What am I in for? I'm highly experienced with Linux but haven't really used BSD before.
Congrats, you are promoting backdoors and a big corp-friendly license.
At the contrary, I do suspect they are here, but they are willing to plant FUD in favor of BSD, against the GNU project, and in favor of Microsoft.
As far as I know OpenBSD is the only FOSS project out there with an actively audited codebase. Linux itself is far too large for such a task so the job of auditing falls to 'passive' auditors (ie people who do it more or less out of their spare time) and thus it's piss easy for things to fall through the cracks.
I mean /g/ is literally the only place I've ever seen OpenBSD NOT be considered a paragon of security so.
Reconsider Linux not being enough audited. Large yes, but is constantly tested, how else new bugs are found and talk in the news?
Of course, OpenBSD is considered secure, or better said it has a lot of propaganda of being secure, but it has a smaller userbase.
Again, is not about that, but that it benefits more big corp. Just take Darwin, Apple shills that Darwin is his way of promoting open source, but they really are benefiting their pockets. Not that I am against of that, but I rather use something with GPL on it that gives back to the community.
It's not perfect for the desktop yet - especially on the later intel chipsets. Progress is made from -current snapshot to snapshot, though.
It's far from being as bloated like Ubungu Gnulix.
It is secure as in secure and sane defaults - the rest is up to you.
Package management is quite ok.
You might have found out by now that installing it is a no-brainer.
Except if there's some proprietary Wifi-firmware to set up, but this also is manageable.
Did I say it forces the systemD down you throat? I didn't say that, because OpenBSD DOESN'T.
itt: shills shilling their counterattack on GNU
Not used to openbsd but coming from a freebsd environment I can tell you a main difference is location of some files, e.g. Linux puts the configuration files in /etc while freebsd puts in /usr/local/etc all configuration files for user installed software.
I also prefer the BDS booting system where I can just enter one line to enable/disable services at boot, rather than using systemD.
Other than that, there are differences in some commands which you might know from Linux and they won't be able in BSD by default (e.g. free).
Also, and this is something I can just report from other people, BSD is more similar to what old UNIX used to be
you can remove rdrand in the kernel, ARCH_RANDOM=n, or pass nordrand in the kernel, or run a deblobbed kernel.
I prefer the Linux kernel to that of the BSD kernels but both are quite nice. Certain BSDs haven't even been able to achieve full SMP support yet, although not OpenBSD. Primarily you'll find OpenBSD really slow, I don't think it uses ZFS like FreeBSD/PC-BSD. I'm not sure about security as I believe a hardened Gentoo with grsec and AppArmor definitions + ClamAV is far superior. pf is nice for BSD tho.
>Did I say it forces the systemD down you throat? I didn't say that, because OpenBSD DOESN'T.
True, systemD is not ported to BSD.
There are those of us who believe systemD has a rather shady origin and purpose.
This, but OpenBSD has a different filesystem structure than FreeBSD.
In OBSD, /etc, /etc/X11 are the configuration files.
I think only NetBSD is even more logically structured.
files=go to folders, sorry
I'm glad about the rc init system of OpenBSD. And while I do not necessarily believe systemd has a shady purpose, does have a shady guy behind it. Plus, think of all the dependencies systemd is creating already...
>but I rather use something with GPL on it that gives back to the community.
Let's not start license flamewar, please. What matters is the blobs in the projects and unaudited shit.
To all the GNUtards in this thread:
kek muh unix way babby detected, gnu tools try to be posix compliant you fucking nog
by comparison bsdgrep is a enormous piece of steaming shit and tools like sed fails to bound check. not saying the bsd userland isn't bad since bsd brought pf and jails which are elegant solutions to basic problems but claiming that the gnu userland is poor bc they are more meticulous about posix compliance is full of fucking shit.
Gnome is shit in general, but it's even worse in OpenBSD. KDE and Xfce are good bets. Fluxbox is as well, and then there's OpenBSD's own cwm.
BASH is fine for user accounts. Your scripts should be kept POSIX compliant anyway though, so shell is largely irrelevant, and merely a matter of personal taste. Don't change the default for root (ksh), ever. Not just in OpenBSD, but any *nix. Bad things can happen if you do.
