD is a meme
>Filesystem
default FS doesn't even support SSD TRIM, and OpenBSD doesn't support anything modern like ZFS or BTRFS.
In the CIA triad of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability, availability seems to be the one that's lacking. Who cares how hack-resistant your system is if the data you're protecting is corrupted?
That's not even getting into the volume management stuff that's missing, and the snapshots, and the everything.
"b-b-but MUH BACKUPS!!"
What are you even saying? That bitrot all of a sudden doesn't exist anymore? That backups are the one and only thing you should do and should not be supplemented by a more stable filesystem?
You do realize that if the filesystem is not secure and does not protect against bitrot and corruption, your precious backups are going to be fucked, because you'll be backing up corrupted data. Who even knows how far you'll have to roll back in order to get to a clean state?
>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
>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?
>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? 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.
If you're gonna be anal about standards-compliance, then why let people make their own implementations anyway? Why not have the standards organizations make one C implementation and force everyone to use it?
▶ No.935827>>936875
TRIM when?
ZFS when?
Multicore firewall when?
NFSv4 when?
Let's go into those:
TRIM is vital to properly supporting SSDs. Without it, deleting a few pages from the storage would require the deletion of the entire block before putting it all back, creating unnecessary reads and writes and ultimately causing a faster degradation of the SSD.
ZFS, and other filesystems like it, provide numerous features both for better management of your data with subvolumes, as well as better security. The security features include snapshotting, checksumming of all data and metadata, bitrot protection, excellent implementation of software RAID, and so on. Backups should of course always be made, but they can be complimented with a better FS. I can just imagine it now: An OpenBSD admin routinely backing up his system, unaware that data is being silently corrupted. By the time it's a problem, it's too late. Imagine how far back he'd have to roll back to get to a stable state? If only he had a filesystem that wasn't written in the 80s, and actually did something to protect his data. OpenBSD has best security? I think not.
PF, at least on OpenBSD, does not support more than one core of one processor. Linux's netfilter on the other hand, does. Not much else to say.
It's been 18 years since NFSv4 was originally standardized, and OpenBSD has still not gotten around to implementing it. This is quite a deficiency, as NFSv4 now allows you to authenticate connections with Kerberos, and even encrypt the data transfers. Once again, you would think such a security-focused OS would care about such benefits, but alas, no.
▶ No.935831
>>935817
>synth
Nicest port / package manager I've seen, and created in Ada too!
▶ No.935868>>944534
I tried FreeBSD for a couple of months in 2016 and I liked it a lot, but eventually I went back to Manjaro. Wine on FreeBSD seems to be way too error-prone compared to Linux.
>muh videogames
▶ No.935919
>>935823
Depends on what you want to do. I suggest benchmarking for your particular situation (and sharing your results, we don't have enough BSD benchs).
▶ No.936104>>936105 >>936147
I'm trying out DragonflyBSD. I've been at it for a few hours.
The experience has been inferior to OpenBSD at least. The default OpenBSD shell was fine (though I installed zsh anyway), but DragonflyBSD has been quirky. When I installed zsh I had this weird issue where the prompt would be prefixed by "2004h" and when I pressed enter the line I pressed it in would be suffixed by "2004l". Tab completions on the default shell sometimes work, sometimes don't. For instance I can tab complete a filename after typing in "nano", but not "ls".
I couldn't scroll up and down until I had the idea of pulling up the old "press scroll lock and use the arrow keys" and it worked. Not really a downside, just a quirk. I don't even remember where I learned that, which brings the question, is there a manpage or a book to read about these details like shortcuts on a framebuffer shell?
I installed sudo and tried to run it without a sudoers, got the usual "you're on santa's naughty list", and the message was sent to the root user through mail. First time I ever saw that actually work. I then logged in as root, installed tmux, read the man page of sudoers on one side and input commands on the other. tmux seems to be broken on dragonfly, the green bar on the bottom keeps replicating itself upwards every few seconds. I've added myself to the wheel group and logged in as my non-root user, but sudo didn't work all the same. Decided not to bother with it.
The documentation is pretty bad, I decided to try synth which I read about on some other thread, and read a bit of the manpage.
I saw "synth configure" and the manpage said it would help me configure synth. It also said how it would behave if the PORTSDIR environment variable was not set. The gist of it is that the configure option would get the configuration from /usr/share/mk and if that failed try the /usr/ports and /usr/dports if PORTSDIR was not set.
I decided to just create one and then both of the directories, but nothing worked like the manpage claimed. I then ran "env PORTSDIR=/usr/dports synth configure" and synth exited with the error message "Configuration failed to load". I already don't like synth, because it doesn't actually work and the manpage is wrong.
I'm currently installing lumina and xorg to see how a GUI dragonfly system works, but so far I'd rather just use OpenBSD over DragonflyBSD both as a desktop and a server.
▶ No.936105
>>936104
Forgot to mention, I didn't just add myself to wheel, I also allowed the wheel group to sudo, but it didn't work.
I already had bad experiences with 3 installed packages that work fine on every other OS I tried, who knows how many else are there?
The xorg stuff will take a while, it's downloading below 100KB/s and it's a 134MB download.
▶ No.936109>>944533
I'm not familiar with dragonfly, but openbsd code is so well audited that any other choice seems silly.
▶ No.936115
I don't like DragonflyBSD already.
Everything has a minor but glaring issue, manuals are wrong, nothing has stood out as desirable.
Might drop looking at it after this X server stuff. NetBSD is next, but not today.
▶ No.936147>>936182
>>936104
>When I installed zsh I had this weird issue where the prompt would be prefixed by "2004h"
Disable bracketed paste. In general, the console is really outdated. I didn't have your sudo/synth issues, honestly.
The experience you get right now is like Gentoo 10 years ago, I'd say. OpenBSD has a lot more manpower and funding, of course it's gonna be more streamlined (and have better docs). With its resources, I prefer Dfly focusing on the technical side, honestly. Maybe waiting is the best thing to do, but contributing to make it better seems worthwhile.
Anyway, you have no reason to not use Gentoo. I don't use the BSDs for this exact reason: I don't want to choose the "least worse" compromise between performances, usability and politics.
▶ No.936182>>936193
I don't know much about the BSDs other than what I learned from fucking around in OpenBSD and NetBSD VMs, but I have been curious, so I will just ask people that may know. Is PacBSD (previously known as ArchBSD) any good? I heard about it a couple times, and I like Arch overall, but it has systemd, so I would rather avoid it. Thinking about the BSDs always reminds me of it. Maybe that would be a good Arch replacement, I don't know.
