BSD and other things

Just switch to linux already

>>57046580
Nice to see you too

>>57046580
Why would I do that?

>>57046580
Switched away from Linux to OpenBSD, only use Linux on my RasPi. Glad there's something to choose, right?

vmm officially enabled in OpenBSD

http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20161012092516&mode=expanded

sigh
I hate this bait
>any BSD users in /g/? come to this thread to be insulted by a kid who's never used it.
Sell your computer OP, buy some bleach with that money

>>57047133
Come to think of it, OP and the kid insulting BSD users are the only constants in these threads... they're probably the same person pretending to make a serious thread just to insult people
your kind is what is wrong with the world

>>57047133
>>57047196
OP here. I'm a different anon from the fag who keeps shitposting in every BSD thread.

Why does OpenBSD use ksh for interactive use? I find tcsh much better but maybe I'm missing something.

>>57047376
>tcsh
bloat

>>57047376
i think more people simply use POSIX shells

(t)csh is simply there for backwards compatibility

Is firefox still supported on OBSD?

>>57047376
I use KSH93, I don't really see the problem, as long as you configure it, that is.

>>57047738
always has been

>>57047740
this

ksh is good but i hate how it doesn't detect a .kshrc by default

to be perfectly honest i don't even know how i'm supposed to use .profile and .kshrc, i tend to just store ENV and shit that needs to run on log-on in .profile and all the rest in .kshrc

>>57047742
Oh cool, thought they stopped supporting it cause it was to bothersome to audit it for the mitigations.

>>57046580
Just kill yourself already

>>57047767
I usually keep an /etc/kshrc as an ENV for the system and enable per-user configuration on servers. On the desktop, I just keep a global /etc/kshrc as the ENV, as it really doesn't matter there.

File: Confused looking girl with interrogation marks on her head 1.png (260KB, 620x640px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 620x640px

>>57046535
>Potential Linux switchers welcome

I cannot understand what's the advantage of switching away from Linux to *BSD if you're desktop user.

Isn't there more compatible softwares on Linux than *BSD? What's the appeal? Serious question, no trolling.

File: 1469543419512.png (22KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 750x750px

>BSDs will never have as much support as Linux
>shit like systemd is making it worse every day

>>57047846
>>57047862
You don't need any of the shit you think you do

>>57047846
Some people do it for the license, as they disagree with the GPL. Others do it because they want to run one of the BSDs or support it. Some, like me, do it because they develop one. There is in general more recognition about the work going around, things are done in a clean way, unlike some of the things in Linux(talking about kernels here).

My initial reason for switching to one of the BSDs, namely FreeBSD was jails and an ULE scheduler for large scale network emulations, as Linux has absolutely thrashed on a scale of >50k LXC containers running either routing or server software.

The userland and the kernel are more tightly knitted, allowing you to build the system from ground up. This is untrue for GNU/Linux as there is lots of glue inbetween, and even distros like Gentoo go from a stage 3 install. The equivalent in GNU/Linux is LFS, and we all know how tedious that is.

After I was done with the project, I decided to stick to it and contribute, as I really liked what I had found there. Things were in general much easier to set up. By things here I mean general configuration and things I am interested in. This may not hold true for you if all you run is Linux specific applications that are hardcoded to Linux. There might be ports, there might not be.

I suggest you give the BSDs a go, if anything in a VM.

>>57047862
systemd isn't that terrible. Yes it's badly designed software, but people give it way more shit than it really deserves and treat it like it's some kind of virus or something. BSDs already do have as much support as Linux, but thanks to the BSD license it all gets closed source so it doesn't really contribute back to the open source projects (doesn't mean BSDs are dead though, they still get a lot of development). The entire point of BSD is that you do whatever the fuck you want with the code, no strings attached, unlike the GPL.

Which BSD is best for beginners?

>>57047990
It's untrue that things get locked down. Sure, some of the userland things might be locked down -- but the technical things are very often upstreamed because they are unmaintainable without the support from the FOSS community. See Netflix, NetApp, Juniper, Isilon and so on as an example in FreeBSD. I'm sure the other BSDs have their companies that contribute back aswell.

>>57047990
systemd is trying to take over your entire system. One of the reasons why I hate systemd are all the systemd dependencies. Even GNOME depends on systemd now. This is obviously bad for BSDs.

>>57048028
Systemd is just one of things that is forcing Linux down the drain. RedHat is pretty much the company that will eventually "kill" Linux as the people who used it through the 90s and early 2000s remember it and take down the UNIX philosophy and POSIX compliant code with it.

>>57047971
What do you mean is that *BSD is better for systems programming and networking?

>>57048028
>systemd is trying to take over your entire system

It's an init system. It manages your system, that's its entire purpose, it can't do that without complete control over it. The dependency thing is just bad design on Linux's part, Linux is designed to be assembled like a jigsaw puzzle with dependencies and many distros use systemd because it's a popular choice among all distros, that's it really. You're also not tied down to using either systemd or Gnome, there are tons of other desktop environments and init systems you could use.

>>57048015
openbsd

>>57048062
>>57048028
Paid MS FUD-shills, please leave.

>>57048088
Have no affiliation with MS or want to use their software. I disagree with their philosophy and the way they develop software. I also disagree with the way Linux is today. If you can't accept that, you should probably get off the internet, or well, off a BSD thread at the very least.

>>57047990
BSD support suffers more from vendors pulling the le ebin binary blob trick and from the smaller ecosystem than from the license per se

The standards for what is allowed to be loaded into the kernel are very strict (at least in OpenBSD) so the policy tends to be to drop it unless it meets the quality standards rather than vice versa

>>57048073
>The dependency thing is just bad design on Linux's part
?????????
Are you sure you know what you're talking about

>>57048064
I believe that the systems programming part is very similar, except that it's closed to the original way you would code in UNIX and you are kind of forced to do that if you want your code upstreamed. That is less regulated in Linux, as it is never intended as a UNIX system.

