BSD And Other Things

>>56445210
How viable is *BSD as a programming environment for less common languages? Was specifically thinking Erlang

>>56445210
UTTER SHITE
T
T
E
R

S
H
I
T
E

If BSD doesn't support SMP is it better to just run it in KVM on Linux using 1 core and then setup distcc and clang on the Linux host?

Nevermind I'll just run Linux.

>>56450375
Bsd supports smp you dumb weeb

>>56448083
openbsd seems to have an erlang port

File: IBook_G3_M6497_J.jpg (199KB, 1980x1485px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1980x1485px

Can I install FreeBSD on an old iBook G3 Snow?

Or, what might be a guide to installing on a flash drive for another old Dell netbook I have?

I also came across something like an SD Card install. My netbook DOES have an SD reader. What about a guide for that?

>>56453725
It should be possible to install on either.

If you want to install via flash drive make sure your system supports that and write the designated disk image to a flash drive. The CD disc images don't work on flash drives I think.

>>56453839
>The CD disc images don't work on flash drives I think.
Oh wait it might work on FreeBSD. I know OpenBSD has two separate images for either method but it looks like FreeBSD only has SD card images for single board computers.

>>56453839
>>56453856
So, is there a guide for SD card?

And if I'm on Windows, how would I format a 64GB exFAT SD card to UFS?

Is there a program I can use?

>>56453963
The designated SD card images are for single board computers. If you just want to install FreeBSD on one of those computers from an SD card you can just follow the guide on the site

https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/bsdinstall.html

Make sure the computer supports booting from USB though, the netbook probably supports it but the iBook might not

Anyone here used GhostBSD? I see it's usually ignored in these threads

>>56454010
for your purpose use the memstick.img file and follow the guide for the memory stick

Just switch to Linux already

>>56454070
>>56454010
Ok, I'll try that one.

But, how will I format the SD card as UFS if I'm on Windows?

>>56454117
The memstick.img file contains the complete filesystem including all of the installer files. All you have to do is write the image to a flash drive and it will overwrite whatever is there.

They recommend using image writer on windows:
https://launchpad.net/win32-image-writer/

https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/bsdinstall-pre.html


Be careful not to overwrite anything important though.

>>56454154
>https://launchpad.net/win32-image-writer/
>https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/bsdinstall-pre.html
Thanks!
That'll be perfect; I'll try it out

>Be careful not to overwrite anything important though.
Well, I'll either be doing this on an unopened SD card or one of the flash drives I just ordered, so no worries there
(I bought several SD cards to store videos, but I haven't been using them nearly as much as I though, so I got like 256GB unopened)

I'll decide if I wanna use the flash or the card when the flashes arrive on like Thursday

Um, just wondering b/c I happened across another download option.

Would PCBSD or FreeBSD be better? The PCBSD USB download is like 4GB, whereas the FreeBSD one only is like 86MB.

Does FreeBSD not have a desktop environment by default?

>>56454370
it doesn't

freebsd is mostly a server OS by default

>>56454382
also i thought PCBSD was dead and replaced by TrueOS

>>56454382
Oh, ok.

I'll go with PCBSD, then.

I can still follow the same install instructions, right?
With that image writer linked above?

>>56454370
FreeBSD is only the "base system", it's a command line based OS by default. You'll have to install X.org and a desktop environment or window manager after install but it's not very difficult. PC-BSD/TrueOS has a lot of other stuff but it might not be for everyone.

>>56454397
>>56454403
Wait, PCBSD is dead?
I'll look at TrueOS, then.

What Desktop Environment would I want to go with if I stuck with the FreeBSD install on its own, though?

>>56454443
people mostly use WMs but xfce is pretty good/portable

>>56454443
You can use whatever they're all pretty different.

I use xfce because it has everything I want out of a desktop environment plus it works on everything I've used(GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD).

There's also MATE which is similar to xfce but works differently. I find MATE less flexible as far as configuration.

PC-BSD/TrueOS uses the lumina desktop environment which is still a bit "unrefined", it has lower system requirements though.

KDE, GNOME, Cinnamon are on the heavier side and may not work well with lower spec systems.

>>56454511
Ok, I looked at that on section 5.7 just now.