>>936147
Kinda reluctant to try Gentoo on my computer when I have an Intel Core 2 Duo E6300. I will probably get a better Core 2 Duo at some point, but I don't intend to ever use hardware that came out after around 2008, not on a machine that I want to be as uncucked as I can possibly make it. I want it to be perfect.
▶ No.936193>>936202
>>936182
>I don't intend to ever use hardware that came out after around 2008
Why not just acquire a quad/hexa core Phenom II desktop? They're dirt cheap and easy to find (they were commonly deployed in enterprise/business environments) and as a bonus, they're free of the PSP. (Your CPU has the IME.) Goes without saying, but don't buy anything with Bulldozer/Piledriver CPUs even if you can get a great deal - a hexa core Phenom II beats them in every real (so, non-integer heavy) workload.
▶ No.936195
>>935817
Is there any chance AMD Polaris GPUs will ever be supported in Dragonfly? I'd really like to switch to BSD on my desktop if possible, and this seems like the best option.
▶ No.936196>>936199 >>936200 >>936284 >>944534
I got a MATE desktop running. I had trouble with that too, dbus threw an error and I had to google for it. In the end I had to run "dbus-uuidgen > /etc/machine-id" as root.
For some reason the games in the /usr/games folder sometimes belong to the games group and sometimes to the wheel group. For instance "Worm" belongs to the wheel group, but "rogue" belongs to the games group. It's like I said before, everything has a minor but glaring issue. I can just run chown root:games on the entire folder, but when you have to do some manual fixing with previous knowledge or looking things up on google for the entire operating system it gets really annoying. If I'm doing that I might aswell stay on Linux.
I don't really know how DragonflyBSD performs I haven't ran benchmarks and this is just a single core VM with 2GBs of RAM. All I can tell is that a 3.4ghz single core with 2GBs of RAM has more than enough resources to run a DE. If the claim that DragonflyBSD is the fastest unix-like/unix-based OS out there is true maybe someone is willing to put up with its troubles, but I'm not. OpenBSD was still a better experience, everything just worked and the documentation was the best I have experienced.
So far my major qualm with both operating systems is how the release upgrade system on both of them is just insanity. Ubuntu has the extremely simple do-release-upgrade, rolling release distros don't have such a problem, debian uses the same manual instructions every release system but things are always much shorter and clearer.
OpenBSD: "Reboot into a special mode specifically to update and run this huge list of commands"
https://www.openbsd.org/faq/upgrade63.html
DragonflyBSD: "Manually pull our git repo then manually build and install things with make (does this even use the package manager?)"
https://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/handbook/Upgrading/
https://www.dragonflybsd.org/release52/
OpenBSD made a lot of partitions for a lot of things by default, and it wasn't clear what each one of them was for. DragonflyBSD made a boot partition, a root partition and a swap partition. OpenBSD's choice makes me question whether or not it's a good idea to just make my own partition scheme because if the developers picked things this way maybe they're neccessary, but on DragonflyBSD I can see I could just separate my home partition if I wanted. Either way both OS'es fail on this regard by just assuming the user knows everything. A pop up asking "do you want a separate home partition" or whatever would be optimal. Most linux distros fail on this regard too, I think an OS developer can't expect people to have gathered knowledge from the limbo, or to be aware of random things that aren't immediately obvious. Imagine how much time the world has lost because everyone who ever learned how to use a shell in one of these modern unix operating systems had to stumble upon the shell's features to learn them because their documentation is garbage, whereas older operating systems came with books that taught you all you should know.
NetBSD comes later, but so far OpenBSD is winning, except when you have to upgrade your release. I know OpenBSD-current is a thing, but rolling release on a server is asking for headaches, and even on a desktop it's not exactly a smart choice. I already have too many computers to dump my time maintaning every single one of them, and needless maintenance is dumb.
By the way the server I'll ultimately install one of those or Devuan on is a 64 bit single core sempron at 1.6ghz with no GPU and 1GB of DDR1 RAM.
▶ No.936199>>946574
>>936196
>But so far OpenBSD is winning, except when you have to upgrade your release.
What do you find difficult about the upgrade process? If you find the standard way too bothersome, you can get an iso from -current, burn it, boot from it, and select "Upgrade". On a server syspatch will serve you well (and you can just upgrade release by release).
▶ No.936200
>>936196
>If the claim that DragonflyBSD is the fastest unix-like/unix-based OS out there is true maybe someone is willing to put up with its troubles, but I'm not.
The difference is in the fundamental design (LWKT, amiga ports-like messaging, tokens, system servers as lockfree/lockless processes). That said, it still needs a lot of polish.
▶ No.936202
>>936193
I'm using one of these right now and I want to upgrade it eventually. Haven't done it yet because I don't really feel the need to, so I will probably keep procrastinating for a while. But I can definitely consider that. I used to have one of the hexa cores, actually.
▶ No.936284
>>936196
> Reboot into a special mode specifically to update and run this huge list of commands
There's no special mode, you're just booting the new kernel. And the list of commands is like on page long, and they're not even complicated. Half of that is shit like extracting tarballs. If this is all it takes to keep complete plebs away, that's fine by me. OpenBSD will remain unpozzed so long as it doesn't cater to those niggers.
▶ No.936286>>944534
>>935786 (OP)
I use Linux most of the time because I'm used to it and it has more software available but the BSDs are definitely designed and implemented in a far more simple and concise manner.
I wish more people used them so they'd get better support for things.
▶ No.936875
>>935827
>>935826
wow it's almost like I'm in /g/
▶ No.943993>>943997 >>944003 >>965420
https://i.imgur.com/Io8JvqC.png
this is the ideal desktop, you may not like it, many refuse to accept perfection
▶ No.943997>>943998
>>943993
>Intel
>ChinkPad
>imgur
You lose.
▶ No.943998
>>943997
are you actually fucking retarded? was that irony you just typed?
▶ No.944003>>944102
>>943993
Hey my man, you know on the 8chans you don't have to upload images to a third party site to share them with us. I realize you're probably used to doing it this way from your many years on reddit, but 8chan actually has a neat feature that allows you to upload an image directly to this site and attach it directly to your post. Pretty neat, huh? This is a pretty important feature since this type of community is commonly known as an imageboard lol.
▶ No.944051>>944079
>I want to avoid FreeBSD because of its SJW faggotry
Don't. I've tried them all and FreeBSD is the easiest to set up, has a shit ton of packages and building programs from source is automated and configurable. Also there's ZFS. It is a very good system, faggots or not.
If you aren't really interested in the other BSDs for their particular quirks and features (or want to develop), you should use FreeBSD. If you grow tired of it, you can transfer almost all of your acquired knowledge to other BSDs without headaches.