I'd really like to have a proper, serious thread to discuss this, but I suppose it's not possible to have a serious discussion in this board.
I use systemd on Arch and I actually like the way it manages daemons (units), but really I don't understand how everyone is so content in letting it become such a dependency hoarder. It's contrary to what Linux has always seemed to me: modular and decoupled.
It's similar enough to Linux that you shouldn't be completely lost. As you use it you are going to realize that it is simplified compared to most of Linux, and it's designed to be very logical and straightforward.
The handbook is excellent, but it can be difficult to follow. By that I mean it's more reference than a howto. It is indispensible however, as it answers just about any question you may have. Absolute OpenBSD is also highly recomended, as it's a more beginner friendly guide. Those are literally the only two references you will ever need.
Be careful about information you find outside of them too. A lot of what you will find through Google is well intentioned, but inept.
>Implying the design is because of the license
I wonder who is behind this post.
No you dipshit the op stated what would be different if he switched from linux to BSD. The point was that if he moved all his GNU utils to BSD he wouldn't see much difference (ie the shell and GUI) the point being that unless you are doing low level kernel shit then not much is different. You missed that point and are now ranting about WM's.
A little reading, a lot of fun.
It's very useful tool have multiple, different, systems to work with from time to time.
Also, many of the big switches and storage systems run BSD on the backend. If you have one at work, it's important to know how to get around in BSD, and how it's different than Linux. Otherwise you're stuck with whatever bullshit their support feeds you, and not be able to check them, or counter them when they're full of shit. Which happens about half the time you have a support call sadly.
>Except if there's some proprietary Wifi-firmware to set up, but this also is manageable.
aka Broadcom wifi shit. I have to keep a usb dongle for the OpenBSD partition on my Mini10 because the on-board Broadcom wifi card isn't supported.
I wasn't talking about shell scripting, I was talking about using the shell as a daily driver.
I have my Zsh all set up to tell me the time in the prompt, and have the execution time of the last run command appear on the right side of the terminal. As far as I know you can't do that in Bash. Not to mention command completion (including argument completion for common commands, and package name completion for my package manager) and smart syntax highlighting.
Systemd is evil, so I choose to accept what you say without scepticism.
Doesn't your taskbar show you the time? Having to configure your shell to show you the time in the command prompt sounds pretty clumsy. Bash has tab completion, and Apt has package name completion.
Why do you want syntax highlighting in a command prompt if you're not doing scripting?
>Doesn't your taskbar show you the time?
When I have X open, sure.
I often don't.
>Having to configure your shell to show you the time in the command prompt sounds pretty clumsy.
In ZSH it's a single control character. In Bash, and I've looked this up, you basically have to configure it to run the date command every single time it prints a line, and then take the time from that output and put it in the prompt. Which is pretty clumsy.
>Why do you want syntax highlighting in a command prompt if you're not doing scripting?
You must not be understanding how adept Zsh's syntax highlighting is.
It'll highlight if the command you've typed is invalid before you even hit enter. If you type "cd" followed by an invalid directory Zsh will highlight that directory in red. If you type a command that doesn't exist it'll be red - it'll turn green once you type something valid.
Not to mention automatic completion for man pages and whatnot.
And Bash's actual tab completion can't hold a candle to Zsh's. In Bash, if the completed command is ambiguous it'll just shove the potential commands into your terminal and then put everything on a new line. Zsh is actually dynamic, putting the suggestions below the line and moving your prompt back to where it was once you don't need the suggestions anymore.
Oh there's some Wordpress blog run by a dipshit who's life mission is apparently to convince the world not to use the BSDs. He's not only wrong about everything he discusses, the fact that they aren't used very widespread has went completely over his head too. I mean, he's basically on a holy crusade against something that very few people care about to begin with. The ones who do care about any of the BSDs, know how full of shit he is and aren't going to be swayed by him. The vast majority of all people who don't care, uh, don't care, so it's unclear what he's hoping to achieve.
The anti-BSD stuff here usually parrots him verbatim.
>When I have X open, sure. I often don't.
Why would you do that? Browsing files by the CLI is pretty cumbersome. Not to mention dangerous.
