BSD And Other Things

>>55999879
When is OpenBSD getting mandatory access control?

>>55999917
will you ever get rangebanned?

>>56000147
I'm a different anon. MAC on OpenBSD is a genuine issue.

>>56000530
you do know that MACs fucking suck right?

no one turns SELinux on, ever

How good is the linux compatibility layer on freebsd? Also is openbsd removing it in 6.0?

>>56000744
>Also is openbsd removing it in 6.0?
yes

FreeBSD updater vulnerable to attack since May, no fix upstream.

http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2016/q3/255

>>55999879
Why BSD over Linux?

>>56000753
are we doing this to spite the freebsd retard who kept claiming it was more secure

>>56000774
At least FreeBSD has no FBI backdoors

>>56000752
Well that's unfortunate. I've been wanting to try out openbsd but I also want my software to work on it. Any alternatives besides virtual machines?

Can you rice bsd

>>56000947
>>56000744
>Also is openbsd removing it in 6.0?
Yes but if you used the AMD64 build it was never supported to begin with. Linux compatibly was i386 only

>>56000947
No but OpenBSD is getting kernel based hypervisor soon which should improve the performance with VMs

>>56000731
SELinux is also the worst MAC there is.
Apparmor is easy and effective, if it's the same config stuff anyone can build configs for their stuff

>>56001060
Freebsd says it's supported on amd64 though? I don't know I'm new to this.
>>56001079
Why not just port over qemu or bhyve?

>>56000753

What the fuck is FreeBSD doing? I need to switch to Open pronto.

>>56000947
This is gonna sound rude, but why were you using proprietary Linux software?

>>56001175
FreeBSD and OpenBSD are not the same operating systems.

They have a common ancestor, that's about it.

>>56001175
OpenBSD's vmd/vmm hypervisor is roughly analogous to "KVM" from linux. It's being designed to mimic KVM to allow QEMU and other virtual machine managers to run with few modifications. There's probably some reason they didn't use Bhyve, maybe they weren't satisfied with how it was implemented or maybe it would have required too much work to justify so they just went ahead and made their own.

Do keep in mind each BSD is its own operating system. They're not closely related like GNU/Linux's distros are.

File: Capture.png (893KB, 1142x807px) Image search: [Google]

893KB, 1142x807px

>>56001325
>There's probably some reason they didn't use Bhyve, maybe they weren't satisfied with how it was implemented or maybe it would have required too much work to justify so they just went ahead and made their own.

Looks like I was basically right

http://bhyvecon.org/bhyvecon2016-Mike.pdf

>>56001285
I don't know. I just got a new wifi card and a nas system, I was worried if it wouldn't work. Do open source alternatives to these exist?

>>56001431
I don't understand your question.

You mean do open source drivers exist for your wi-fi card? If it's not broadcom, chances are it exists.

>>56001456
Yeah. Thanks, I'll look into it. Ty lads.

>>56001486
http://man.openbsd.org/OpenBSD-current/man4/pci.4
Here's something that might help.

If it's usb, search for usb instead and you'll find some more info there.

>>56001055
Sure you can. One of the default available WMs for OpenBSD is CWM and it's the best WM there ever was.

>>56001543
this

and i love how it's inspired by plan 9

So after reading a bit of Absolute OpenBSD I now have a decent install and it doesn't feel so alien anymore. I'm happy
>>56001543
oh nice, I didn't know about CWM, I don't really like that FVWM thing that came by default when I start X and already installed i3. I'll give cwm a try

The 6.0 hype is real.

which bsd should i use for a webserver, mailserver, dns, etc? does it matter?

>>56003082
openbsd

their httpd isn't really proven yet but it's beautiful to use

I like Linux better because it actually has software

>>56003963
openbsd users generally don't have any desire to use closed source software anyway (insecure, impossible to audit, care about software freedom, etc)

and, well, freebsd users are generally fine with closed source so they'll happily use the nvidia driver or proprietary linux programs through the emulator

>>56004750
>mmuh open sores
Your loss

>>56003625
Their smtpd is fucking excellent.

>>56003963
If that's your reasoning, install Windows.

>>56006153
Nah, I like Linux

>>56003963
Most of the software I use works both on linux and BSD, it's pretty rare to find software which doesn't work on both.

>>56000754
license.
BSD appeals to people who want to keep their code changes to themselves(and distribute that on own terms). These are a specific group of HW manufacturers.
another group is data centers with very specific needs.
I don't know and can't think of a 3rd type of user for BSD. If they do, they just end up being lab rats testing code.