▶ No.944056
I use OBSD on the daily it's a pretty nice experience. Great ACPI support, abundant documentation, and simple well designed CLI's make it a real plesure to work on especially on a laptop. The main two usecases it doesn't work well at all for are production systems with critical data because of the lack of ZFS or a alternative like Hammer or btrfs (sort of), and systems which need lots of packages not in the ports tree like if you play a lot of games or something like that. I think raid and UFS is plenty for your average home server and as a home router it's pretty unmatched. On the license issue I'm not a fan of the BSD license, if I contribute to the project I'd rather my code not be modified slightly and sold by a third party but I don't let that get in the way of me using the best software I can.
▶ No.944079>>944114
>>944051
BSD's aren't distributions of one operating system like distributions of GNU are. All the BSD's, even ones like oBSD who have an active predecessor, are entirely different operating systems with a different kernel, packagebase, and userland. If there's any similarities between the projects, they're no more comparable with each other as they are with GNU, so until you can convince people that oBSD is a GNU/Linux distribution whose only meaningful distinction is its subtle "quirks" because they're both technically Unix-like operating systems with superficially compatible behaviors, it's just as disingenuous to imply that oBSD is a fBSD distribution or some facsimile, and that's very telling of the authority of your own advice, if the unwarranted, barely-related image you uploaded to your post for the sole purpose of garnering attention didn't already make that evident.
▶ No.944102
>>944003
>I'm a plebeian not using Tor
▶ No.944114>>944123
>>944079
>BSD's aren't distributions of one operating system like distributions of GNU are
Yeah, I know, thanks.
Installation and configuration across the BSDs are very similiar, depending on the BSDs they use similiar documentation, they share developers, you will probably use the same tools and their filesystem hierarchy is really similiar too. If you can't take anything away from using FreeBSD for a month and apply it to, let's say, OpenBSD, then something went wrong. You can even use the same firewall (they're not entirely the same anymore though). They're probably more similiar to each other than slackware and ubuntu, or something.
If someone just wants to try out some BSD, my advice is to use FreeBSD for the reasons listed and not rule it out because of some SJW bs. I didn't imply they're just distributions and are basically the same, so maybe your paranoia has gotten the better of you or you can't actually read. The point stands: if you have no interest in any of the things that make NetBSD or OpenBSD or whateverBSD different, you may as well go the easy route and figure it out on the way there. OpenBSD is perfectly usable on a laptop, even when it's not a thinkpad - but I felt that FreeBSD was even easier to use and has features that make it attractive too. Also ZFS and naturally more up-to-date ports. NetBSD was the worst to set up for me personally (ports also out of date and good luck finding a server in Europe).
In case you didn't notice, there's no IDs here, so not sure what good your ad hominem is going to do.
▶ No.944123
>>944114
I was never addressing your main point. As for my ad hominem, it was mostly just me insulting you for the hook shit itself, not in connection to your broader point. In that sense, it doesn't detract from the fact that's it's an impolite thing to do. I'm sorry if it came off that way. I don't know you too well, anon, but I would expect such low behavior from the Kiki poster, not you.
▶ No.944141>>944143
>>935786 (OP)
>cuck license
▶ No.944143
▶ No.944533
▶ No.944534>>944538 >>944646 >>946519 >>947496 >>957006
>>935786 (OP)
>>935794
>>935795
>>935868
>>936196
>>936286
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
▶ No.944538>>944548 >>944641
>>944534
It's not funny, and the fact you believe this shit makes you the queer.
▶ No.944542>>944559 >>952214
>>935788
>DragonflyBSD is the most performant of the modern Unix-like OSes
lol? Even the author admits it gets smoked by Linux as it has no drivers for fast hardware. All his benchmarks usually cripple Linux by showing how it'd perform if it were retarded and could use no hardware features made after 1999, but support for those features is what influences the design of truly modern OSes.
▶ No.944543
▶ No.944548>>944570
>>944538
Fuck off if my board you degenerate.
▶ No.944559>>944564
>>944542
>Unix-like
Linux isn't Unix-like. It's POSIX conformant (and by it, I mean GNU/Linux, obviously). If you don't care, yeah, Linux is obviously the most performant (the net stack only got recently (4.16) up to par with FreeBSD).
t. Gentoo user
▶ No.944564
>>944559
>Linux isn't Unix-like
>It's POSIX conformant
▶ No.944570
>>944548
>Fuck off if my board you degenerate.
Make me.
▶ No.944612>>946300
>>935788
DF is my favorite. HAMMER is a really interesting filesystem and does what you'd need to get a specialty Linux distro to do (or spend days/weeks configuring.)
▶ No.944641>>944647
▶ No.944646>>946381
>>944534
>What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux,
No. I specifically do not have any GNU on my system. Only Linux and software that respects my freedom.
▶ No.946300>>946346
>>944612
Yeah. ZFS is ages of autistic configuration with its own autistic filesystem caching method that should be the kernel's job, meanwhile HAMMER2 just works and does every feature you'd want in a modern filesystem out of the box.
▶ No.946304>>946346
>>935817
Isn't FreeBSD the BSD with the pozzed CoC?
▶ No.946346>>946352 >>946359
>>946300
>ZFS is ages of autistic configuration
What, how? Handling ZFS is super easy and convenient from what I've experienced. What did you want ZFS to do?
>>946304
You're asking like you give a shit. It's also the easiest to get into (arguably), has ZFS and some other upsides. Letting the cumulated efforts of so many developers go to waste because some mentally handicapped men want you to imagine them as real girls is pants on head retarded. Not approving what happened, but nobody likes defeatists that feign interest. Theres a halfchan distro shitposting thread
▶ No.946352
>>946346
>mentally handicapped men
Why are you letting them have root on your computer?
▶ No.946359>>946378
>>946346
>Letting the cumulated efforts of so many developers go to waste
I mean, that's kind of how it's always been, considering the only reason why ZFS can't be distributed on Lignux is because of an incompatible license. It's a pretty fucked up irony that an ostensibly copycenter projects one claim to fame is that it basically has a walled-garden fs, and it isn't even the OS where mainline development happens--it just happens fBSD is slightly more enterprise-able. Without ZFS, fBSD-using sysmins wouldn't even be able to garner any derision towards Lignux, because they'd be effectively the same as most enterprise-oriented GNU distributions. On the bright side, with the advent of Ubuntu shipping with ZFS, that brickwall may be able to fade away.
▶ No.946378>>946379 >>947044
>>946359
ZFS is a frankenstein clusterfuck of bad design.
