BSD General

Wanting to try BSD out, thinking of starting with PC BSD, coming from Debian. What do I need to know?

>>56293489
PC-BSD is the Ubuntu of BSDs. Just start out with OpenBSD or FreeBSD.

>>56293489
There is significantly less software, but if the linux software in question is libre, you can easily compile it for *BSD if there is not already a port of it. Very popular software like firefox will already have a port.

>>56293508
PC-BSD is FreeBSD, but more usage of the GUI. PC-BSD is more the linux mint of BSDs because of how simple it is for newbies to understand it.

>>56293510
Just to clarify, what I mean by less software I'm specifically referring to proprietary software. If lets say your NIC card has only proprietary drivers and firmware and doesn't offer a driver for *BSD, you're out of luck for getting it to work with *BSD.

>>56293567
That's exactly why I called it the Ubuntu of BSDs.

>>56293567
If you want proprietary software, use Windows.

>>56293508
>BSD
>OpenBSD

>No Zfs
>No Linux compatibility
>No WINE
>No jails
>No Mac
>No proprietary wifi drivers
>No proprietary sound drivers
>No proprietary bluetooth drivers
>No proprietary graphics drivers
>Less software than Linux
>Ports unaudited
>No qbittorrent
>No rutorrent
>No Steam/Skype/VMware/anything
>No KVM passthrough
>No security audits in ports
>No docker containers
>No Wayland
>No NetworkManager

Only autism

>>56292404
Someone explain me how BSD is different from Linux or Unix?

>>56294124
>No Zfs
So what?
>No Linux compatibility
So what?
>No WINE
If I wanted to run Windows software I'd be running Windows.
>No jails
So what?
>No Mac
So what?
>No proprietary wifi drivers
So what?
>No proprietary sound drivers
So what?
>No proprietary bluetooth drivers
So what?
>No proprietary graphics drivers
So what?
>Less software than Linux
Everything I used in Linux works in OpenBSD.
>Ports unaudited
So what?
>No qbittorrent
So what?
>No rutorrent
So what?
>No Steam/Skype/VMware/anything
So what?
>No KVM passthrough
So what?
>No security audits in ports
So what?
>No docker containers
Good
>No Wayland
So what?
>No NetworkManager
wiconfig

>>56294166
BSD is Unix, Linux is designed to function like Unix.

>>56294180
screencaped

>>56294208
cool

>>56294180
Why would I care to use BSD if it is basically outdated with less features?

>>56293489
Almost any other small BSD out there is going to be derived from FreeBSD somehow. FreeBSD has the largest support and is the most 'linux like' out of the BSD'S. If you want a BSD which will feel familiar to you, then try FreeBSD. If you want the True UNIX Experience (tm) then try OpenBSD.

>>56294124
>No proprietary wifi drivers
>No proprietary sound drivers
>No proprietary bluetooth drivers
>No proprietary graphics drivers
>No docker containers

Literally who gives a shit about any of this stuff? Are you just listing any random bullshit you can think of just to make BSD look bad?

>>56294824
Because you want to use it. Don't want to use it? Don't fucking use it. It's not rocket science.

>>56294166
Its basically a hobbyist version of Linux that never took off because of the licensing restrictions.

>>56295154
0/10

>>56295183
Was I wrong?
Hobbyists have to port things from Linux to BSD because the license restricts contributions.
Its basically a poor imitation of Linux that nobody cares about because of the license.

>>56295238
>hobbyist version of Linux
If anything it'd be proper to say Linux is a more successful clone of BSD. Don't go taking like Linux came first. Eat a dick, you're the shittiest tripfaggot on /g/. Why do you actively go to threads just to shit on things you don't like? My god you're fucking cancerous, just hide the fucking thread.

>4wes0mE
Reminder that /BSD/ is my shitposting zone only, gentoofag.

>>56295085
yes

he literally never understood what he was talking about

funny thing is he used to shit on us for making BSD threads but now he does it himself, because he's barneyfag

>>56294124
>muh proprietary drivers
and i bet you're the fucking idiot who keeps going "cuck license xD"

>No Zfs
you mean the filesystem that's only good for datacenters?
>No Linux compatibility
harmful
>No WINE
harmful
>No jails
no one but you cares
>No Mac
turned off by most people in operating systems that do have it
>No proprietary wifi drivers
good
>No proprietary sound drivers
good
>No proprietary bluetooth drivers
good
>No proprietary graphics drivers
good
>Less software than Linux
not really
>Ports unaudited
so are packages in linux distros
>No qbittorrent
port it yourself and stop coming into every thread to say this
>No rutorrent
you saw that guy who was struggling with rutorrent on openbsd because of the chrooted httpd so now you say there's no rutorrent, you're a fucking idiot
>No Steam/Skype/VMware/anything
all shit in their linux incarnations
>No KVM passthrough
ok
>No security audits in ports
see above
>No docker containers
and?
>No Wayland
freebsd doesn't have it either yet you seem to love it
>No NetworkManager
>wanting freedesktop shit

Have you ever notice that there's just this one really bitter poster on /g/ who is a BSD evangelist?

