BSD And Other Things

What's the best method to try out some BSD OS?

File: 1415743129342.gif (2MB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 250x250px

I'd love to try out bsd but my Intel PRO wireless card is gonna be a pita to configure. Might check it out later.
>>57003434
Virtualbox

Can I dual boot BSD and windows 7 or 10?

,also is the Gtx 1070 supported?

>>57003573
Should it be, Nvidia has the official driver available for Freebsd

how are bsds on the t420? xubuntu kept fucking up with suspend mode so i'm limping along on win 7 until i find a distro that works ootb

>>57004544
Try OpenBSD, it has a fairly high compatibility with thinkpads including support for suspend/resume. Only problems are with broadcom and nvidia chipsets due to their reliance on proprietary software.

File: Z3jj18h.jpg (98KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 960x720px

bump

Baby question. What exactly makes BSD a better option than Linux? Really interested in OpenBSD, but can't find enough reasons to switch

>>57005127
You should consider the BSDs to be distinct operating systems. They're mostly incompatible with one another. The BSDs do not try to advertise themselves as being better than GNU/Linux they just want to do things the way they believe is the best and some people prefer the way they do things.

OpenBSD is a security oriented OS. The devs puts a heavily emphasis on implementing security mitigations and doing things in a straightforward way. The devs also do their best to document everything they're involved in so the end user is never left surprised or confused by undocumented functionality.

does bsd support cuda? i need it for my work

i'd switch in a heartbeat if it did

>>57005751
doesn't, unfortunately

thanks to nvidia's anti-free software practices

>>57005763

any way to rig up some kind of VM?

>>57005751
OpenBSD definitely doesn't. I think FreeBSD does though

>>57005763
Nvidia provides closed source FreeBSD drivers

>>57005763
Well FreeBSD probably does because of the proprietary nvidia driver. OpenBSD, NetBSD, and Dragonfly wouldn't though because they're strictly FOSS

>>57005773
i think freebsd supports virtualbox

>>57005774
>>57005784
well i don't see cuda in the ports tree but maybe it's somehow part of the driver

>>57005774

just the driver isn't enough. i need the nvcc compiler

>>57005183
in general, BSD takes an entirely different approach than Linux. whether it is better is for you to decide.

It aims to provide a full base system with time-tested and thoroughly audited code. This means less hardware support, less cutting edge features, and less reinvention of the wheel, but what you are provided with is much more likely to "just werk." For example, both OpenBSD and FreeBSD still use OSS instead of ALSA or Pulseaudio, because there's never been a compelling reason to switch. Their specific sound modules are much better than the OSS offered on Linux though.

The end result is that you spend much less time ricing your system and use it to get work done instead. If that sounds appealing to you, then BSD might be a better choice.

i was surprised when all my laptop hardware worked without fuss in openbsd. those guys are doing good work and I'm glad I bought a disk

for some unknown reason, 386BSD 2.0 came out recently
https://github.com/386bsd/386bsd

>>57005799
It seems they only provide it for windows, linux, and OSX. There is the linux compatibility layer on FreeBSD but I have no idea if it supports it.

>>57005846
>operating system from 1989
>official site impossible to view without enabling a bunch of javascript
sigh

>>57003406
>no dragonflydocs
OP, kys yourself.

>>57006003
Dragonfly gets hyped a lot, what's the deal anon?

Aware me on Dragonfly

>>57006015
Stuff made there gets adopted back in FreeBSD.

>>57006083
What? But I thought the entire point of it was that FreeBSD hated Matt's suggestions about SMP.

>build a package through ports tree and wait overnight to finish compiling
>come back next day
>its stuck at a dialog box
i like compiling from source and choosing which flags to use but isnt there something like use flags in gentoo where i can select everything i want once and not have to worry about it, is a little annoying having to check my terminal every so often for a new dialog screen

>>57006138
you could always set BATCH=YES or run make config-recursive over and over until no more prompts pop up, then type make install

>>57003406
What's the point in using *BSD over the various linux distros?
outside of freenas, freenas is fucking amazing.