>checksumming in the fs rather than at the device layer with the integrity extensions in SCSI and SATA
>volume management in the fs rather than at the device layer with LVM
>RAID in the fs rather than at the device layer with mdraid
>has its own I/O scheduler rather than at the device layer with things like cfq
>etc.
The only reason to use it is if you're stuck in 2006.
▶ No.946379>>946380
>>946378
What do you recommend?
▶ No.946380>>946392 >>946393
>>946379
LVM and ext4. Add whatever else you need to that 'stack'. But don't shy away from LVM, it's wonderful.
▶ No.946381>>946390
>>944646
Linux is nonfree software senpai.
▶ No.946390
>>946381
I would prefer a nice usable public domain OS. Until then I will have to settle on just stripping out GPL3 code.
▶ No.946392>>946393
▶ No.946393>>946436
>>946380
>>946392
Reiserfs is better. It's a shame that Reiser4 will never be stable.
▶ No.946436>>946468 >>946550
>>946393
>using software written by a cold blooded killer
▶ No.946468
>>946436
I fail to see what that has to do with anything. That's nothing more than a red herring.
▶ No.946519>>946540
>>944534
>What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux
How do you know? Who told you I have a single piece of gnu in my linux system?
▶ No.946540
>>946519
Are you implying there's Linux in my GNU system?
▶ No.946550>>946568
>>946436
>not using software written by a cold blooded killer
If more men were like Hans Reiser, fewer women would be like Nina Reiser. The man has my respect.
▶ No.946568
>>946550
Considering the fact that she's dead, wouldn't it mean more women would be like Nina Reiser?
▶ No.946574>>948259
>>936199
Not spaghetti guy but I chose against OpenBSD for my routers because of the update process.
I manage ~20 remote sites, I need to keep these updated, having to drive to all those remote sites every 6 months would be hell.
I feel like a bit of a pleb choosing pfsense but at least I can login, update and reboot from my office.
▶ No.946815>>946829
Briefly tried OpenBSD before realizing it doesn't support my wifi card; it seemed okay.
Eventually bought a USB wifi dongle, and recently tried out FreeBSD with it.
Also seems okay, but the dongle itself performs significantly worse than it did under Gentoo Linux.
All in all, BSD seems like it could be a good choice as a server OS, but is less than ideal for a desktop or laptop OS.
▶ No.946829>>946836
>>946815
>FreeBSD
Funnily enough it used to be the goto OS for network performance. I'm sure their completely unrelated to actually developing the project SJW faggotry wasn't what stopped progress, the fact these 2 things happened at once is just a coincidence. :^)
Anyway if you want to run a BSD that's pretty much the experience with Open/Dragon/Net BSD, it's better than ganoo+linux, but only when it supports your hardware and has the features you need.
▶ No.946832>>946835
What's the purpose of BSD compared to other freetard distros?
▶ No.946835>>946844 >>947761
>>946832
GNU + linux = anarcho communist
*BSD = anarcho capitalist
MINIX = ultra-zionist
seL4 = National Socialist
TempleOS = Deus Vult
▶ No.946836
>>946829
>Funnily enough it used to be the goto OS for network performance. I'm sure their completely unrelated to actually developing the project SJW faggotry wasn't what stopped progress, the fact these 2 things happened at once is just a coincidence. :^)
I'm currently compiling Xorg from the ports tree, and every so often a distfile will fail to fetch because I've spontaneously lost wireless connectivity. I can't speak for networking performance under a wired connection with a well supported NIC, but wireless so far has sucked.
>t's better than ganoo+linux, but only when it supports your hardware and has the features you need.
How are any of the BSDs better?
At this point I'm just trying out FreeBSD to diversify my machines. I've gotten too comfortable with Linux and GNU everything.
>What's the purpose of BSD compared to other freetard distros?
There are the ideological disagreements about what is most "free" or practical, but there seems to be less and less purpose all the time.
▶ No.946844>>946876 >>948008
>>946835
>*BSD = anarcho capitalist
Yes the people that banned saying the word hug on IRC are ancap and not SJW sure thing
>seL4 = National Socialist
I hope you know the academics that made that are all communists
>TempleOS = Deus Vult
sure
>GNU + linux = anarcho communist
GNU might be. Linux is a dictatorship.
▶ No.946876
>>946844
>Yes the people that banned saying the word hug on IRC
They didn't ban saying the word hug, you just have to get the other person's consent before hug emoting, because otherwise it's hugrape. A signed, witnessed, and notarized consent form obtained beforehand, a copy of which has been registered with the FreeBSD CoC Authority, should be sufficient. Also, it would have to be a private IRC message, because even if it's consensual, it might trigger other people who see it who have been hugraped in the past. You might laugh, but until you've struggled with PTSD subsequent to hugrape, you need to check your privilege.
▶ No.947044>>947057 >>947480 >>947515 >>947550
>>946378
>checksumming in the fs rather than at the device layer with the integrity extensions in SCSI and SATA
Don't know enough to give thoughts about this. Why is it worse in the filesystem? Regarding speed, ZFS feels fast enough, but that's subjective and I didn't test anything.
>volume management is not as nice as volume management
Why is ZFS in that sense bad to you? Take into consideration that it has upsides too.
>RAID in the fs rather than at the device layer with mdraid
I remember reading speed comparisons between hardware and software RAID control and they were on par or faster - as far as I remember. Also ZFS = high trust of data integrity.
>has its own I/O scheduler rather than at the device layer with things like cfq
Is it worse than what it would've been at the device layer?
I see you're addressing mainly why you think it's bad design in the first place, not if it's actually worse in practice. I'm interested in hearing your opinions in regards to both points - but please also state why you think that is. There's surely other points of criticism (like license and size of codebase or something), but I didn't see anyone complain that ZFS is hard or inefficient to use yet.
I've found ZFS to be easy to use and it's always good to know your important data has somewhat of a fault tolerance. Tell me why you think it's shit, sincerely interested in learning more. I didn't use it long enough to know its internals.
▶ No.947057>>947063
>>947044
I bet you use systemd.
▶ No.947063>>977231
>>947057
Yes, I actually ported it to FreeBSD all by myself. Great post.
▶ No.947480>>962260
>>947044
Still interested in the reasoning why ZFS is bad
▶ No.947496
>>944534
GNU is already replaced.
▶ No.947515>>947750
>>947044
some of those decisions can be explained by not wanting to depend on other's, possibly broken, implementation of things. It treats the hardware as an adversary.
▶ No.947550>>947564 >>947750 >>962262
>>947044
>I see you're addressing mainly why you think it's bad design in the first place, not if it's actually worse in practice.