They want everyone to know why their OS choice is better and are hypersensitive to any criticism whatsoever.

It's a bad look. It's almost like you don't want people to use BSD.

I've probably used and contributed to BSDs more than you have, and your attitude isn't really representative of the BSD community. You're the real cancer here, friend.

>>56296407
Have you ever notice that there's just this one really bitter poster on /g/ who really hates BSD?

So much in fact that they post in the threads every day with the same shitposts?

Wayland when?

>>56296522
dragonfly ported it but it's experimental

How well do BSDs' init systems perform in comparison to Systemd?

>>56296779
the openbsd one seems to have become really good the past few releases, i don't know if it's just me or what

it boots up pretty fast

>>56292404
>Linux's success
>success
kek

>>56292404
www.cio.com/article/3112582/linux/linus-torvalds-says-gpl-was-defining-factor-in-linuxs-success.html

>>56296900
>Some people love the BSD license. Some people love the proprietary licenses. I understand that. If you want to make a program and you want to feed your kids, it makes a lot of sense to have a proprietary license and sell binaries. I think it makes less sense today, but I really understand the argument. I don't want to judge. I'm just giving my view on licensing.

>>56296935
What a wise man, with wide views.

Too bad he doesn't judge, he could be a great GPL WARRIOR

Do Gnome/KDE's network and sound widgets work with FreeBSD?

Since afaik it doesn't have NetworkManager or Pulseaudio.

>>56297267
I think they support OSS for the sound.

Don't know about network widgets, since I never used them.

Are Dragonfly's defaults as stupid as FreeBSD's? It sounds pretty cool so I want to try it out.

How is battery life?

>>56297896
On par with Windows actually. I don't notice a difference between XP, OpenBSD, and Linux (XP's all I can compare it to, it's the only Windows I run on bare metal)

>>56297896
should be sane if you turn on apm

>>56297727
Oh, I ran into a bit of a problem.

xorg-minimal wants me to install Clang. I'm not too comfortable with having two compilers on my system. Can I turn that off?

>>56298060
probably not, mesa depends on clang for gallium among other things

what's the problem with having two compilers?

>>56298168
it just doesn't seem necessary, openbsd has been building Xorg with GCC 4.2.1 for years

>>56298060
>try to install xorg-minimal from ports
>it pulls in bash
good fucking god just port xenocara over or something

>>56295143
/thread

>>56295143
>tfw the openbsd FAQ says almost exactly this
>you still have the shitposter that comes in every day to say "UM WHY SHOULD I USE BSD"

>>56298583
So no reasons?

Such an irrelevant OS. You don't care if you are not able to run mainstream free/non-free software because you use them in windows and osx. Yet you pretend to use BSD


Will BSD ever come to desktop like Linux did?
No
WIll Linux continue to progreess
Yes

>>56299005
>linux
>coming to the desktop
nice me.me

even linus torvalds says it has always struggled there

>>56299005
Because you want to is a reason, fuckface.

>>56299014
That's a VERY quick reply. Regardless read more carefully

So what's this about FreeBSD having security problems? I want a home server, but OpenBSD looks like a junkyard.

>>56294180
>no docker containers
>good

NEET detected.

>>56299712
bad defaults and the updating script/program itself has security flaws

>>56299725
>everyone with a job needs a computer for it
I love this meme

I just use linux when it's easier and use Windows for non linux software, I don't care about licensing much
What is easy to do in BSD that isn't so in linux?

If the answer is that I should care or don't need those things in other OS's I'll just laugh

>>56300276
you don't need to post this in two threads

>>56300297
I was actually curious and realized the other thread is just for shitposting

>>56300317
well what i like about it is that it just stays the fuck out of my way

linux used to do that but it has been getting so bad lately

>>56300328
Don't know what that means.

>>56300365
most of the configuration in the BSDs is done through text files

distros like debian tend to have ncurses menus for a lot of shit that really shouldn't have one, and now there's all the freedesktop garbage

>>56296279
>>Less software than Linux
>not really
That's not a correct answer, it either has more, or less software available for it than linux

>>56300383
There's plenty of conf files and such you can play with in linux. What can only be done via a menu?

>>56300403
update-alternatives

and then there's the fact that the distros all do this shit differently, it just gets on my nerves

the BSDs tend to be more consistent

>>56300413
You mean a different repository? But that can be changed in terminal

>>56296935
Lol, I hate this contrarian two faced asshole. In one video he talked about how he loved the BSD license and how it promoted complete freedom, and then in another article he shittalks it and call it a bad license.