>>57006422
Personal preference, rare cases where hardware support is better, etc.

>>57006138
You can use portage on BSD.

>>57006422
I just like the logo desu.

>>57007120
All you have to do is watch how many anti BSD posts get deleted and it becomes pretty clear that someone is super triggered.

File: autism-asshole-disease.jpg (45KB, 600x750px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x750px

>>57007210
Satire is bullshit?

What programming languages do you use on BSD?

>>57007272
the one true language, C

>>57007276
Any others? I already do C on BSD.

>>57007340
i did some 6502 assembly once, using cc65

openbsd had no port for it, but the thing pretty much compiles out of the box

>>57007340
sh

>>57003406
Wow I guess /g/ is a BSD safe space.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzU05QmJMDg

>>57007353
Interesting. I wonder if I should learn AMD64 assembly.
>>57007358
I also already do sh, but you're right, I should practice more.

Guys there is one thing that all BSD's should do...
(Yeah i know you have heard it all before)....
But...
You need to adopt gpl licensing.
Cmon guys, other companies are screwing you and you hard earned work over.
They are laughing all the way to the bank.
(I shoudnt have to mention names, we already know who they are). They are copping a free ride because of your developers, and are raking in the cash because of it. Yeah i know they are giving away alot of cash to you guys in return but its chump change as far as they're concerned. Do your fantastic communities a favor and MAKE these swindling pricks return EVERYTHING back and all BSD's will become a truely great operating system that everyone would at least consider adopting.
Support in all fields would drastically increase.

>>57007807
no

>>57007807
Spotted the guy who wants BSD to fail.

>>57007272
Fortran and C

>>57007807
Hell no

>>57007815
Enjoy a failing os on all fronts.
>>57007946
How many of your own boogers do you eat each day? Just curious.

>>57007965
there's no way you're not underage

>>57007958
What's a good way to learn Fortran? Already know C.

>>57007807
Just love how bsd tards ignore the glaring contradiction that is presented right in front of their face. The very one that will make them relevant in this world. Let them fade away into the night.

>>57007971
40 years old actually, (not that it matters). You are the very people that are destroying your own operating system.
I dont care in the slightest. I dont use it.

>>57008026
>I dont care in the slightest.
That's nice. Now leave.

>>57007980
I've been learning with this.
http://web.stanford.edu/class/me200c/tutorial_77/

>>57008026
>You are the very people that are destroying your own operating system
Keep telling yourself that. Why come to the thread just to bitch and moan?

Copyleft is barely better than copyright. Remember the only true freedom is public domain.

>>57008039
Make me. I would consider BSD but why should i when even their users aswell as their developers dont want it to actually get anywhere?

>>57008048
Thank you. It also has nice subroutines for me to practice reading.

>>57008071
>I don't care in the slightest
>I would consider BSD
See a psychiatrist.

>>57007807
Fuck off already you brainwashed Jewish faggot

>>57008048
I didnt. I gave you the solution to survive and prosper....
As in..
>>57007807

>>57008051
This

>>57008071
>why should i when even their users aswell as their developers dont want it to actually get anywhere
Don't. Quit your bitching and keep using Linux. We don't care if you use BSD or not.

>>57008078
Living the delusion.

>>57008079
>>57008090
Feel free to quit shitposting at any time.

>>57008086
Hey i dont care.
Your os is pathetic at best and we both know that.

>>57008099
>i don't care
And we don't care about your opinion. Now get out.

>>57008096
Facts mate, is not shitposting.

>>57008099
>I want to use it but my shitty ideologies prevent me from doing so
>lol I didn't want to use it anyway

>>57008108
See >>57008096

>>57008113
I just think it's funny that suddenly changing the BSD license to GPL will apparently get people to suddenly use BSD.

Guess what? End-users don't give a fuck.

>>57008104
No, fuck you.
Make me.
Im not the delusional one here.
I give your os 10 years max. (And thats being kind)

>>57008122
>Make me
I have a hard time believing you're 40.