At best, those features are no better than the general-purpose ones they're duplicating but come with their own set of special snowflake tools that only work on that fs and also need disabled in cases where they conflict with general-purpose ones like how you have to disable their I/O scheduler so it doesn't fight Linux's I/O scheduler and match LVM's block size. Since the code is redundant it gets less attention from devs and can be expected to be slow to take advantage of new hardware features. It's practically frozen in a "state of the art, 2006" state and is still catching up to 2008's features like TRIM.
When ZFS was originally designed these general-purpose layers didn't exist, and rather than design those, they just crammed everything into the fs layer. Maybe the fs team and OS team weren't on speaking terms or it was done by an indepdent team, I don't know the history.
▶ No.947564>>947750
>>947550
>Be compatible with all this different shit so that a bunch of other fucks can constantly break your system intended for reliability
ayeeeeee
▶ No.947750>>948234
>>947564
>>947515
I don't really see it as a bad thing (other than that it is harder to port to other systems, such as OpenBSD, who decided against doing it because of the huge amount of work it would entail) - but it doesn't seem like the frankenstein design poster will answer anytime soon.
>>947550
>come with their own set of special snowflake tools
It also has special snowflake features that make ZFS worthwhile IMO. They're all really easy to use, well documented and their output isn't hard to interpret. I'd even say they went out of their way to make a ZFS filesystem as easy to set up and maintain as possible.
>crammed everything into the fs layer
As you said I think that was one of the design goals (depending on what "everything" means here) - or at least it's advertised as such now. I don't really see that as a bad thing, other than that it seems to limit the systems it can be used on etc.
▶ No.947761>>948126
>>946835
>MINIX
>Zionist
Why? It's more like Libertarianism with its independent servers and modules.
▶ No.948008
>>946844
>I hope you know the academics that made that are all communists
Don't blame them, they could only afford to work from Redfern
▶ No.948120>>948134
the more i read about openbsd the more attractive it sounds. The only downside seems to be a less hackable kernel, no?
▶ No.948126
>>947761
Because it's the botnet OS in every modern (((intel))) CPU (specifically on the CPU within the CPU), and is probably used to spy on bad goys.
It is also probably a safeguard that can be used as a trump card in case of a goy revolt against ZOG. Such a war would have one side's entire communication and computation infrastructure compromised from the start.
▶ No.948133>>948139 >>948190 >>948203 >>957016
>>935817
> Never use OpenBSD if you want anything else than security, their lack of modern FS, package build-time configuration and general multithreaded performances (the kernel is still big locked in a number of places) makes it very hard to recommend; for workstations/desktops at least.
Can you please fuck off? The people who develop OpenBSD actually use it on their desktops. It may not have a new fs, but the old one works just fine. Package management is superb and nothing like apt/aptitude crap that has stopped being developed since forever. Multithreaded performance is lacking compared to linux because the OpenBSD developers care about correctness and security when they write code. You can get a hell of a speedup when you write spaghetti code.
OpenBSD is great for people who like to get things done. I use it for only one reason: it's the simplest to use OS out there. No bells, no whistles, no hand-holding, great documentation. It does what you tell it to do and nothing more. And let's not forget that if you ever used ssh, you must thank the OpenBSD team for giving it for free.
▶ No.948134
>>948120
Could you please tell me how you reached that conclusion. Go look OpenBSD's source code and then Ubuntu/Debian/etc code. The former can be read and understood much easier.
▶ No.948139>>948150
>>948133
>The people who develop OpenBSD actually use it on their desktops
Actually almost all BSD developers use Macs
▶ No.948150
>>948139
FreeBSD Developers*
▶ No.948190>>948214 >>967699 >>977075 >>977220
>>948133
OpenBSD is the OS I'd like to have on my T60 but every application I tend to use coredumps like a motherfucker.
Oh well, back to Slackware.
▶ No.948203>>948211 >>977114
>>948133
>stop_dislinking_what_I_like.tga
Could YOU please fuck off with your fanboyism? While modern UFS is pretty good, it's nowhere near something like XFS for real performances or ZFS for features.
>nothing like apt/aptitude crap
Where did I say apt? Compare it to portage, or even the stuff the other BSDs use; if it doesn't have build time config, it's shit (how do I get 10bit x264, for example?).
>that useless ssh drivel
What's your point? That OpenBSD isn't bad? Of course it's good; it's just not for workstations.
I could also add that their anti-GPL zealotry is disgusting.
▶ No.948211
>>948203
>I could also add that their anti-GPL zealotry is disgusting.
And the communist gnu shill finally reveals himself.
▶ No.948214>>948222
>>948190
>every application I tend to use coredumps
you're probably running programs that use too much memory. increase
the size of your data area with ulimit -d. see man ksh. and stop
running bloated software.
▶ No.948222>>948227 >>948249
>>948214
>stop running bloated software
fluxbox?
▶ No.948227>>948230 >>948249
>>948222
Fluxbox is inferior to OpenBox in capabilities and code quality.
▶ No.948230>>948249
>>948227
Sure, fluxbox only makes a tiny dump when ex(c)ited. The big bads are usually browsers.. SeaMonkey has always been a favorite of mine - the Firefox port in OpenBSD really is much more stable.
Thanks!
▶ No.948234>>948235 >>962261
>>947750
>It also has special snowflake features that make ZFS worthwhile IMO.
Like what? All the ones it used to be praised for that I know of are now done better at the block and hardware layer. Even deduplication is now regularly done at the block level and that's a booming market. It seems to me the primary audience for ZFS today are people with low awareness for how things are done that see it as a convenient bundle of features.
▶ No.948235
>>948234
I've read on many online forums that raid-z2 and raid-z3 are superior to all hardware implementations of RAID 6 and 7.
▶ No.948249>>948251 >>948253
>>948222
>fluxbox?
i consider it bloated. OpenBSD comes with cwm. why would you want anything
else?
>>948227
>OpenBox
horrible.
>>948230
>SeaMonkey
>Firefox
links+ for me.
▶ No.948251>>948252 >>948259
>>948249
What's wrong with Openbox?
inb4
>muh xml
>muh SJW developer
These are not serious arguments against a software.
▶ No.948252
>>948251
How is xml for user facing config files not a valid argument? Anyway, why would anyone use it instead of cwm, ctwm or icewcm if you want a little more?
▶ No.948253
>>948249
links is great but unfortunately not when paying your bills
▶ No.948259>>948260
>>946574
>>948251
>>muh SJW developer
>These are not serious arguments against a software.
