*BSD General Thread
Discuss FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, DragonFlyBSD, PC-BSD, OPNsense, FreeNAS...
IRC: irc.rizon.net #baot
News: http://freebsdnews.net | http://undeadly.org | http://dragonflydigest.com
Are you a Linux user wondering about why someone might choose BSD?
Give this a read: https://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/01
Ask questions, get answers.
I've used freebsd, openbsd, and even dragonflybsd on my laptop before and they're great systems. I'm currently a linuxfag, but *BSD feels so clean. I just wish they had more desktop support.
Must be pretty shit engineers then, considering the mess that is the kernel code and the number of security vulnerabilities.
Not to mention the disastrous state their intel graphics support is. Fucking dragonflybsd has been lapping them for over a year now.
It does have plenty of desktop support, at least for what I use my computer for. They may lack drivers, though.
My dream is to have a decent hypervisor (bhyve) that could do PCI passthrough on Windows guests (soon?), so I could finally delete my Windows partition and game on virtual machines.
Yet the other operating systems do more than just jerk off about security. The fact is that OpenBSD is only secure because there is actually very little functionality in the base install. Once you run Apache, Nginx, Mariadb etc. you are no longer using code they audit or care about. Also don't even try to compare pledge to selinux or grsecurity - it's a fucking joke.
In reality security is a lot more than squashing bugs in the base system and ignoring all 3rd party applications. You have to take into account a lot more when it comes to enterprise situations (which is where all the vital information is).
No, it is not in userspace - that implementation was abandoned years ago.
Furthermore both FreeBSD and the ZFS on Linux project pull from the upstream OpenZFS project.
How can you be so opinionated while knowing jack shit about this topic?
you clearly don't know what you're talking about
openbsd has it's own httpd in base, and it works well enough that i don't need to install apache and nginx
>inb4 you link me that allthatiswrong post
I prefer OpenBSD, but FreeBSD is excellent too. If I needed a fairly complicated setup for a server or a server farm I'd go with it. For a desktop, basic server, or router I'd choose OpenBSD. For goofing off--like say watching movies-I'd take FreeBSD over it too, but really something Linux distro like Mint is better for that. If I was doing something that required or relied on high performance, again I'd go with FreeBSD.
I do think OpenBSD has a lot more potential as an OS. It's just that the devs focus on exactly what they want from it, and don't care about anything else.
Well, full desktop readiness isn't an attribute I'd lightheartedly give out to OpenBSD, but it's slowly catching on with chipset support.
I'm running -current and my reason: because Gnulix likes taking the systemD.
Ubloatu takes the systemD
Ache gnulix takes the systemD
OpenBSD's replacement for nginix/apache is unusable for anything complex.
That is the pattern with OpenBSD, they strip shit down so it's usable at a hobbyist level, but nothing more.
It really depends on your requirements. OpenBSD has less features but they can be expected to work well and Linux has a lot of features that can only be expected to half-work well, if that makes any sense. I like to think of it as quality versus quantity.
That's kind of the point of Dragonfly though. It's supposed to focus on taking advantage of modern hardware. I haven't tried it yet, but I've been meaning to. From what I've read about it, it sounds interesting, and BSD does desperately need some modernization. Hammer sounds pretty interesting too.
If sticking to basic features of OpenBSD http is "hobbyist", I don't want to be professional.
I bet you think 50 megabytes of flavorOfTheWeek.js sounds like a good idea. Let the user guess which of the 30 domains he has to allow in noscript to read the text.
Most of openbsd devs are network infrastructure types. It's perfectly servicable for building cgi interfaces for that type of stuff.
For heavy web apps and the like, freebsd is probably a better choice, esp since jails lets you try out a thousand different set ups at no cost and without shitting up your actual OS.
Yeah, I don't know what the fuck he's talking about.
OpenBSD's httpd seems to have all the features you would normally need. It can serve web pages, supports TLS, can do CGI, and various other features like directory listing.
Hell, configuring it is not fucking hell unlike other web servers.
I kind of want to throw OpenBSD on one of my spare laptops, but the one thing I don't recall being able to do in OpenBSD that works in Linux is the console framebuffer. It's been a few years though, but I recall in Linux you'd append VGA=791 (1024x768, I think) to your boot loader config.
Is this a thing in OpenBSD now?
If you have either an Intel chip or Radeon chip, you should have a high res console by default.
The font they use looks like fucking shit though, I tried changing it by recompiling the kernel and I honest to god couldn't find a way to get the standard VGA font.
Though for some reason there were plenty of other strange fonts, like the Sony one.
If it's somewhat old it should work. Keep in mind the ramdisk kernel (aka the installer) does NOT come with that on by default, possibly for compatibility reasons.
DARPA funding wasn't the issue. That was not at all a secret. Both DARPA and the OpenBSD project publicly acknowledged that funding. Bear in mind they also lost that funding due to his outspoken views on the Iraq War, so it's not like he's bffs with DARPA.
Open source projects like OpenBSD rely on contributions from companies, universities, and yes, even governments. There's no reason to single one out for it, when all major open source projects do likewise.
The issue was that the FBI allegedly got one or more of the developers to sneak a backdoor into the OpenBSD Cryptographic Framework, sometime around the year 2000. Theo De Raadt was the one who made the allegation public to begin with. A technical consultant to the FBI (or claiming to be at least) informed him of it via email, and he almost immediately made that email public.
Since he's the one in charge of the project, that's a good indication that neither he, nor the project itself were complicit in sneaking in any backdoors, nor were they trying to hide anything. Had that been the case, he would have kept the email to himself, and we likely wouldn't be discussing the issue right now.
He responded to the allegation by calling for an audit (audits are routine in OpenBSD anyway) of the code, and encouraged others to independently audit it. To date, no evidence of any backdoors have been found. Theo himself says that he believes the FBI did attempt it, and that former members of the development were paid off, but failed to actually get it into the OpenBSD tree for whatever reason. He also said that it's possible that it ended up in a third party product instead.
Again, if he, or OpenBSD had something to hide, why would he be so open, and forthright about it, when he had no reason to bring it up at all? It seems to me that the best way to keep a secret backdoor a secret, is to not give anyone reason to think it might exist in the first place.
Theo even said he didn't like the idea of receiving government funding AFAIK.
As for the FBI backdoor claims, those came completely out of nowhere by some guy who contributed to the project in the early 2000's, and there was no proof that it was really him emailing about the backdoor.
Except the point of FreeBSD is to be a general purpose operating system.
Kind of sad that OpenBSD has them beat on that point.
Thank you anon for finally giving an intelligent answer re: openbsd botnet allegations. Some faggot on here always posts stuff about openbsd being backdoored. Your post makes the most sense from what I've heard.
Got access to a 12 core/32 GB RAM computer w/o OS it want to use for physical simulations.
I am now debating to install OpenBSD/FreeBSD or Fedora/Debian Linux, headless that is.
Why should I install either.
If it's a headless offline computer, I'd give FreeBSD the try. Might compare the performance to OpenBSD though, and if equal or even better (don't know), I'd stick to the latter.
I'd love to have that machine of yours for myself.
If your desktop has an UltraSPARC CPU, OpenBSD is actually more mature than pretty much any Linux distro, and far more modern than the versions of Solaris that still support SPARC.
Would that also be true for pic related? It's a
Sun Fire v890.