If you really are, that's really fucking sad to hear.

>>57008119
It wont.
But, it will make everybody contribute back to the code without it being closed off.
The os will then gain ground and grow whether anybody likes it or not.
BSD then will not be taken advantage of.

>>57008125
Dont care.
You will use linux or microsoft in the future.
You will eventually have no choice despite what you think.

>>57008138
Is english your first language?

What is it with BSD thread shitposters that write really shitty english?

>>57008148
>Dont care.
Then stop posting.
>You will use linux or microsoft in the future.
I already use Windows, because that's what we have at school.
>You will eventually have no choice despite what you think.
Whatever.

>>57008122
Seriously anon, why come here just to bitch and moan? Just add "bsd" to your goddamned filter already. You hate them because they're not GPLed, relicensing isn't going to fucking happen, and BSD users either don't give a shit that it's not GPLed or are happy it's not. I'm not a fan of the GPL by any means but you don't see me shitting up /flt/ every time I see a fucking thread.

>>57008138
>But, it will make everybody contribute back to the code without it being closed off.
That's a bad thing.
>BSD then will not be taken advantage of.
BSDs aren't being "taken advantage of" as it is. BSD licensed software is basically releasing it to the public and saying "hey, I made this. You can use it if you want, or not, I don't care. Just give me credit if you do.

>>57008148
>You will use linux or microsoft in the future.
Not going to happen because the BSDs aren't going anywhere.

>>57008149
>>57008155
You're killing yourselves.
Its a fact.
Dont get upset over it....
Change it.
I dont know why you all hold on to that license.

>>57008161
>Seriously anon, why come here just to bitch and moan?
Probably legitimately mentally ill. Wouldn't be surprised if he was the one who kept reposting the same shit earlier and got banned every time. Was pretty funny though.
>>57008169
I'm not a dev, please personally email Theo de Raadt and tell him that.

>>57003406
>>57007516

>>57008169
We know what you think, you've told the same shit what? Three or four times. No need to keep repeating yourself, leave.

>>57008161
I just made this post>>57007807
I would like to see all BSD's grow but your license holds you all back thats all.
I honestly think that you guys are suffering because of this... (Drivers, desktops and other software that are made for BSD instead of porting etc). Man you lot need to chill.

>>57008202
We understand your opinion.

Unfortunately, it's the wrong opinion.

>>57008176
You do realize you posted both to the same person right?

>>57008218
What?

>>57008200
I wont leave you cant make me
>>57008217
Not bothered i dont use a depreciating os mate.
I wont suffer at all.

>>57008218
Both of the posts you were referring to were from the same person.

>>57008202
>I just made this post>>57007807
Sure you did.
>but your license holds you all back thats all.
That's your opinion. You've stated it quite a few times already and every time you get shut down. Clearly we couldn't give a flying fuck that want the BSDs to be relicensed, now leave.
>Man you lot need to chill.
We would if you'd stop shitposting.

>>57008239
Obviously it is bothering you, you won't shut the fuck up about it.

>>57008249
Unless you're implying that the anon is samefagging, which would be pretty sad, then I don't think so.

At the end of the day you try to tell "Bloody Shit Distro" users what they need to do in order to save their dying operating system but they refuse to listen. Delusion at its finest.
But the biggest concern is that they think that other os users are ripping on them when in fact they are not. Why wont they listen.

>>57008291
You couldn't make it bore obvious that you're underage if you tried.

>>57008258
Well its not bothering me at all. I can just see why BSD isnt gaining any ground in the relevant world.
Why cant you?
Get over yourself.
Only YOU can make things change seeing you are the one that uses the os mate.

>>57008304
Bore?
Please make sense.

>>57008330
>Well its not bothering me at all.
Again, it bothers you enough that you infest threads every day with your inane bullshit.
>Get over yourself.
You first.

>>57008258
>leave
>STFU
>I disagree with it therefore it's shitposting
Sweeping it under the rug won't fix your problems.