>>56000530
>MAC on OpenBSD is a genuine issue
no it's not.

the only reason SELinux exists is because the federal government requires MAC on most of their systems, so it is a virtue of necessity.

mac isn't the answer for printer firmware, IoT, embedded shit, smart things, and all this next generation of turds.

>>56000754
I don't know if you're expecting a real answer
You *could* try and use FreeBSD or even OpenBSD, but if it doesn't fit your needs or your workflow, don't come back crying and complaining
>hurr durr I tried to do * and it was absolute shit!
we are not begging you to use any of the BSDs, and if you want to use them, you should be willing to accomodate to the standards of the community.
See, there is quite a cultural breach between BSD and the rest of the world, apparently. In linux there is a whole lot of hand-holding. They wipe your ass if needed because they're doing it for THE CAUSE, bringing more people into a decent system from a culture that has even more hand-holding and a shitload of user restrictions, including hiding everything and having you obliviously clicking around in your MSOffice safe space.
Don't get me wrong, Linux is great, I started out with Systemd/GNU/Linux distributions and that's how I learned a lot until I came to detest how it's put together. But that's just me. If you, say, like to use Gnome/Systemd, go ahead, BSDs don't support systemd so don't come and expect it to be there.
The BSDs expect users to be able to think for themselves, to try and solve their problems and rtfm before coming and crying that driver X doesn't work for them, or that 'lspci' isn't there.
That's what I mean by UNIX philosophy right there: UNIX has a way of doing things, that doesn't rely on soft words and your own personal support team to take your hand and get you where you want with the minimum effort. You are expected to leverage the power of UNIX's simplicity and work out a solution for your own and learn about the system along the way.
That's why there's no "Ask FreeBSD" Stack Exchange.

>>56013698
This is not to say that you're on your own though, you just gotta be willing to learn, that's why I like the BSDs: a single consistent system in which the components are not moving targets, so I can focus on what I want to learn/do.
Systemd/GNU/Linux has a much bigger community and much more enterprise support so that your problems can be fixed and the system is made to accomodate to your needs. This wasn't always the case and in the first year, Linux was something that only highly skilled computer users could put together.
In a way it's good that the BSDs remain somewhat in the obscurity. They don't really lack support but the entry threshold is enough that we don't have kids just doing mayhem.

>>56013698
>>56013798

Amen my friend.

>>56013698
It isn't hand holding, there just aren't any people that know how to use BSD so there is nobody to ask.

So do I have less of a chance of getting hacked if I use OpenBSD compared to say Ubuntu?

>>56015954
You can make linux as secure as openbsd, but that requires you to have to install all the parts on your own and to make it secure by yourself, which can be a hassle. Openbsd is functional and secure out of the box, you don't need to add anything.

one thing i really like about openbsd is how recompiling parts of the system is just so convenient

i needed a cross-assembler so i just got the binutils from the src/gnu directory and i was ready to go, no need to use gmake either as openbsd wrote makefiles that wrap around the GNU makefiles

FreeBSD "security"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12261347

File: Screenshot_2016-08-09_16-16-09.png (141KB, 838x434px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 838x434px

> cuck license and other things

>>56016852
god i hate colin

File: art.jpg (41KB, 478x348px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 478x348px

Just stopping in to bump this thread for you guys.

>>56016852

horrible excuses

File: wolf.jpg (25KB, 360x479px)

25KB, 360x479px

>install DragonFlyBSD
>no afterboot(8)

>>56018878
>openbsd has a list of supported hardware in its man pages
>the others dont

>>56000754

I'll answer from a more technical culture side, since the other replies seemed to focus on community culture.

To use Eric Raymond's terms, BSD is more of a Cathedral than Linux.

With Linux, you can mix and match everything. Linux is the epitome of the bazaar. This is not bad, but it can make for a really inconsistent system. Documentation is often oudated or lacking, and people make it work through "temporary" hacks and massive trial-and-error. It's chaotic and adds support for new things fast, but not always in the most stable way.

The BSDs have a clearly separated core system that is all developed by one (smaller) team. This means that development happens slower, but once something is supported, it is solid and reliable. There's less endless twiddling and sacrificing children to Satan attempting to make things work. If something doesn't work, you just report and move on. Documentation tends to be much better, as the writers of the manuals can assume much more about the system as a whole and give more helpful information. Better coordination in the base system also leads to much less duplicate functionality among different tools. The result is a system that feels much more comprehensible and sane to use.

A BSD system feels "designed" whereas a Linux system feels "accumulated".

>>56019332
Honestly that's not the reason I use BSD, I use BSD because the userland is better for interactive command line use.

>openbsd drops armish to focus more on armv7
yesss

does this mean we'll finally have binary ARM packages?