But, it also suggests Gnome or KDE.

Assuming I have 2GB of RAM and an Atom N450 processor, would I have trouble running Gnome or KDE?

And can you give me a few differences between the 3 and why one might be better than the other?

>>56454541
What about these specs:
>>56454553

>>56454553
>>56454576
I wouldn't recommend GNOME3 or KDE4/5. I'm not sure how cinnamon would fair but it's got a lot of graphical effects and shit that would probably lag.

>>56454541
In addition to these there's also LXDE and LXQT which are lightweight DEs. They don't have many applications with them just a few of the more crucial ones. The difference between LXDE and LXQT is that the latter uses the Qt widget toolkit and it's likely going to replace the former at some point. Right now they're managed seperately

>>56454553
you'd have a lot of trouble with either gnome or kde on an atom

>>56454640
Hmmm.

I'll decide between either a straight install of TrueOS or using FreeBSD/X/XFCE then.

Since this would be my first actual attempt of BSD, I'm kinda leaning towards TrueOS, though.
Does TrueOS have most of the utility applications I might want, and is there a web browser it comes with?

>>56454700
Ok, I won't use Gnome/KDE

>>56454692
I'll look into those, but I'm thinking I'll do TrueOS with its Lumina.
Unless there's a reason that might not be the best option? Is there?

I am trying to also make sure that this is kinda a bit more than an intro experience, but not one that basically launches me all the way into space before I can really even walk.

No 6.0 CD in the mail for me today. ;_;

>>56454783
Lumina is a DE written from scratch by the PC-BSD/TrueOS devs and it's still a bit new so it looks bad imo, at least right now. It's being actively developed so it will probably improve in the future but for now I don't think I could use it.

>>56445210
why would i use a generic linux clone?

>>56455063
Hmmm

Is there a way to install TrueOS and then just replace Lumina?

>>56455140
This is bait but I'll bite. BSD is nothing like Linux.

>>56455145
I'll try it with Lumina, first, actually.
Some of the pics looks nice, IMO.

I'm just wondering if I could replace if I don't like it after a while.

>>56455140
... lol, just no.

How do I impress this qt I know that uses BSD?

Also how does wayland look on the BSDs right now?

>>56455239
is her name randi

please avoid if so

>>56455442
no no no, I know better than that

>>56455239
also dfly has a preliminary wayland support

>>56455140
Because it's slower and supports less software, on top of crashing all the time. What's not to love?

>>56455442
>randi
>her

>>56455496
It's slower because of integrated cryptography. It supports less software because the developers prefer to make their own and they only port well written software that's secure. BSD crashes all the time, what the fuck? This is a first for me.

>>56456583
My sides!

>>56456711
My shitposts!

File: freebsd-logo.png (32KB, 178x175px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 178x175px

Replaced my FreeBSD server with OpenBSD after reading this page yesterday.

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

What a crock of shit the FreeBSD security team is.

>>56456911
At least be more subtle in your shilling.

Do all of the same linux window managers work in BSD? i3, Fluxbox, Openbox, Awesome, etc? If I don't need any proprietary stuff, would most of my everyday applications work?

Does openbsd support AMD cards? If yes does all 2D support work well? HD video? I don't need gaming obviously but need it to work well for desktop use.

>>56457082
All the ones you listed work

>>56457082
yes to both, mostly

>>56457082
On FreeBSD, yes - in theory (the bridge is actually kinda wonky though).
On other non-FreeBSD-based BSDs, no. For example, some depend on systemd which is linux-only, and some might require patches to work in BSD environments. However, the main ones are typically available in the ports tree.

>>56457082
Popular linux software like firefox, window managers etc. work on BSD's.

>>56457118
Yes, they support them very well. Currently they support all AMD cards up to the R9 series (390, Fury, Nano etc).

>>56457082
Basically if the application doesn't mess with the kernel itself it should be possible to port it to BSDs with few modifications. It might even work with no modifications and just need to be recompiled.

>>56457118
OpenBSD is not as far along as the Linux kernel with AMD graphics. OpenBSD supports up to the first GCN cards I think.

>>56457394
Nope. Go check their manpages, they support all AMD cards up to the R9 series.