Yes it is faggot, especially when they do nothing but complain about identity politics and gender shit in issue trackers. >all the fucking time
▶ No.948260
>>948259
>especially when they do nothing but complain about identity politics and gender shit in issue trackers
Those that do that are a problem, as is anybody who does that, SJW or not.
If an SJW creates a useful software and is the sole author and it is good software, then it is not an argument because that individual is not behaving in the way you claim.
Generalizations are fine when speaking about groups as a whole, but you need to be careful when talking about individuals because they won't always apply on an individual level.
▶ No.948266>>948270 >>948301 >>956554 >>956616
You're giving a raving zealot who potentially hates you and would like to 'punch a Nazi' unsupervised root access to your computer. That's extremely unwise, and it is an argument against using software and services from rabid SJWs.
▶ No.948270
>>948266
>he can't punch back
Just as expected from sheltered basement NEETs. Sassuga desu.
▶ No.948301>>948308
>>948266
I want programmers that are good at programming, not politics. That being said, BSD does not have as many eyes looking into the code as Linux but I haven't seen many exploits that are exclusive to BSD based operating systems either.
▶ No.948308>>948310
>>948301
You'd never see an intentionally hidden exploit as no one even finds the obvious easter eggs.
▶ No.948310
>>948308
true, but that applies to everything really.
▶ No.948365>>948374 >>956558
questions at hand
>will it work on a aspire d270? if not then ignore everything below
>does it have pale meme or kde stuffs (if not, can I make custom keyboard shortcuts like meta+home becomes maximize window)
>does it have a proper text editor similar to Kate (kde)
▶ No.948374>>948376
>>948365
I tried to spoonfeed you but I can't find all the hardware info for that model, find out what hardware it has yourself, if it has linux then lspci should do. These are the netowork drivers in OpenBSD, just click the relevant one (e.g. ath) and see if it supports your device.
https://man.openbsd.org/?query=wireless&apropos=1
▶ No.948376
>>948374
It worked on 32 bit dragonflybsd but the 64 bit is said to hang up while the gpu isn't buffering right.
https://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/user/DragonFlyOnLaptops/
▶ No.952120>>958969
tfw want to use a BSD but I use bluetooth headphones
▶ No.952168>>952170 >>952205 >>956562 >>977697
The thing that bugs me about OpenBSD is the fact that packages don't get any security updates in the -stable release. Their "solution" is that I watch their mailing list for security issues and compile a patched version of the vulnerable package from source.
▶ No.952170
>>952168
If it's enough of a problem to complain about, why not write a script that handles all of this for you, and clap it into cron or other scheduler?
▶ No.952205>>954780
>>952168
It sucks but they've stated many times that they don't have the manpower to handle third party packages properly.
▶ No.952208>>952209
Can I start with OpenBSD for my first Berkeley distribution? I want to eventually get to the point where I can make a Beowulf system with DragonflyBSD.
▶ No.952209
>>952208
On a raspberry pi 3 as well
▶ No.952214>>952221 >>952300
>>944542
I thought I saw some phoronix benchmarks where DragonflyBSD was beating Linux.
Maybe I remembered incorrectly?
▶ No.952216>>978777
Wait isn't dragonfly BSD supposed to be for beowulf cluster systems?
▶ No.952221
>>952214
That's for IPv4 traffic throughput, not for CPU/GPU processing. You don't need IPv4 if you are clustering. You use ethernet frames and MAC's.
▶ No.952300>>952302 >>952306
>>952214
It's always with some handicap, like testing on hardware without multiqueue, or handicapping Linux drivers by disabling receive-side scaling to be similar to his crippled drivers like he did in that benchmark you're replying to (read his notes on the left). He's pushing the angle that if his drivers weren't total fucking garbage or limited by licensing issues that the rest of his kernel would be outperforming Linux. That's an academic distinction at best as people care about real-world performance.
>Phoronix
The blind leading the blind.
▶ No.952302
>>952300
>If you spend 10 hours configuring the system under exactly the right circumstances this other system is faster
everyone loves to deny benchmarks that show that their favourite system is shit.
▶ No.952306
>>952300
from what that says to me is the tcp/ip stack is slow, but not necessarily the ethernet drivers, and if someone is clustering computers together, why waste the bandwidth with the excess of ip headers when you can just use the 6 byte MAC's?
▶ No.952453>>956565
It's not a "BSD" in the normal sense, but it was originally derived from NetBSD when Sun Microsystems first developed it: see Illumos.
▶ No.954754>>977506
▶ No.954780>>954804
>>952205
It doesn't suck because the have the balls to admit that instead of relying on bullshit techs like jails/selinux/apparmor/etc.
However, they have built a secure base system that you can trust.
▶ No.954804
>>954780
>You don't need virtualization or isolation systems because the minimal base distribution is secure while literally anything you want to actually do is not.
▶ No.956425
can the experienced users here list the BSD's in order of goodness
and explain why one trumps the others, pros/cons, etc, or whatever
▶ No.956554
>>948266
>You're giving a raving zealot who potentially hates you and would like to 'punch a Nazi' unsupervised root access to your computer. That's extremely unwise, and it is an argument against using software and services from rabid SJWs.
That's not how any of this works. First day on /tech/?
▶ No.956558
>>948365
>>will it work on a aspire d270? if not then ignore everything below
It should work fine. Wireless is hit or miss though, unless you know your exact chipset we can't advise you. KDE4 is in the repositories and should be very mature and stable by now. KDE5 is dependent on systemd so there is no support for it. FreeBSD recently managed to get KDE5 to work without systemd so it will probably come to OpenBSD eventually. If you desperately need KDE5 you could try FreeBSD instead. OpenBSD comes with cwm, fvwm, and twm in the base install.
▶ No.956561>>956773
>>935786 (OP)
Tried installing openbsd once
Couldn't get it to boot via USB stick
No idea why
▶ No.956562
>>952168
Just run syspatch?
▶ No.956565>>956567
>>952453
What makes illumos different from openbsd or freebsd
▶ No.956567>>956615 >>956742 >>956752
>>956565
Most of Solaris was written by paid professionals who knew what they were doing.
▶ No.956615
>>956567
Would be good if it supported PPC. Besides that it's just a meme at the moment.
▶ No.956616
>>948266
So are you talking about Linux or BSD here? I honestly can't tell.
▶ No.956742>>956757
>>956567
Windows devs were paid too
▶ No.956752
>>956567
I didn't ask about solaris, I asked about Illumos. But obviously you're not interested in answering the question, you just want to throw shit like a monkey.
▶ No.956757
>>956742
Hmmmmmm that makes it pretty interesting
Considering that pre 2000 OS's that microsoft made where pretty descent overall.
