BSD And Other Things

I would use BSD, but I'm scared about firefox or chromium exploits compromising the system despite how many mitigations are put into place.

>>56669174
I'm a macfag, how hard would it be to dualboot osx and *bsd?
How is battery life?

I want to let my neckbeard flow free and return to xmonad, but I have bad memories of running various gnu/linux distros running on mac hardware

>>56669174
Is there any thing like a subsystem in BSD? Like how Linux has WINE prefix - So you can delete the WINE directory to completely get rid of a package?

I want this because in Linux, even after removing a package the configs are stored and after you re-install it, the old configs are set.

>>56669254
I don't own a mac, but on my very recent experience, Linux is a complete pain where the BSDs are usually seamless.
Just sayin

>>56669408
Heh, depends on the distro I suppose. I've had good luck running arch but it required regular maintenance to keep it running smoothly.

But that was when I gave a flying fuck about <2s boot times and The Perfect™ neckbeard destep.

These days I just want xmonad, vim, and a browser to work well across multiple monitors.

I've heard good things about the *BSDs lately though, which is why I'm curious. What flavours have you used?

>>56669204
literally the entire point of those mitigations is to crash misbehaving programs

>>56669204
They can do that on other systems as well so you should probably just avoid computers in general if you're that worried.

I'm rather excited for the recent developments on OpenBSD.

>LLVM and Clang finally
>ARMv7
>vmd/vmm
>someone working on porting DTrace, possibly considering making a clone of it
>binary patches are finally being considered for base and packages

>>56670800
>make the switch
>lose the bitch

ayyyyy boi penis love detected

File: SemenShipment.png (216KB, 652x896px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 652x896px

>>56670936
>excited
>patches
>support for 30 year old architectures

Are there any advantages to using dragonfly bsd over Freebsd?

>>56671586
They're similar but dragonfly claims to be better at scaling across multiple processors/cores and it has the HAMMER filesystem which is functionally similar to ZFS(FreeBSD default) but is different and not compatible. Dragonfly got rid of Linux compatibility because it wasn't being maintained.

>>56671811
Claims? Are there no good cross BSD benchmarks?

>>56672035
Phoronix does benchmarks occasionally

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=broadwell-bsd-linux&num=2

Results are mixed.

>>56669174
How much support does OpenBSD have for scanners and printers?

Just switch to Linux already

>>56672462
I already switched from Linux. You're free to go circlejerk about it in the /flt/. This is a BSD thread, did you by chance misclick?

>>56672195
CUPS is CUPS. It should work just as well as in Linux.

>>56672485
It's just a generic shitpost that gets posted every single /bsd/ thread. Next he's going to post about the alleged FBI backdoors in OpenBSD that were never proven.

>>56669174
Anyone here running OpenBSD-Current on a snapshot newer than 9/10 who can confirm noticeable performance gain in Chrome/Firefox after the latest patches to malloc?

>>56672550
I know it is, I've dealt with this shitposter hundreds of times.

>>56672596
Yeah, I think they had some changes done in the scheduler very recently. Or maybe it was malloc.

>>56672674
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20160906012408

http://www.drijf.net/openbsd/malloc/

I think these malloc patches were the big one that improved browser performance. OpenBSD really does need some scheduler optimizations though

>No DragonFlyBSD docs
I'm quoting you, OP.
https://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/handbook/

Is there a list of what NICs OpenBSD supports?

>>56673501
usb and pci man pages

>tfw running FreeBSD in a VM
It's pretty comfy
even has nethack

>>56674499
All OSes have nethack in ports and packages though. OpenBSD comes with hack, but hack is broken right now.

>>56674499
>>56674701
>tried openBSD for fun
>easy to install
>everything just works
>package manager is simple
>everything encrypted and secure
>tons of documentation
>i actually understand what i'm doing
why am i supposed to hate BSD again?

I have a lot of questions, because I don't know anything about BSD:

1) How do I know what software is compatible with BSD? For example:
http://dl.altera.com/?edition=lite
Only has a Windows, and Linux link. I've never seen a BSD option for anything.

2) Is there a fundamental difference between BSD and Linux? They're both Unix based, correct?

3) Why do you personally use BSD?

>>56675530
>1) How do I know what software is compatible with BSD? For example
You're not going to find download links for BSD for most software. You'll find it as either a package or a port. If it's not there you can try compiling it yourself.
>2) Is there a fundamental difference between BSD and Linux? They're both Unix based, correct?
BSD is actual Unix, Linux is meant to function like Unix.
>3) Why do you personally use BSD?
I like how the base system is developed instead of pieced together like Linux distros are, plus OpenBSD's got better documentation.

>>56669314
pkgsrc's pkg_delete seems to completely delete all files used by the package
i don't know what kind of fucktarded useless package manager would leave files after removing a package

>>56675530
1) If it's open source and you can build it from source then it'll most likely work on BSD. Compiling software from source code using Ports is incredibly easy and straightforward, you don't need to be very knowledgeable about the process. I can use a lot of Linux software on BSD pretty easily with Ports, although the package library isn't too shabby either.

2) BSD has worse hardware support in general, but the operating system code is more mature and there are a lot of differences between how they approach the operating system, but this doesn't really matter to the average user. This mostly matters to kernel and system developers.

3) I tried out OpenBSD and loved it. The documentation is so good that all I need to do whenever I'm stuck is to just google my specific issue. The hardware support isn't too bad (it's nowhere near as Linux's, but it's not terrible either), so I'm fine with that. Overall I've had less problems on BSD than I did on Linux.

>>56675475
Memes

So you can't verify openbsd with gpg, how do I verify the iso on GNU/Linux?