>>56457458
radeon(4) mentions up to Hawaii which is the r9 290(x)

http://man.openbsd.org/OpenBSD-current/man4/radeon.4

>>56457497
The rest of the r9 series is based on the hawaii architecture.

>>56457497
I have a bonaire r7 260x. Bonaire is there, but it says 7790. AFAIK they're the same card but rebranded. I should be okay?

>>56457497
i was burnt by the xorg pages once

i dont think you can trust them

>>56457515
Not sure.

>>56457540
openbsd """documentation""" in a nutshell.

>>56457692
yeah lets rewrite all the documentation for Xorg

i'll wait

>>56457692
X is an outside project they don't really get to control as much there. They provide patches to make X less prone to security issues but they can't really rewrite it's documentation.

>>56457779
Of course they can, in exactly the same way.

>>56457795
then you go first

>>56457862
Sure, just give me the development build.

>>56457874
cvsweb.openbsd.org
have fun keeping it synched with upstream

Guys I need help with OpenBSD, any BSD experts here????????

>>56458095
Install gentoo.

>>56458117
Can BSD be my gf?

>>56458095
not an expert but it would help if you actually said what the problem was

>>56448083
Everything from Go, Python, Ruby, Haskell, Rust, Erlang, OCaml, the JVM, and many others all run on OpenBSD swimmingly. GCC (soon LLVM) and Perl are in base.

Do you use BSD as your primary desktop operating system? Is it difficult to transition to it if you have experience with gentoo?

>>56458971
i'd say openbsd makes for an alright desktop

i want a laptop just so i can run it on there though

>>56459054
Does openbsd come with Xorg installed already?

>>56459054
Right now I wouldn't use it as a primary desktop just because the software selection is rather small. It's well suited for browsing the internet, being a firewall, a server, and maybe playing back media like music and videos though. Video games and other proprietary software is basically out of the question though. When vmm/vmd are enabled by default it should be possible to run whatever OS you want under it so that will expand its usefulness considerably.

>>56459277
yeah it does, you can unselect it but Xorg is mostly part of the base system

>>56459277
OpenBSD ships with a special build of X with mitigations added called Xenocara. It works the same but it runs with fewer privileges and is more secured against malicious software.

Glad to see I'm not the only OpenBSD fan on /g/ these days.

>>56459554
After OpenBSD took on OpenSSL with their LibreSSL fork I started to pay more attention to them. I've known about the BSDs for a while but until that time I never really paid much attention to them.

Ok, I'm the guy from earlier who wants to use an SD card install of TrueOS.

I just put it on an SD card, but the problem that came up is:
It wants to install on a hard drive, and it exits whenever a drive is not detected.

How do I get it to RUN off the SD card?
This PC is notorious for burning out drives. I do NOT want to install it on a disk.

How do I go about that?

>>56460909
I think in OpenBSD you could literally just point the installer to a USB drive and it would work. Don't know about FreeBSD/TrueOS.

>>56460953
I think it should work the same for FreeBSD but I've never tried it.

Basically just get another flash drive or SD card and point the installer to that drive.

>>56460953
hmmm...
do you know what command i'd need to sue for that?

I'm kinda trying this to /GET INTO/ UNIX.
So, I have limited experience with the CLI interface of it, other than like 1 class I took in Linux

>>56460975
Hmmmm.... could I possibly create another partition on the SD Card and point it to THAT?

I want it on the SD Card itself, because it's 64GB.

If not, I'll just wait for my new 32GB USB sticks to come and try there on like Thursday.

=/

>>56461012
It *should* be possible I think but it might complicate things a bit. There should be plenty of unallocated space after the installer image where you could create partitions for FreeBSD and then you can install to there.

You'll have to use the partitioning tool in FreeBSD.

>>56461091
Ok, here's what it shows for
>gpart show da0
>3 (long num) da0 GPT (59G) [corrupt]
^^ I'm wagering a guess this might be the issue... but idk if I can proceed anyway
>3 1600 1 efi (800K)
>1603 125 2 FreeBSD-boot (63K)
>1728 (long num) 3 FreeBSD-ufs (1.7G)
>(long num) 2048 4 FreeBSD-swap (1.0M)
>(long num) (really long num) [no number] - free - (58G)

Any idea how to proceed?