>>57008304
Your os will be dead soon so embrace the inevitable

>>57008330
>oh look, a thread about an OS family I dislike, better go to it just to post the same three negative posts over and over and over again
>it's totally not bothering me lol I'm so kewl xDDD

>>57008344
Obviously I meant "more," you fucking twat.

>>57008359
You've made your point, to reiterate it a million times is most definitely shitposting.

>>57008364
okay, kid

>>57008359
I dont get it im literally telling them why this bsd thing is a failure and they wont listen let alone do anything to save themselves.

>>57008380
Im sensing major butthurt here

>>57008398
>he's playing the "u mad xD" game
hope you're proud of yourself

How much smaller is the *BSD kernel compared to a small configuration of the linux kernel?

>>57008407
You mean like how big the final binary is? That's actually a pretty good question. Isn't the Linux kernel compressed? Don't know if the BSD ones are.

Then there's also the fact that some BSDs are smaller than others. NetBSD would probably be smaller than OpenBSD, even.

File: womans-work.jpg (183KB, 900x583px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 900x583px

bsd developers are aspiring apple developers.
once they make it, bsd is not relevant to them anymore.
we all know this

>>57008422
What size is the smallest possible install?

>>57008407
A minimalistic and hardware targeted Linux kernel can be quite small:

http://elinux.org/Kernel_Size_Tuning_Guide

>>57008436
Facts are facts.

>>57008447
I remember the OpenBSD FAQ talking about that.

If I find it, I'll post it.

>>57008447
>>57008467
https://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq4.html#Partitioning
Found it.

I don't know what sets you'd need to select to use only 512mb though.

>>57008387
You literally told us your opinion and we literally told you we disagree multiple times already. Stating it again isn't going to do anything, you fucking retard.

>>57008398
Nah, just sick of every BSD thread being a massive shitfest. We get it, you disagree with BSD style licenses. Now go circlejerk over the GPL in /fglt/. If BSD vs GPL concerns you this fucking much, make a goddamned thread about it.

>>57008407
>the *BSD kernel
Each BSD OS has its own kernel. They're not like Linux where all the distros are based on the same thing, they're all forks that have had decades to become their own thing

>>57008515
>they're all forks that have had decades to become their own thing
Which makes it kind of ironic when BSD-fags on /g/ complain about Linux being a fragmented community.

>>57008485
>only 512MB
JUST
>>57008455
I thought BSD was smaller? What gives?
>>57008515
Yeah, I know. Whichever one is the smallest, I figured there weren't major differences in the kernel. Well, the FreeBSD kernel then.

>>57008515
You realized you replied to both of my posts?

>>57008528
>I thought BSD was smaller? What gives?
What on earth would make you think that?

Most BSDs are targeted at x86, PowerPC/OpenPower and Sparc. Linux runs on anything that has a programmable MMU (and even some architectures that don't).

Something gets made for linux like desktop environments. Bsd take said de and port it.
When will this stop?

>>57008544
>Linux runs on anything that has a programmable MMU (and even some architectures that don't).
NetBSD too, I believe.

It was ported to some 68000 machines, and I don't think those had MMU's.

>>57008554
>the NetBSD kernel requires the presence of an MMU in any given target architecture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetBSD#Portability

I guess it's like with Linux, that you can get it to work under the right circumstances, but it's an exception rather than a rule.

>>57008552
bsdfags wont answer this

>>57008552
>When will this stop?
Why the fuck should it? There's literally nothing wrong with not reinventing the wheel.

>>57008552
There's nothing wrong with porting it.

The problem is when they fork it instead of contributing upstream, like they did with OpenSSL/LibreSSL.

>>57008606
There's no fixing OpenSSL's terrible development practice. That's why a fork is necessary. The point of open source software is to be able to fork it.

>>57008606
>The problem is when they fork it instead of contributing upstream, like they did with OpenSSL/LibreSSL.
This

Theo de Raadt's fanatical project hijacking must stop. Just because some random project they rely on doesn't adhere to his insane coding standards, doesn't make it inherently flawed and justifies a rewrite.