>>56301380
well he contradicted himself pretty much in the same article

maybe it was just a sensationalist headline, i don't know

>>56301395
This isn't even the first time he did it, which is why it pisses me off. Both Linus and Richard contradict themselves on a regular basis.

https://jcs.org/notaweblog/2016/08/26/openbsd_chromebook
oh neat, can't wait for the particular sound hardware to be supported

its making me consider a chromebook for the future

>>56294180
>>56295143
>>56298583
>>56299005
This is the perfect BSD mentality that tries to selectively ignore all software made in the last 20 years.

>I need this particular software
>Well, I don't, because I'm a loser, so nobody else does, we have to throw it out

next you'll "so what" drivers because they aren't "elegant" or some stupid shit like that. I mean all drivers ever made. so you're essentially going back to the 60s where software was made for one platform. bsdrones are neo-luddites.

Every BSD post that's over 100 words on all forums and websites always gets to the fact that there's zero software and tries to account for that with "I don't need that so nobody else does". okay, you're a loser.

BSD is contrarian cs dropout shit where you just pretend to use the base system and insist it's superior to linux. there's literally no other use because there is no software, drivers, anything.

>>56302343
almost none of the posts you quoted have anything to do with what you just posted

>>56302343
I haven't selectively ignored anything, you fucking moron.

>>56302297
>its making me consider a chromebook for the future

Don't. They're shitty laptops that aren't good for anything other than web browsing and basic document work.

>>56296779
BSD uses SysV iirc, which functions similarly to systemd in a couple of ways. Idk if they changed it or not.

>>56302918
Do you know what you're replying to? Obviously he isn't going to use Chrome OS on it

>>56303171
I'm posting about the hardware, smartass.

>>56302895

Suck my cock you faggot

>>56303250
no u

File: 353606.png (28KB, 473x500px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 473x500px

>>56303250
>telling men to suck his cock whilst calling them the faggot

>>56303211
Do you really consider browsing the web as lightweight compared to programming?

>>56303558
Yes I actually do, considering the fact that I can do it on a shitty intel atom netbook.

>Linux
>Success
Choose one

>>56303929
Are you running some monster setup? Vim and a compiler are pretty light

>>56295154
Troll harder. BSD is over a decade older than Linux. BSD is about as Unix as you can get nowadays, except for rarities like Solaris. It's so Unix that the *inventors* of Unix adopted a huge amount of BSD code into Unix. AT&T fucked BSD when they sued BSD for copyright infringement over all the BSD code that AT&T had copied into Unix (ur-Unix, not the "pay us $1m and we'll license you the trademark" Unix) - at the same time that Linus started working on his kernel.

Of the BSD's, OpenBSD remains the most true to the original spirit. Poettering cucks hate BSD because they want Windows but don't want to be *seen* wanting Windows, and BSD's existence exposes their hypocrisy.

>>56305377
Nah I'm using a PC that's just under $500. I don't use it for anything much except some basic programming, listening to music, the internet and watching anime.

>>56305566
>Replying to tripfags

>>56305566
>it's so Unix that the *inventors * of Unix adopted a huge amount of BSD code into Unix

Just stop. AT&T created the original UNIX system, it was designed to be a free, completely open source system which evolved with the needs of the university's students at the time. AT&T later closed the source code and decided to sell UNIX to enterprises for a really expensive price which the University of California didn't like, so they took the old AT&T code, replaced it completely with their own and decided to call it the Berkley Software Distribution in order to differentiate from AT&T's UNIX. Later on people bought into BSD because it was free and open source, which made BSD evolve way faster than AT&T's UNIX did, then people just stopped using AT&T's UNIX all together and moved on to BSD.

>>56305950
All versions of Unix after Version 7 incorporated BSD code. 8, 9, and 10, all by Thompson and Ritchie.

>>56306078
Because BSD was the more popular choice, people developed more on it since it was free and open source. It has nothing to do with it being 'more UNIX-like' which is what you implied. UNIX was dying anyway, because AT&T decided to be massive jews about it, and even to this day, it's required by law that operating systems can only label themselves as Unix-like only even if they're actual UNIX.

Just built an OpenBSD router for home use, really nice. I'll never suffer through netgear or linksys shitty interfaces again!

>>56299712
>So what's this about FreeBSD having security problems?

https://vez.mrsk.me/freebsd-defaults.txt

This outlines pretty much all of FreeBSD's horrible security problems. Most of them still aren't fixed.

>>56292404
What did Linus mean by this?

>>56307290
That he's a contrarian fag who spews bullshit that people want to hear and contradicts himself 10 times each day.