>In ZSH it's a single control character
I was talking about the whole idea of having the current time in your prompt. Does it update in real time, or it just shows you the current time at the moment it prints the prompt?
> If you type "cd" followed by an invalid directory Zsh will highlight that directory in red.
That sounds pretty awesome, actually. I wonder if there's a way to do that in Bash.
>because some programs don't return anything,
to be POSIX compliant they should.
>some commands dont run programs.
But they should return an exit status. look at ``cd'' for example.
>Why would you do that? Browsing files by the CLI is pretty cumbersome. Not to mention dangerous.
Maybe it's dangerous for someone who doesn't know what they're doing.
>I was talking about the whole idea of having the current time in your prompt. Does it update in real time, or it just shows you the current time at the moment it prints the prompt?
The moment it prints the prompt, but because zsh redraws the prompt every time the dimensions of the terminal change it's usually relatively accurate - a simple 'clear' refreshes it.
>That sounds pretty awesome, actually. I wonder if there's a way to do that in Bash.
The way to do it in Bash is to use Bash to install Zsh. Zsh is backwards-compatible with Bash anyway, so there really isn't any reason to be using Bash.
If you keep shilling zsh, I'm gonna have to try it out as a daily driver. Zsh is the default shell for the arch installation medium (AKA my rescue disk) and it's so fucking god tier
>Maybe it's dangerous for someone who doesn't know what they're doing.
Yes. They're called "humans".
>The moment it prints the prompt
That sounds kind of dangerous if you're relying on it for your daily activities. If anything, it's bound to be annoying: you'd end up developing a twitch of resizing/typing empty commands just to check the time.
>The way to do it in Bash is to use Bash to install Zsh.
Yeah, maybe I'll give it a try.
There's actually two widely known bullshit blog posts by different people. One of which was written by a guy called Trollaxor. Yes, the guy's who's blog posts are flat out satire. And people believe him.
>Yes. They're called "humans".
>That sounds kind of dangerous if you're relying on it for your daily activities. If anything, it's bound to be annoying: you'd end up developing a twitch of resizing/typing empty commands just to check the time.
I mean I have a watch for a reason. Putting the time in the prompt was more a convenience than anything else.
>Yeah, I think you're trolling. Nice bait though.
Well, explain to me then how browsing files via CLI is 'dangerous'?
>Yeah, good troll. Bye.
I'm not trolling at all. I got tired of having to use my phone as a timepiece so a bought a watch. Seiko Chronograph, looks pretty nice although the second hand stops after about ten minutes, which is weird, and it isn't connected to the minute/hour hands, which is weirder.
They might not print anything on standard out or standard error, but they do return. Even if you don't specify it, the OS implies one. So does C. It's good form to do it explicitly though.
This is a fun read. Or for me it is, so maybe if you're a borderline autist like me it's fun.
>Linux shills. (they do it for free)
Linuxfags are lying babies that throw tantrums if someone is discussing anything other than linux. The are the most technically incompetent morons in the entire software ecosystem and every single one of them is a tranny. The reason they constantly whine like bitches is because their are bitches. Their chosen "operation system", isn't even a operating system. It is so shoddy and of such poor quality that it literally cannot be used for anything else than whining on the internet. It actually miraculously that they even managed to do that considering the average intelligence of its users which is just slightly north of retarded sloth trying to shove a coconut up it's own ass.
Their response to what I've wrote will be wholly void of anything but memes. This is to be expected as they can't comprehend anything that I've written here.
Copyright (c) 2009 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire page are permitted provided this notice is preserved.
On a well built Unix system, you can run rm -rf / as a normal user, and only lose what's in $HOME, and what your user created in /tmp.
Anyone saying it's dangerous to browse files as a normal user is trolling or absolutely ignorant.
Don't be an idiot. GNU/Linux users love *BSD. There's a minor disagreement over its license because BSD licenses can be used in non-free programs and we're more of the mind that our code should remain free for more people to use, modify, and learn from while remaining free, but what the fuck ever, man.
I fucking love *BSD and would love to see it grow even more in use alongside GNU/Linux. Anything to get people off of fucking Windows and Macs is great.