>>57008613
See >>57008616

The point of open source is that anyone can contribute, not hijack it.

>>57008606
When will bsd make their own de? Besides never.
BSD will always be in the GNU/LINUX shadow.

>>57008636
Lumina is in alpha.

>inb4 durr it doesn't because reason

>>57008613
Nah, Theo saw a bug getting attention on the news and wanted some of it for himself.

>>57008627
What about when you can close the source?

>>57008636
OpenBSD also develops a few WMs

>>57008636
Desktop environments are not part of GNU/Linux, they are an addition to GNU/Linux. Most of them build on X Window System anyway, a standard that originated in MIT for UNIX long before Linux was even imagined.

>>57008613
While I agree that a fork is sometimes justified, in this case Theo & co spent the first two weeks just ridiculing the original authors' code on their mailing lists.

Theo is a true douche, and there's a reason why he's constantly in conflict with everyone in the free software community, including Linus Torvalds.

>>57008640
About time.

>>57008647
Literally no one benefits from this. The exception, according to beta cucks, is if you just need that project as part of something else, which is why BSD license is a cuckmissive license instead of alpha like the GPL.

>>57008616
>insane coding standards
well shame to tell you this, but look at this page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreSSL#Security_and_vulnerabilities

>>57008667
Good god, you have like 4 personalities, don't you.

>>57008668
I know there were security weaknesses in it (see >>57008657, Theo and his gang literally spent weeks just ridiculing the original implementation). I'm referring to Theo's fanatical coding standards, where he willingly and knowingly sacrifice performance over his imagined "code purity".

I get that catching bugs is a good thing, that's why you do extensive testing and have automated test suites. What I don't understand is Haskell-level bickering over how function signatures must and must not be, arbitrary limitations to number of variables a function can have etc. These are arbitrary limitations that come from Theo's autism, not from common sense.

>>57008686
>Good god, you have like 4 personalities, don't you.
No, just 4 freedoms you don't have.

>>57008667
Can we just ignore this guy please? Stop feeding the troll. Let's keep it civilized in the BSD part of /g/, since it apparently can't be civilized anywhere else.

Answer questions if someone has them, provide as accurate of information as you can.

>>57008616

what's it to you?

>>57008696
Eh, there are plenty of operating systems in the world, I can't say I'm against one that errs on the side of caution over performance.

>>57008657
>Desktop environments are not part of GNU/Linux
They are now, Systemd stemmed from the desktop group.

>>57008330
FreeBSD actually has a place in the real world, you just don't see it.
Gnome/Systemd is widely used because of companies like Red Hat that push it in the corporate world and Debian/Buntu which make it a desktop operating system for people used to windows.
However the BSDs are widely used in many companies either as firewalls (for which OpenBSD is truly great) or just general purpose servers.
To keep pushing it into the corporate world means making some compromises such as that which led to Systemd. Problem is, the BSDs are UNIX-like operating systems, they're just not going to turn into some other weird shit abandoning the strong points of UNIX just to get themselves to be used by companies.
About the licensing issue, just fuck off with that, why the fuck do you guys like to shill your gpl license so much? We're not going around telling people to use BSD/MIT licenses, so why the fuck come in and pretend that "you care about our OS" while just wanting to push a dumb agenda based on some rather unimportant issue such as the license when there are more important things to think about such as the architecture and whatnot.
Worst thing is, you realized that slurs like
>cuck license xD
don't work so now you go
>aaaw guys, I'm just thinking about what's best for youuu
fuck off already, we don't give a fuck if you don't like our licensing. Gee, you could come and attack the architecture infrastructure and I wouldn't be so mad, but you keep insisting on your fucking restrictive license because you really don't know shit about BSD but are really compelled to shitpost about it.
How about you fork NetBSD, make your own changes, and sell it? I'm thinking you'll be happier and richer.

Holy fuck I hate this board and this thread.
The dick measuring contest imposed by these GNUfags just makes me hate the GNU project. It really is passive-aggressive by pretending to be DA PEEPLS OS while in reality pretending to be the alpha of Operating Systems. At the end it ends up being a component of the Systemd operating system.

