BSD And Other Things

Just switch to Linux already.

>>56983386
FreeBSD has a really slow console for me. How can I improve this

>Potential Linux switchers welcome
Linux user reporting in. Give me a reason to switch from my uber comfy Arch setup into the unknown wilderness of BSD.

>>56984512
fun and discovery

BSD is what you get when a bunch of Unix hackers sit down to try to port a Unix system to the PC.

Linux is what you get when a bunch of PC hackers sit down and try to write a Unix system for the PC.

>>56984577
Mh, that's a point.

>>56984512
To program in C.

>>56984762
that's a good one too

it still blows my mind that most linux distros don't come with compilers and all the necessary headers out of the box

"After five months, [FreeBSD] 10.x-RELEASE users can still be hacked when running freebsd-update or portsnap":

https://www.reddit.com/r/BSD/comments/563b47/reminder_after_five_months_10xrelease_users_can/

Stick with OpenBSD.

>>56984837

lolz, is this reddit poster for real:

"It's a work in progress. Release engineering is non-trivial and RE is mostly busy with 11.0 right now. Bootstrapping existing 10.x-RELEASE users without trusting freebsd-update is non-trivial.

Here's a perfectly good mitigation: Don't use freebsd-update."

>>56983386
Yay, a BSD thread for once.

>>56984512
Try PC-BSD if you want to try BSD on real hardware first.

>>56984790
That's actually one of the major reasons why I've never liked a single GNU/Linux distribution. An OS I can't program on is not useful at all.

>>56984957
PC-BSD breaks for a lot of people: pick something more reliable like OpenBSD or FreeBSD.

>>56985064

OpenBSD. They patch security vulnerabilities in a timely manner.

>>56985274
And carry enormous diffs and ancient versions. Their SMP is also laughable. And for whatever reason, the OpenBSD "security" decides that MAC is a bad idea, calling their uses dumb as brick as their excuse of not implementing one. Not to mention their latest "advance" called pledge drops the syscall filter(not sandbox, can't even be called one) every exec. Their claim of pledging 400 binaries is true. It's just that 1/4th of them use exec and render pledge useless.

>>56985475
Exec? As in the thing that executes other programs?

How is that a problem if those are also pledged?

Probably shouldn't even reply to you, since you brought up MAC.

>>56985509
It's a problem because the binary that it execs might not be pledged, in fact it might be overwritten with my own code. Bugs do exist, and one of those bugs in the ports that carry giant diffs will get away. Pledge isn't going to save you once someone abuses someone else's bug to get a shell on your OpenBSD box. You thinking that MAC is useless simply shows that once that shell gets on that, you won't have a way to protect against it using the classic chroot which has proven weaknesses and using only DAC.

File: gentoo.png (104KB, 370x492px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 370x492px

>>56985057
Image if ports actually had support for most free software, could use basically any compiler, and had advanced security features.

>>56984512
If you had any valid technical reasons, you'd be on one of the BSDs now. As it stands, you probably don't, so the valid reason would be just to explore it, see the differences and find some different way to go about things.

>>56985706
>If you had any valid technical reasons, you'd be on one of the BSDs now.

As it stands, there virtually are no reasons and that was the point he made that you autistically ignored.

:3

>>56985794
I guess if you don't value knowledge and learning, there are no reasons then. That would be your loss in this case. Maybe he's considering it and is asking if there are any advantages to him right now. Do you want me to lie? There are things that the BSDs provide that are better than the alternatives on Linux. DTrace and ZFS come to mind. Those technologies can be worth learning, even if he doesn't need them right now.

>>56985869
https://github.com/dtrace4linux/linux
https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs

You basically are lying though.

>>56985896
DTrace on Linux is laughable. There is a serious lack of providers and the development is very far behind. In fact lots of DTrace work is currently being discussed that will help make it portable to Linux, but as of now, it's horrible. ZFS on Linux is nothing compared to the version of OpenZFS running on FreeBSD. But I'm sure you've experimented and reviewed the code for them and know what you're talking about :)

>>56985928
ZFS on FreeBSD doesn't provide any real advantages, its just a newer version.
BTRFS is better.

DTrace is laughable compared to strace and gdb.

The ports are more like a compatibility layer to provide support from migrating from worse systems like BSD. There are Linux software that are preferred for when you want to upgrade.

>>56985970
At this point I fully realize you're nothing but a troll, but I'll answer to this misinformation anyway. BTRFS is anything but stable, recently there's even been reports that the RAID code calculates the checksum wrong. Regarding strace and gdb, especially comparing them to DTrace is outright wrong, as they're different technologies. Perhaps a comparison of truss and strace is a better one. Strace simply traces syscalls and you have to re-run the binary in order to trace it. DTrace allows you to tap into the process, kernel, keep statistics of mallocs, monitor syscalls, the MAC framework and what not. It also does so without being abysmally slow like strace is. Gdb is a debugger, not a tracer, I rest my case here. You're clearly not the kind of person that should be commenting on any of these technologies.

>BSD
>2015+1
?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿

>>56985475
>And carry enormous diffs

What do you mean by enormous diffs? Do you mean patch divergence from upstream that must be separately maintained?

> Not to mention their latest "advance" called pledge drops the syscall filter(not sandbox, can't even be called one) every exec. Their claim of pledging 400 binaries is true. It's just that 1/4th of them use exec and render pledge useless.

Does that mean if I can hijack an exec-pledged process to run my own execve code in-process (which is a common payload anyway), pledge won't do a damn thing to stop me? It wouldn't be adding anything to SSP, W^X, and ASLR in that case, I don't think.

Can I use OpenBSD as an email and http server without having to install additional software?