>>56676123
thats because while all bsd's have good base/package separation (unlike most linux distros), netbsd has the best one out of all of them

>>56677843
Cool

>>56675475
because you're using a real operating system as opposed to KEK/Linux

>>56675530
1 and 2 covered well above already. As for 3: Didn't like where linux was heading with systemD and tried openBSD. It just worked on my thinkpad so I kept it as daily driver and never found a good reason to switch back. Solid, stable, predictable, and secure with all the necessary tools to get work done.

>>56677810
build signify on linux and verify it with that

>>56681222
>build it
It's in Debian's repos, wouldn't be surprised if it was in others as well.

So for OpenBSD, the difference between ports and packages is that packages are only updated when a new release comes out every 6 months and ports are more up to date?

>>56682101
pretty much, unless you use snapshots

BSD bump

>>56675565
>>56677380
>>56679437

Thanks, guys. One more question, when you say I can try compiling software from source code, I don't really know what that means. Where can I read more about this, and learn how to do this?

>>56682712
most people practically automate it these days

you just need the dependencies, run ./configure, make and make install

although thanks to GNU you'll need to install gmake

>>56682460
Wouldn't it just be easier to install software like Firefox by compiling it manually from the Mozilla ftp rather than ports? How difficult would it be to get gpg installed on openbsd?

>>56682928
theres a gnupg port and package if that's whar you're asking

>>56682712
Source code is the uncompiled code. It's the program's code without being compiled, turned into a binary package or anything like that. It's the most primitive piece of a program, and because of this it has much bigger compatibility. Usually if a program offers you its full source code, you can run it on pretty much anything as long as you compile it natively on whatever system you want to run it on. That's the advantage of compiling from source, it gives you more control and flexibility to work with. However, compiling from source often takes time and CPU load, so it's not a bad idea to get pre built packages from time to time. Generally speaking, compiling from source nowadays isn't as daunting as it used to be, there are a lot of software and package managers out there which automate the process for you and make it very easy.

How does it make you feel that FreeBSD has a CoC now?

Any bets on how long before the other BSDs follow suit? NetBSD has had something quite similar for years, wrapped in legalese.

>>56683899
OpenBSD is the only relevant BSD.

>>56683899
>openbsd
>CoC
probably not until theo dies

>>56683899
Indifferent, I only use OpenBSD

>>56683899
With how aggressive theo is, he'll never accept any feminist bullshit
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=143355112811564&w=2

>>56683911
>>56683913
My only concern with OpenBSD is my NIC card, which requires non free firmware. How does that work, does it connect to a server to download the firmware or does it install it during installation?

>>56683954
does it after installation

you can always manually do it
http://firmware.openbsd.org/firmware/

>>56683899
OpenBSD doesn't require a CoC because no one who would get past the barriers to entry would act up. Anyone who acts up in the first place wont be OpenBSD dev ever. There's only enough room for one dictator on OpenBSD.

>>56683954
>tfw theo.c was removed from mg

What's the best browser for OpenBSD? I've heard firefox isn't that good and isn't updated much, even on ports.

>>56684047
OpenBSD uses the ESR version iirc, which gets updates way later compared to other versions. If you want the latest stable branch then you can just build firefox yourself. Either that or use xombrerro, which is also good but I personally never used it.

I installed OpenBSD for a little while. Why is it so slow? At first I though I didn't install *.mp set so I went back and did it again but still extracting files takes forever.

>>56684179
try turning on softupdates in fstab

if you're running it in a VM that might be the bottleneck too

OpenBSD only gets updated every 6 months? What if an exploit is found during then, you'll have to wait till the next release?

>>56684243
it gets patches, obviously

>>56684243
OpenBSD gets security patches on a regular basis, but major releases happen every 6 months. In my opinion it's better than the update model which Linux uses and I prefer less frequent updates because I hate updating my system often, things break and I have to reconfigure shit, it's a pain.

>>56684200
Nah it was on fairly recent hardware. I'll try that next time.

>>56684243
It's misleading to say it gets updated every six months. It receives a major update every six months. Security patches are released between major updates.

OpenBSD is more hands on in how they handle patches though. Advisories are posted on their site, check it regularly to see if there's anything that applies to you. If there is you can download the patch and apply it and then recompile and maybe restart the affected component, or the whole OS if necessary(probably not). Usually advisories only apply to a certain component which you may not even use so you don't even have to do anything in those cases. In other cases you may be able to simply disable a function in an affected application to avoid recompiling. Some advisories might not require any recompiling at all and just be disabling functions.


OpenBSD does not get many huge vulnerabilities so it may be possible to use it for 6 months without changes but that is probably not recommended. At least check the advisories regularly.

Is OpenBSD recommended for beginners? I'm trying to understand it all, and it's making my head spin.

>>56685099
No.

>>56685133
Which *BSD is recommended for beginners?

>>56685152
OpenBSD is fine for beginners, but be prepared to do a ton of reading. Everything is written in the man pages and there's tons of documentation available everywhere. FreeBSD is also not bad for beginners. Don't expect BSD to be as hand holding as windows though, it may take a while to get used to.

>>56685152
I'd say netbsd, because it's the flattest, easy to understand structure (probably of any unix-like ever), got great documentation, and even if you're a newbie, you can understand the code when you dig into it. Not that the other BSDs are overcomplicated or poorly documented. I just think netbsd is best in those respects.

I like the idea of OpenBSD, but it still comes off a bit like snake oil. Has there ever been a major stress test on its security?

For several reasons, I have decided to try *BSD
I'd like to ask something, though
What do you, as a *BSD user, dislike about your *BSD of choice? I want to be aware of what I'm getting into so as to avoid bad surprises

Also which *BSD do you recommend for a somewhat experienced Linux user