Maybe you as a singular person do but the majority of the linux community are like a upset toddler that only uses linux because they hate microsoft. Its also evident that they cannot comprehend any other choice then linux, which leads me to the conclusion that they are mentally deficient. My previous post was of course a exaggeration, but the facts I've stated above still remain.
/g/ is not a representation of the majority of the GNU/Linux community, and neither is any of the other meme discussion sites you have gleamed this bullshit from.
Any decent GNU/Linux user loves *BSD, and as I said, is only contentious with its licence to the point of many *BSD users not quite understanding the GNU/Linux point of view of the GPL. I perfectly understand the BSD license point of view, but I disagree with it to the point where I wouldn't use it in anything I wrote, as would many GNU/Linux users. Many *BSD users, however, are more of the mind that the GPL is just "wrong" somehow, and it's frustrating that they can't quite understand that it's good but just not something they want to use or support.
This may be what you see as being an "upset toddler", and the reason for hating Microsoft should be apparent to anyone with half a goddamn brain anyway.
TCP/IP stack in BSD is basically the reference implementation. It was straight up copy pasted in a lot of OSes and a lot of large internet companies still have systems running BSDs to this day.
And this is the BSD attitude that makes GNU/Linux advocates upset. It's childish and stupid and yet you blame GNU/Linux advocates for being childish and stupid for arguing that you are closed-minded and foolish.
Majority of people ranting on /g that you happen to notice, maybe.
I know many Linux users IRL, and at their drunkest raving worst, they're nothing like that about BSD.
4chan is not representative of Linux users. Hopefully not of humanity in general, but that's beside the point.
You know what's upsetting? Seeing a bunch of freetards tout how their shitty license is freedom. Tell me anon, how can you be free when you are not free to not release source code?
Most *BSD users do understand the "GNU/Linux point of view of the GPL", they just wholly disagree with that view. This inability to understand differences is what makes most linux users a "upset toddler" because they cannot comprehend someone having a different view then them and badger them continual about it, like a toddler not getting its way would.
>... hating microsoft ...
Yes its obvious, yet that has nothing to do with linux in any way. To me its about never using any created by them because they've proven they cannot be trusted, but I wouldn't call that hate. On the other hand "whatever it takes", luckily I've never had to go that far.
And this, again, shows that many BSD users are childish and dumb.
Are you fucking stupid? I just said the realism of that is completely the opposite of what you said. And the person I'm replying to above is EXACTLY the proof of that. GNU/Linux users DO understand the BSD license, we just don't like it and don't agree with it, but we allow it and are happy to use and support it.
The BSD users are the crybabies that can't understand the GPL and whine like a little bitch when confronted with it.
Honestly, this thread could be fucking framed and put up as 100% proof that BSD users that whine about GNU/Linux users are, in fact, the babies.
Thread fucking over. I'm done discussing things with a group of people whining about license choices when I'm trying to be fucking diplomatic and tell you that *BSD and GNU/Linux fighting is pointless, but when you're being a little brat about it, there's no point.
And the whole of Microsoft is that they actively try to destroy all of us. Common enemy and so on. So pull your head out of your ass and understand that we're all in this together and whining about licenses is fucking stupid.
Free software movement sees the world as divided into free/open source software and proprietary software.
BSDs see it divided into permissively licensed software and restricted software and GPL falls under the latter category.
Well, I'm sorry that I'm trying to illustrate the goddamn problem here and that you are all beautifully illustrating that very problem thus proving I'm right.
You know, sometimes you just need to step back and accept that there are people that have had infinitely more experience in things than you have. I've worked personally and professionally with both GNU/Linux and *BSD for over 15 years, and this is what I have experienced personally both online and in the real world.
So how about a little respect, okay? Because someone that has just been in a little niche being told one thing doesn't get the actual, full story.
And now you are throwing a over emotional tantrum like a toddler would because someone disagrees with you. This is what I meant when describing linux users as a upset toddlers. And you seem to have whined about microsoft yet again, yes they are dicks, but whining doesn't change that.
You should read my last post >>52911819 and then get a handle on your emotions, and then tell me how you feel about (pic related). Have a great day.