>>57007807
It's not always how you depict it I'm afraid.
I work for one of those companies which allegedly makes $bigbucks thanks to BSD.
What happens in this company, and in most of the others really, is that software is distributed free of charge.
In my example, the company I work for sells machines running an operating system derived (or at least based on) FreeBSD.
Our customers are not charged to obtain a copy of the operating system, not even across different major releases.
The way this company, and many others, actually make money is by selling hardware and support contracts, why should they feed some of those money back to the BSD foundation?
Sure they will do it because they understand the value of doing that but they really have no moral obligation to it.
I personally believe that contribution with code is as worth as, if not more, than money contribution.
Sure we could give a bunch of money to the BSD developers and have them write a driver for Mellanox IB HBAs, or we can have Mellanox do it on their own and then gift the code to the foundation. Imho the latter is much better.

>>57012205
Why hide the fact that you're working for Apple while simultaneously making it blatantly obvious that you work for Apple?

>>57012398
I wouldn't have any pride or shame in working for Apple; however I don't work for them.
Apple is one of the biggest customers of my company, along with Google.

>>57005815
This is why I love BSDs. They just work and they're rock solid while also being extremely lightweight.

>>57008696
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
Tell me how the BSD licenses violate these.

>>57008202
>I would like to see all BSD's grow but your license holds you all back thats all.
why are all of you so obsessed with getting your hands on shitty corporate code monkey "contributions" to your projects? these platforms have more than enough developers already, if you don't like it then help them make it better or stop bitching about it and use a platform you want to use instead of whining about it

>drivers
GPL isn't going to make that happen

>desktops and other software that are made for BSD instead of porting etc
you really have no fucking idea how the *nix software ecosystem works do you

>>57012205
Sounds like iXsystems to me. I love that company.

>>57014297
iXsystems does feed back to the FreeBSD foundation though.

How do I keep browsers up to date in openbsd? The packages are frozen till next release so I'm stuck with outdated Firefox and using ports isn't recommended by the developers.

>>57014362
i think m:tier has binary patches for the most important packages, and i believe that includes firefox

try to find their utility called openup

>>57014316
Plenty of money, they sponsor things aswell. I think he wasn't making a point that his company doesn't -- just that it doesn't HAVE to.

>>57013492
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/bsd.en.html

>>57011642
>systemd
>de
Pick one.

>inb4 le systemd is so bloated it comes with a full-fledged desktop meme xDDD

>>57014532
What's your point?

I read this page before, all it says is "don't use the term "BSD licenses" because people might confuse it with that one retarded version"

Again, don't dodge the question and tell me how the BSD license violates those 4 freedoms, even the FSF approves them.

>>57011597
I like having to deal with one SSL implementation to link against, not multiple ones.

>>57014589
Literally both behave almost exactly the same, they're almost 100% compatible.

Hell, it's so compatible that the binary is still called openssl in libressl.

I don't know, maybe you just don't know what you're talking about once again?

>>57014568
>I read this page before, all it says is "don't use the term "BSD licenses" because people might confuse it with that one retarded version"
It says more than that mate.

>Again, don't dodge the question and tell me how the BSD license violates those 4 freedoms, even the FSF approves them.
I didn't reply to the question "hurr durr how is BSD not free", I answered why they are problematic: They're not copyleft and by not being copyleft they encourage misuse.

Also there are multiple "BSD" licenses: Original, 3-clause, 2-clause, BSD/MIT etc.

>>57014609
Are you retarded? Do you not understand how linking works? It doesn't matter how similar they are, the fucking linker won't link against it.

Also
>they are almost exactly the same
That's insultingly wrong, considering how LibreSSL is almost a complete rewrite of OpenSSL.

>>57014618
>It says more than that mate.
No, it literally directly talks about that issue for about 13 paragraphs out of 17.

The rest is "please satisfy my autism and don't use words I don't like".