>>56461207
Ok, I checked a thing, and it says to use da0 as the last param for all of these apparently.

But when I do:
>gpart add -s 50G -t FreeBSD-ufs da0
it says "table 'da0' is corrupt: Operation not permitted"

>>56461207
>>56461244
I believe the installer image is the 1.7GB UFS volume, the swap space is used for temporary paging and not completely necessary.

You already have four partitions apparently so you'll have to delete one of those to make room on the disk. I'm pretty sure you can delete the swap space with little worry. Then it should be possible to create a primary partition that takes up all of the free space.

>>56461303
Ok, I just did that and added a new 58G partition in FreeBSD-ufs.

The installer is still not detecting any drives, though.

how would I point the installer to that partition in the command line?

File: bsdinstall-part-review.png (4KB, 720x400px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 720x400px

>>56461362
Did you assign the root mount point ( / ) to the new partition?

Also make sure the other partitions aren't assigned a mount point. You wont really need the installer after the install but you'll probably need it during the install.

>>56461431
Ummm. no I have not.

How do I do that?

The only thing accepting input other than installers that just fail is the emergency shell

What command would I use to mount the new partition?

It's partition 4 on da0; what would be the syntax for that

>>56461574
modify, i'd assume

>>56461574
Well somehow get back to this menu in the partitioning tool and go to modify and there should be an option in there to assign a mount point.

https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/bsdinstall-partitioning.html

Make sure you read through the guide it goes through this stuff.

>>56461585
This menu wasn't included in my installer; I'm doing TrueOS

there IS a /dev/da0p4, though.
Can I do anything since I have access to that?

Alternatively, if I DID just go with a base of FreeBSD, would I be able to connect to the internet with my NIC immediately, so I can access the stuff needed to install X and XFCE?

I do have the regular FreeBSD available if I need to.

But, before I resort to that, IS there a way to do that?

For reference, b/c I'm not sure how clear I was:
I have a SINGLE media device (SD Card) with 4 partitions. I want to install from the installer partition into another partition and then delete the installer partition

>>56461640
mount /dev/da0p4 /

I think should mount it.

>>56454067
Looks like the answer is no

>>56461677
Actually I'm not sure if that's correct either though it might actually be mount /dev/da0p4 /mnt

The installer image is probably assigned the mountpoint / and the destination is probably /mnt

>>56461705
>>56461677
Yeah... the installer image is apparently read-only and won't let me mount...

would I fuck it up if I change the permissions?

>>56461731
I might be able to temporarily use another flash drive to do this, but I'm gonna have to move a bunch of crap

Maybe I'll try that, though

>>56461737
Use that one for the installer image and just format the entire drive for FreeBSD or TrueOS or whatever. Easiest method.

>>56461746
ok, I'll let you all know how it goes.

>>56461746
By format the entire drive I mean the 64GB one

>>56461760
(after I successfully move almost 86 THOUSAND images temporarily to my hard drive...)

This'll be a while...

> No software
> No drivers
> Have to choose between usability and not being a gaping security hole
> So insecure there's a babbie's first rootkits book specifically targeting BSD

Just use GNU + Linux already.

>>56461772
>>56461746
Actually, I'll just put them on an external HDD I have, permanently.

I'll use that flash drive for images or something.

That fucking blowfish's face is even worse than the smug frog.

>>56461773
I'd use Linux if it wasn't GNU.
Literally the only real reason I am going for BSD instead of like Arch or something.

I already know a bit of Linux, but I absolutely despise the GPL.

Good day, sir.

>>56461888
You're either

>Oy vey, I'm keeping all these shekels for myself!

or

>Dude the free market is good all these starving workers means the economy is healthy

>>56461888
>too 1337 for GNU
Post your screenshot

File: 2016-09-06a.jpg (727KB, 2966x900px) Image search: [Google]

727KB, 2966x900px

>>56461924
>Oy vey, I'm keeping all these shekels for myself!
>or
>Dude the free market is good all these starving workers means the economy is healthy
No, I'm against Copyleft. Developers have every right to charge for modifications and additions to the operating system. And NO ONE has the right to tell them they must make their code freely available.