I wonder when did the start investing in their pajeet workforce.
▶ No.956773>>956777
>>956561
You made the stick by copying to /dev/sdX1 instead of /dev/sdX,most likely.
▶ No.956777
▶ No.957006
>>944534
>no sound
halfchan nigger spotted
off yourself
▶ No.957016>>958828
>>948133
>You can get a hell of a speedup when you write spaghetti code.
Are you retarded?
▶ No.958820>>958867 >>958898 >>958934
What games do you *BSD users play
▶ No.958828
>>957016
That is about right. If you look at highly optimized code is complicated shit. The naive implementations are far simpler and maintainable.
▶ No.958867>>958868
>>958820
Currently I'm using OpenBSD on a server, but I don't use it at all on the desktop. In that domain, Linux is an objectively superior experience. Played some Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines earlier, and emulated a couple of obscure NES games.
▶ No.958868>>958872 >>958889
>>958867
>In that domain, Linux is an objectively superior experience
It's an objectively shittier experience with tons of bugs and broken updates.
▶ No.958872>>958893
>>958868
What distros have you used?
▶ No.958889
>>958868
>gentooman detected
▶ No.958893>>958934
>>958872
Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, Elementary, Arch, Fedora, and more
▶ No.958898
▶ No.958934>>958961
>>935786 (OP)
>I haven't tried it but nobody has given me a reason to use it on a x86 machine, all I hear is "yeah NetBSD runs on everything!".
The main goal of NetBSD is to be really portable. Also, NetBSD has really low system requirements. I prefer NetBSD and OpenBSD over DragonflyBSD (but HAMMER is the best FS) I am not saying that DragonflyBSD is bad, but it seems that other *BSDs have more active communities. OpenBSD has the best man pages (when compared to GNU/Linux or any other *BSD) Don't use FreeBSD (it's SJW cancer) or TruOS (it's broken Ubuntu-like FreeBSD)
>>958820
GNU Emacs' games
>>958893
Install Gentoo or NixOS. They are the best GANOO/Loonix distros.
▶ No.958961
>>958934
NixOS and GuixSD are the only interesting linux distros and is legitimately different and useful.
I absolutely love that my server install and config is just a .nix file.
Linux in any other context just feels like a more rushed and broken BSD, OpenBSD may not have the same desktop experience but the experience it offers is rock solid.
▶ No.958969
>>952120
>I like inferior sound quality
Perhaps you aren't fit for *BSD master race, afterall
▶ No.959174>>960445
I run OpenBSD on my NAS and it's really comfy
▶ No.960445>>966618 >>966620
>>959174
>OpenBSD
>NAS
hardware raid or softraid?
OpenBSD FFS is solid but I have fallen for the ZFS meme and don't feel safe with anything else.
▶ No.962055>>962065
I've been told not to use OpenBSD on a SSD, because its Filesystem doesn't have TRIM support. Is this really such a big deal or would it still be reasonable to use? Will it support TRIM if I partition it a certain way?
▶ No.962065>>962076
>>962055
Trim has not mattered for 10 years now. His copy pasta is just that old. Literally every flash controller can deal with this.
▶ No.962076>>962097
>>962065
TRIM is still needed for longevity.
▶ No.962097>>962535
>>962076
Wrong. That was the case 10 years ago when SSD controllers were shit. You have been living under a rock.
▶ No.962260
▶ No.962261
>>948234
special snowflake features like not relying on hardware for that shit I guess???
▶ No.962262
>>947550
>is still catching up to 2008's features like TRIM.
FreeBSD has had TRIM for years already, FUD more
▶ No.962535
>>962097
Nuh uh. Go google it.
▶ No.962540
▶ No.965420>>965737 >>977090
>>943993
>linking an image on an imageboard
>linking imgur
fuck off back to reddit nigger
▶ No.965737
>>965420
Tor users cannot post images.
▶ No.966618
>>960445
No raid, only manual rsync backups to cold storage. These threads are getting slow.
▶ No.966620
>>960445
ZFS is superior in every way
▶ No.967699
>>948190
Are you literally me?
▶ No.976181>>976226 >>977786
So in what ways is FreeBSD a bad choice to use?
It seems to be the most popular and widely supported.
I'm not seeing anything on their website that looks alarming. They list IRC channels but don't claim any sort of ownership over them.
▶ No.976226>>976328
>>976181
why does it look like her ass expands? sage for offtopic
▶ No.976239>>976341
So how is NetBSD security wise? Do I have to prepare my angus if I install it?
▶ No.976328
>>976226
Because the model is blending between two states and they had differing ass sizes.
▶ No.976341
▶ No.976347
>>935788
>>935817
>DragonflyBSD
DragonFly BSD OS-tans coming through!
▶ No.977075>>977137
As for FreeBSD... I've personally mostly ruled it out because last I remember don't even use their own OS. They mostly use Macbooks which is very telling of how much they believe in their product.
Then there was the annoying gcc -> clang migrating that threw me off a little. I can't remember exactly.
>>948190
Back long time ago I used FreeBSD as my main OS. It was because of the official nVidia support otherwise I would have used OpenBSD.
Played WoW and other games of interest on wine, played with emulators and stuff. Coded a little as a hobby... I was happy. Then Linux started getting more and more support in gaming starting with the Humble stuff. The Linux binary compatibility worked great for a while but eventually it just wasn't cutting it for me. I chose Slackware as my Linux as it was the most BSD-like of the distros and have always been happy with it. Testing out other distros was always slightly painful especially after systemd introduced a whole 'nother batch of needless commands.
Weirdly I actually moved to Linux for gaming.
Now it looks like I'm going back to some *BSD for my normal usage though and when I want to game I'll boot into Linux.
Eventually maybe I'll stop booting Linux just like I did with Windows so long ago.
Maybe I can learn how to *BSD again.
▶ No.977090
>>965420
>newfag does not understand tor
▶ No.977114
>>935817
>>948203
>build-time config
>build time config
>how do I man 7 ports
stay on Gentoo, pleb. the OpenBSD lists can do without your noise.
▶ No.977118>>977122
OpenBSD -
It's like wearing that Che Guevara T-shirt all day long, only with computers.
▶ No.977137>>977158
>>977075
>They mostly use Macbooks which is very telling of how much they believe in their product.
You can install FreeBSD on a macbook.
▶ No.977158>>977161
>>977137
True... but they don't.
▶ No.977161>>977184
>>977158
They probably do, even if it's ssh'ing in at a minimum
▶ No.977184
>>977161
Shelling into a remote machine/VM is vastly different to installing on the laptop hardware. It's well known they don't usually use FreeBSD as their main.