>>57014667
The second paragraph addresses the non-copyleft issue. Are you illiterate or just pretending to be?

>>57014678
No, it doesn't. I can't believe you have the gall to call me an illiterate.
>There are many variants of simple non-copyleft free software licenses, such as the Expat license, FreeBSD license, X10 license, the X11 license, and the two BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) licenses. Most of them are equivalent except for details of wording, but the license used for BSD until 1999 had a special problem: the “obnoxious BSD advertising clause”. It said that every advertisement mentioning the software must include a particular sentence
You know what? I'm done with you after this, you're clearly just baiting.

>>57014609
>they're almost 100% compatible
No no no no they are not.
So much shit breaks and wont even build with libressl because it relies on stuff that openssl still provides.

>>57014702
>The two major categories of free software license are copyleft and non-copyleft. Copyleft licenses such as the GNU GPL insist that modified versions of the program must be free software as well. Non-copyleft licenses do not insist on this. We recommend copyleft, because it protects freedom for all users, but non-copylefted software can still be free software, and useful to the free software community

>The two major categories of free software license are copyleft and non-copyleft.

>copyleft
>and non-copyleft

>We recommend copyleft, because it protects freedom for all users, but non-copylefted software can still be free software, and useful to the free software community.

Are you blind?

>>57014609
LibreSSL doesn't even build with default GCC on a normal Linux distro...

GCC is a shit compiler though, it doesn't even have -Weverything yet since GNU developers love to make programs full of warnings and errors. To compile their programs you have to fuck around so much to make the compiler stop complaining.

>>57015800
Theo, please....

>>57015860
GCC is a pretty bad compiler, though. It's intentionally made not to be extensible because of insane ideologies of the FSF. In modern compiler design, it's bound to die out to alternatives.

>>57015860
Pro tip: OpenBSD uses GCC. Only FreeBSD uses Clang, so far.

>>57016026
Isn't it extensible, though? There are Fortran, Ada, and Pascal front-ends.

>>57016067
It's switching to LLVM soon though.

Don't know how they're gonna build it since it needs a relatively new compiler to bootstrap.

>>57016084
Read up on the GCC AST.

>>57016281
I skimmed through an article on AST, and I'm amazed how anti-quality Stallman can be about technology.

>>57014297
Not iXsystems, not sure I'd like to work with them, tried FreeNAS and used it up to version 9 and left me mild to be honest. Don't get me wrong, it's a nice product just I don't see the need for it and I guess it's too much "bloated" for my needs, version 10 doesn't seem better under that point of view at all.

>>57014316
As >>57014498 said, that's exactly what I meant.
I'm not sure whether the company I work for donates money to the BSD foundation but I'm sure it's been giving some code.

>>57017424
So if they don't give back, that's their own problem.

BSD dies, and it's on their hands.

Or hell, just not giving back code would make it a pain to keep their product up to date as it wouldn't get merged.

>>57008640
>reason
Because it looks like shit written in ActionScript

>>57014556
Apparently you don't know the purpose of freeDESKTOP.org. But I doubt you knew they were the architects of systemd/dbus...etc.

>>57017424
Another one that comes to mind is Juniper.

>>57017476
you do know what an alpha is, right

>>57017567
>>57017476

Obviously just here to stir shit. Report for shitposting and move on.

>>57017654
If you don't see that Linux is taking it marching orders from the Desktop group (freedesktop.org) then you're going to be blindsided in the next few years.

>>57017707
It's a BSD thread. Nobody cares about Linux here apart from giving a comparison to people migrating.

>>57017786
you kind of have to care

yesterday i installed netbsd and tried building seamonkey from pkgsrc and it fucking pulled in pulseaudio

>>57017786
Clearly you need to be reported for shitposting, nobody can be this obtuse.

>>57017812
What you have to care about is what happens within FOSS in general. Userland software for the most part. Linux is of no relevance here, software running in it's userland is, as it's being ported.

>>57008636
i3 my friend

>>57017986
also spectrwm and cwm