If it was "The kernel YOU downloaded must be made readily available, but ANYTHING you throw on top of it/modify is YOURS to choose licenses for", I'd be completely fine with that.

But, if I plan to work on OS development at a later point (after some websites and apps and stuff), I will NOT use the GPL for anything.
(doesn't mean I wouldn't offer FREEWARE or EVEN an occasional OSS, but I will NOT offer Copyleft/GPL EVAR)

>>56461937
The only thing I have atm is my Windows. I haven't gotten TrueOS to install yet b/c I got like 60K more images to transfer before I have a safe USB drive.
But, here's my Windows one, if you want.

Hopefully, I'll be able to make gadgets and shit to mimic what I have here, though it's mainly for just a travel netbook, so it doesn't have to be quite as good.

But, it'll give me some good practice with C/C++, most likely
Really need to get into that OpenGL

File: I+don+t+mean+to+ruin+the+joke+or+maybe+i+_c6a2ae5ab1a0d217892d02d937bb06fc.png (223KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 900x900px

>>56462083
>Freedom hating anti-GNU winfag
Why am I not surprised

>>56462158
>Freedom hating anti-GNU winfag
Freedom-hating would indicate that I also hate the freedom of the developers, which I don't.
I support developers and their rights to the fullest.

GNU hates freedom of the developers, because of their policies
BSD supports the right of developers AND users.
BSD-UNIX is the REAL 'free'

>>56462214
Sorry, GPL lets people make money. BSD lets steal code and close it off. Original UNIX is NOT free

>>56462243
>Sorry, GPL lets people make money.
Including extensions of the Linux kernel? Ha! Yeah right! Not when the code MUST be made available for redistribution!

>BSD lets steal code and close it off.
BSD fulyl has the right to say "You can take this". It also has the right to say "And you can use it however you want".

It NEVER claims the right to say "You can take this, BUT even if you change it, it's STILL bound by [X], [Y], and [Z]".

Hell, I honestly would even consider making my OWN kernel OSS, but NOT GPL, because if I wanted people to make spinoff systems that are interoperable with my own, they should have every right to IP that THEY generated.

/I/ did NOT make those modifications, so /I/ can't tell them what to do with it. The only thing /I/ have a right to deny them is code /I/ or /MY COMPANY/ writes, nothing YOU throw on top of it.

>>56462299
>Not when the code MUST be made available for redistribution!
Why not? See: Oracle Linux

>You can take this
>And you can use it however you want
Yes, if you are paying attention: that's exactly what enables companies to steal the code and close it off.

GNU and free software movement is what made Linux available for public. GNU respects freedom and I am a proud GNU/Linux user. I don't rant from the fence while using a closed source operating system and spread FUD about GNU, I actually use free software instead of pretending

>>56462387
>Why not? See: Oracle Linux
I don't buy the whole "Free OS; paid support" thing.
That isn't to say it doesn't work. It isn't even to say it's not a good idea. But it IS a violation of the developers' rights.
In some cases, it certainly CAN prove beneficial. But, in others, it can lead to financial failure and then a dead OS, the latter of which is NOT good for ANYONE.

>Yes, if you are paying attention: that's exactly what enables companies to steal the code and close it off.
If you give me 5 rocks for free, that's you're decision.
If I then put paint and googly eyes on them, you have no right to tell me I can't sell them as a Pet Rock™. Furthermore, if I have a special technique to make said paint permanent or the googly eyes EXTRA googly, I shouldn't have to tell people jack shit about it. It's MY trade secret, and you had nothing to do with it; I just happened to get my rocks from you.

>GNU and free software movement is what made Linux available for public.
I'm aware of this...
>GNU respects freedom
disagree for aforementioned reasons
>I am a proud GNU/Linux user.
I can see that

>I don't rant from the fence while using a closed source operating system and spread FUD about GNU
This reference is irrelevant and doesn't make total logical sense.
>I actually use free software instead of pretending
I don't pretend anything about my systems/future systems. Right now, I'm fully aware all of my stuff is proprietary and much of it is paid for.
When I get some BSD going, I'll be perfectly aware of what it does and does not do.
I don't want to use Linux, because I disagree with its policies, though perhaps not its underlying philosophy (although it's hard to separate the two for this type of system)

>>56462600
>I don't buy the whole "Free OS; paid support" thing.
What are you implying? They are making money off it. It IS supporting devs, what's so hard to understand?