>>56986771
yes, openbsd comes with both of their own programs to do this

they're pretty sweet, they're really easy to use

>>56986789
What about stuff for things like spam control? I've heard on GNU/Linux you need something specialized like spamassasin or something like that?

>>56986733
Yes, separately maintained code from the upstream, and yes, pledge will do nothing to stop you there. In order for that to work, you would need to do the same things that capsicum does. There is a paper on this by Robert Watson from Cambridge who designed capsicum and is more then a competent security researcher. This isn't to be flaming on OpenBSD, I have enormous respect for the devs with the work they've done on cryptography, especially OpenSSH, arc4random and LibreSSL. Even things like W^X are neat concepts and alternatives to NX bits. It's great work that they're doing. It's just that people portray it as perfect, which it isn't. Every OS has it's flaws. I just wanted to make that clear.

>>56986801
i'm not sure how that works, actually

but i think openbsd has a thing called spamd which might fill that purpose

> using an autistic hobby os
just buy a Mac you poorfags, Christ y'all are embarrassing.

>>56986862
fuck off jordan

>>56983386
How is 2d acceleration on BSD now? With the modern video cards I mean. Does it work, or is it basically using the thing in a frame-buffer mode?

I don't care if I don't get fast OpenGL, but I do at least want moving a screen in X not to spike my cpu load. Being able to play a video now and then would be nice to.

>>56987237
Which one of the BSDs?

>>56987271
When I use BSD, I generally stick to NetBSD, but not exclusively.

>>56987296
I don't have that information regarding NetBSD. Maybe you could hop onto their IRC and ask?

>>56984837
I like FreeBSD, but their almost Linux-like attitude towards security issues sometimes is very disturbing. Any BSD is still more secure than any typical Linux distro, but if FreeBSD continues it's present course, that may not always be the case.

>>56987334
Yeah, probably will. Polite discourse and questions are rare on /g/ anymore. Figured we'd make the BSD threads a happy exception.

>>56987407
What course is that? The only two valid , serious criticisms I have on FreeBSD's security is the use of RC4 and lacking ASLR/ASR, which is in the works and is possible to be applied as a patch to the kernel. You could call it ASR aswell, since OpenBSD uses practically the same thing. Regarding the use of RC4, that is subject to change and it's only being used in arc4random I believe. OpenSSH uses ChaCha20. It should, however, be changed as a stream cipher that doesn't make use of nonces cannot be considered secure in modern cryptography. There are security features of FreeBSD that do lack in other BSDs, namely robust MAC and a proper sandboxing framework for software. It does different things, just like OpenBSD does different things. Every OS is flawed in it's own way. I think it's a tad bit unfair that you isolate FreeBSD here, as there is high quality work being done, just not as publicized as some other things in the BSDs.

In any case, criticism is important as it produces progress.

File: smug afrikaaner and fatman.jpg (214KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1024x768px

How well does OpenBSD play with vmware? tried with virtualshitbox and the fucker couldn't even detect it.

>>56987703
I have successfully booted it for a friend, it's to this day acting as his little router. The VM was kinda unresponsive with the GUI, but it acts just fine as a router. Never benchmarked it, though.

>>56987703
even if it doesn't detect it, it DOES boot

problem is apparently virtualbox does weird shit to the memory and openbsd doesn't like that, so you get weird side-effects like the console being the wrong color and that's pretty much the only visible thing i've seen

File: theo_wideweb__470x321,0.jpg (45KB, 470x321px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 470x321px

>>56987743
ok i'll try again with another setting
>>56987720
i'll have it in mind thanks

>>56987237
FreeBSD with DRM patches from 4.7.x/4.8 (+ patches for userland) work nice with modern GPU.
https://github.com/FreeBSDDesktop/freebsd-base-graphics/wiki

>>56986771
OpenBSD is ideal for those two things actually. You can basically set it up, boot it and forget about it, until it's time to patch or upgrade it. It really shines when you need a simple, secure, and reliable server, rather than raw performance, or for building firewalls and routers.

If you have more complex needs from a server, require high performance, or enterprise features FreeBSD is the better choice. FBSD and OBSD devs, are kind of snooty towards each other, but both have their place in the world, and both have had a major impact on modern system design. I personally prefer OBSD, but I'm perfectly willing to use FBSD if necessary, and I'll give it it's proper due.

I wonder if this really deserves a page 10 save or not.

>>56991634
it depends, what do you have to bring to this thread?

it's okay to let it die

>>56991662
You're right.

File: tde4.png (398KB, 1274x783px) Image search: [Google]

398KB, 1274x783px

Does the Trinity Desktop run easily on BSD?

>>56991857
No ports of it, since it's so obscure.

Would probably compile though if someone put the effort in.

>>56991870
How about Lumina then? Do you recommend it?

File: Lumina1.0.0-TrueOS.png (498KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 1920x1080px

>>56991903
Forgot pic

>>56991903
>>56991911
I think it's too early to judge Lumina, it's pretty much an alpha, and it really shows.

If you want a fully-featured DE for BSDs, I think the saner choice is usually XFCE.

>>56991929
Lumina is quite nice. Though I don't know for the other BSDs, I know that FreeBSD has support for KDE4, Gnome, Cinnamon, MATE, Xfce, Enlightenment and I believe a couple of other things I'm not aware of. Give it a year or so, and Lumina will be a full featured DE, as Ken is really putting work in.

Man, OpenSMTPD sure is comfy. I wish I had learned about it earlier.

>>56991903
>>56991929

KDE is supposed to work really well on OBSD too. I don't like KDE so I've never bothered trying it out on it. I'll second XFCE, if you need a full DE. Personally I like Fluxbox, and cwm is pretty nice if you like to keep it simple and minimal.