I looked for two seconds and found this as the first result
https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/do-freebsd-developers-eat-their-own-dogfood.62222/
which also links
https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/bsdcan-devsummit-2016-live-video-stream.56527/#post-322660
At 50% usage it's seems much better than it used to be. I'm sure I could find more examples if I wanted to spend more than a few minutes.
I remember shortly before I dropped FreeBSD I was having problems diagnosing a problem on Lenovo G-something that completely borked my Wifi (it wouldn't work in any OS) and the conclusion I got was basically "FreeBSD developers use Macs don't really care about laptops so screw off." (I eventually found a solution in reflashing the BIOS)
At least when OpenBSD guys were dismissive it was usually because I neglected some iota of the FM.
▶ No.977220>>977269
>>948190
It always surprises me how many idiots that don't know shit about technology find themselves on these edge case operating systems.
▶ No.977231>>977266
>>947063
> wanting system dicks on a systemd-free system
Why the fuck would you do that
It's like installing Winblows BOOTMGR on Gentoo, adding soy sauce on your onions and adding heels to your sneakers.
▶ No.977266>>977374
>>977231
Prerty sure that anon was being sarcastic. Also, nice facebook meme, fellow /g/entooman
▶ No.977269
>>977220
They are phone posters with instructions to shit up the thread. Cuck chan always has the same type of attempted demoralization threads going too.
>why's linux so shit? X just doesn't work
>>works for me
>nu-uhhhh
>>here let me help you, what's your config file look like
>*crickets*
▶ No.977374
>>977266
Checked, mini-satan
Shit didn't see through that.
▶ No.977397>>977414 >>977415 >>977423 >>977431 >>977454 >>978726
*BSD too will fall. It's only a matter of time.
▶ No.977414
>>977397
Obviously he wants FreeBSD, since it caters to plebs and has the CoC he wants up his ass.
▶ No.977415
▶ No.977423
>>977397
>BSD
Binaries Sucking Dicks
▶ No.977431
>>977397
PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, KILL THE SHITSTORM BEFORE IT TAKES THE ONLY THING WE HAVE LEFT AFTER CoCkS FUCKED LINUX
▶ No.977454
>>977397
this bitch be lookin like nemesis from resident evil
▶ No.977506>>977758
>>954754
>Jails on OpenBSD when?
Not likely ever. Between chroot and pledge, OpenBSD has everything it needs in terms of restricting processes' access to other parts of the system. unveil(2) is a related new thing for 6.4.
I get the impression that FreeBSD tends to go for performance and fancy features at the expense of code correctness. By contrast, NetBSD and OpenBSD both make correctly written code their highest priority. Their cultures are much closer to each other than to FreeBSD in that regard.
https://vez.mrsk.me/freebsd-defaults.txt
▶ No.977697
>>952168
if youre running services outside of base you should be watching the lists for security issues. and since services are the targets, "muh ports security" sounds a lot worse than it is.
▶ No.977700
I found a thinkpad that's a bit older
For the time being I'm installing Debian/hurd, Haiku, and maybe netbsd. Testing different os but not too experienced, still on linux mint on main pc.
▶ No.977758>>977789 >>977792
>>977506
FreeBSD is just a Linux wannabe without its own identity. Other *BSD have their own Raison d'etre (did i spell it right?) but FreeBSD has absolutely zero reasons to exist because it doesn't have any unique benefits (and it has a CoC, just like Linux) OpenBSD tries to offer very secure defaults (and the best manual pages!!), NetBSD tries to be very portable and support a lot of different architectures and DragonFly BSD tries to offer the best multi-core performance (and it also has the best FS)
▶ No.977786>>977912 >>978794
▶ No.977789>>977897
>>977758
In the 90's, FreeBSD was basically the fastest open source OS on i386. BSDi was faster, but it wasn't open source. So a lot of servers ran those two, like for example the now defunct Walnut Creek archive FTP server (ftp.cdrom.com), which was one of the sites with the heaviest traffic back then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walnut_Creek_CDROM
That's where I got my 50 slackware floppy images from in 1995, and where I used to download Doom wads.
Anyway it was a pretty good Unix OS back then, when it catered to a smaller and more technical audience. Learn from its mistakes! (and those of Linux). If you want your OS project to survive, you don't sell out to corporates and you don't make popularity and inclusiveness your goals.
▶ No.977792
>>977758
>Raison d'etre (did i spell it right?)
raison d'être
There's no need to capitalize the r, and the first e has an accent circonflexe.
▶ No.977897>>977920
>>977789
>ftp.cdrom.com
Thats basically how you tested your link speed back then. How fast you could ftp something from cdrom, simtel or sunsite.
Another big feather in FreeBSD's cap was Hotmail.com ran on it for years AFTER microsoft took it over. They tried to go to NT/iis but couldn't make it work and ended up having to host their own mail system back on FreeBSD/Apache.
Really sad what has become of FreeBSD.The cancer that infected it as basically killed it.
▶ No.977912
>>977786
That's brutal. I had no idea the FreeBSD security situation was so awful.
▶ No.977920
>>977897
My ISP's connection was really fast and I got great speeds from ftp.cdrom.com. The only slow part was downloading the files from their SunOS shell account to my computer (had only a 14.4K modem, so one 1.44MB floppy disk image took about 15 minutes). They must have made some good money selling all these CDs back then.
Anyway now DragonflyBSD has replaced FreeBSD in that niche, so not all is lost.
▶ No.978726
>>977397
What the fuck is up with those gums?
It's like his skull is falling into his mouth.
▶ No.978773>>978778
>>935826
Don't forget the giant lock on the kernel. So, no real kernel SMP
▶ No.978777
>>952216
No it's for x86_64 PCs.
▶ No.978778>>978787
>>978773
Is the kernel really so heavy it would starve a core of any device it can be ran on? Mindlessly multithreading everything just means you're actually losing performance at the end of the day.
▶ No.978787
>>978778
>Is the kernel really so heavy
in a monolithic kernel? Yes. Fucking everything is in the kernel for current OSs. File systems, networking, scheduling, etc.
▶ No.978794
>>977786
You guys should really read this. The "Closing" section hits especially hard. Also check this out, from the end of that file:
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-chat/2018-March/007181.html
▶ No.979056
I'd been meaning to try a BSD for a long time. Although I don't plan on ditching Linux, this whole CoCshit was a good motivator to try one out.
I put OpenBSD on an old IdeaPad and it's surprisingly user-friendly. I guess I had an image in my head of "focus on security = opaque and obtuse," but it's the complete opposite. Definitely like what I've seen so far.