>you have no right to tell me I can't sell them as a Pet Rock™
That's where you are wrong, I gave it in our agreement to address this issue.

Which one is easier to steal?:
1. Do whatever with it, I don't care
or,
2. Do whatever with it, tell me what you did and address that it was provided by me

Also,
>All my stuff are proprietary
>I "care" about freedom

>>56462083
>capitalist retards using BSD
Go back to Windows, AIX, or HP-UX. Those are close-sourced enough for you to use. Get out.

>>56462704
>What are you implying? They are making money off it. It IS supporting devs, what's so hard to understand?
Oh, no, I believe it works sometimes, but I don't 'buy' it. The underlying practices are unacceptable.

>That's where you are wrong, I gave it in our agreement to address this issue.
The agreement, however, is despicable, and should never have been made.
I suppose I can't stop people from making bad decisions or agreeing to terrible terms, but people propagating those terms are equally as bad as the one who made them, possibly even worse, because someone can make a disgusting contract, but it's like you're their minions pushing it among the populace.

If someone doesn't CARE they signed such an agreement, that's not my business. But if people are trying to push such agreements on others, it becomes my business, especially if you are trying to push it on me.

>Which one is easier to steal?:
>1. Do whatever with it, I don't care
>or,
>2. Do whatever with it, tell me what you did and address that it was provided by me
But that's not the case with GPL. Oh, do correct me if I'm wrong, here; I'm willing to admit a mistake.
Can I:
>Take the Linux kernel
>Modify half of it
>Link the original kernel/unmodified half (as you said, link you, the original dev)
and then:
>Keep my own code (modified half, improved algorithms, new features) to myself for monetary distribution (you had nothing to do with this code at all)
If I so wanted, that is

So, I've:
>Let people know that some of it is modified
>Addressed you as the original developer so others may get their own version of YOUR kernel
(though not stuff that I changed, unless they talk to me)

/I/ am the ORIGINAL dev of the NEW code/altered portion of the kernel; YOU had nothing to do with it; it's NOT yours.

So, can MY half of the kernel stay closed? Or no? Under GPL?

>>56462840
>HP-UX
I refuse to buy ANYTHING made by HP. Their hardware is shit. Their software is shit. I've been fucked by them multiple times.
HP c. 2005 was the last time HP was good.

>>56462976
>Their hardware is closed-source
>Their software is closed-source
We already know this information.

>>56462083
You'll get immense amounts of shit from /g/'s freetards but I agree with you. The GPL is horrible.

>>56463057
The GPL is bad, but capitalism is worse. GPL aids capitalism anyway, by allowing people to force people into paying for their code. i.e. every situation where someone says "this code is under GPL, but if you pay me I can give it to you under a different licence"
Code under an MIT or BSD licence can never be forcefully withheld for money, since the person who wants it can have it. The MIT and BSD licences are more compatible with a world without capitalism.

>>56463108
you again

>>56462916
>It works, but I don't like it
>Agreement is in place but I don't like it
Lot of opinions there..

Also, as long as you are not using your modified kernel of distribution and commercial purposes you get to keep your kernel without having to tell people that it's from Linus - simple.

Google uses Linus' kernel, modifies it and uses it for its commercial goals. So they pay for it. GPL is helping Linus.

Also please learn write like a normal person so I can actually understand you.

>>56463143
>of distribution
for*

>>56463108
>git clone git://lol.ur.a.fag/wewlad

Oh my god I didn't pay for it.

What happened to Gentoo/BSD?

Ugh.... I finally got TrueOS to install, but it fucked up and didn't create a boot loader automatically.

I'm trying again using the regular graphical installer...

Even after I created a boot and EFI partition AFTER them, it didn't work, though. It booted straight to a restart
Does anyone know why?

>>56463715
Crap....

Still won't work. It keeps coming to this page where it fails to load, after going through a ton of text.
It has a blank list for the devices managed by the geometry.
IDK...

I'll try again at another point or something...

>>56463985
ok, it's failing to "mountroot" with errors 2 or 5.

Why would it be doing that?