The internet originated from the BSDs, and it's components continue to be under very active research. Things like netgraph, vnet, prefix tree routing tables, kqueue, CDG, ... all originate from FreeBSD.

>>57048160
So, from a programmers point of view, *BSD is one of the best operating systems to be used, specially if you're programming in a UNIX environment?

But what about the desktop user perspective? Does it have any advantages?

>>57048131
Yes. Linux is designed to be modular, to be run with dependencies all over the place. That's why things break often and you need to go fetch software dependencies in order to get things working. OpenBSD doesn't care about modularity, it just works out of the box. Linux is designed to be built, it's designed to be as versatile as possible, OpenBSD tries to just fulfill its goals.

>>57048230
Probably none, really. Other than having different tools for configuration of certain things and being more familiar to a UNIX user.

Most of the mainstream DEs available on GNU/Linux are available on the majority of the BSDs aswell. Assuming you're using one and configuring things through it, you probably won't even notice the difference. That is, if your hardware is fully supported(I suggest you look this up if you intend to bring your system down).

Why is he so smug if he is trapped in a small aquarium? What did OP mean by this?

>>57046535
Exept gpl and bsd licence what's the big difference between Linux (system 5 if I remember) and bsd families?
No I don't want to read wiki

OP could fix his copypasta as such:

/bsd/ - *BSD General Thread
Discuss FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, DragonFlyBSD, etc

IRC -> #baot @ irc.rizon.net

News sites:
https://www.dragonflydigest.com/
http://undeadly.org/cgi

Docs:
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/handbook/
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/faq/
https://www.openbsd.org/faq/index.html
https://www.netbsd.org/docs/guide/en/
https://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/handbook/

Potential GNU/Linux switchers welcome. Ask questions, get answers.

>>57048772
>I hate reading
Get off your computer then and play Angry Birds with your iPhone instead.

>>57048772
If you're asking about the kernel, there are almost no similarities. The implementations are significantly different.

>>57047691
You're right, there is no POSIX page for csh.
Despite that, I enjoy both shells. They have fun quirks.

>>57048015
As an OpenBSD user, I'd say FreeBSD is better for people with no knowledge of Unix due to the good Handbook.

>>57048960
As a FreeBSD user, in some respect, I agree. In others, not so much. Sometimes the FreeBSD technologies can be very intimidating. A good example is when ZFS prompts you for a lot of different types of RAIDs. It also requires tuning for some things, whilst OpenBSD comes with defaults preferable to most users.

>>57049043
The thing is, ZFS is not the default choice in the FreeBSD installer. I feel a newb, after having read the handbook chapter on installation, could get a good FreeBSD UFS/FFS installation.

>>57049043
OpenBSD's partitioning can be quite difficult if you can't just write to a whole disk.

>>57048960
What about pc-bsd or ghostbsd? Those are said to be even easier to get into.

>>57048772
The kernel is different. Software is different. Philosophies are different. They have a lot of differences, the only things they share in common is the unix-like label andsome code they share from each other.

>>57048702
It's a metaphor, he's safe but he can't do much just like OpenBSD.

>>57048772
if you have to ask it probably doesn't matter to you (being so similar), and if you don't want to read it's obvious it doesn't matter to you and you're just wasting everyone elses time.

>>57049200
You can do anything the other BSDs can do in openbsd.

>>57046580
/thread

FreeBSD 11 is a huge buggy disappointment.

>>57049074
You do have a point there. I concur.

>>57049404
What in particular is the problem? I suggest you report it so that it can be fixed. There have been serious problems with the release process itself, so it wouldn't surprise me if some things aren't as polished.

is freebsd actually upstream for anything anymore besides freenas?

>>57049494
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_products_based_on_FreeBSD

What do you guys think of pc-bsd?

>>57046535
I would use OpenBSD on my desktop if they finally got around to porting Nouveau or if someone hacked up a way to run the proprietary nvidia driver in openbsd

>>57049099
I don't think PC-BSD has any advantage over FreeBSD regarding usability or whatever.
I mean, to be honest, the BSDs (at least OpenBSD and FreeBSD) are quite easy systems. As far as the installers go, you can just accept all the defaults and have your system installed and working (unheard of in Linux) in 10 minutes.
Of course I assume you know how to use the command line, which is true if you've ever used a unix-like before.
There are some superficial differences in the commands and in the naming of devices, but the handbook/faq and particularly, Michael Lucas' books are a great way to get started.
BSD is 1000% easier than linux that I assure you. You just have to get used to the small differences (for example, mounting a file system: mount -t msdosfs /dev/da0s1 /mnt. In openbsd mount_msdos /dev/sd1i and in linux: mount /dev/sda1. This is one common task for me and I was completely lost about it when I started out)

>>57049728
No reason to use it. Just install a desktop yourself on FreeBSD.

>>57049847
>>57049872
Why does PC-BSD and others like it like ghostbsd even exist?

>>57049796
If you want the proprietary Nvidia driver you do not want OpenBSD.

>>57049796
OpenBSD has a strict rule against proprietary drivers being ran. However, they allow proprietary firmware because the OS isn't running it, it's reading it off the hardware.

>>57050343
Someone could theoretically make proprietary drivers for OpenBSD, like Nvidia does for FreeBSD. The thing is OpenBSD devs are not interested in helping nor will they ever accept those drivers being bundled with their OS. They require source code because they want their entire OS to be up to their very strict coding standards and they can't check something without source code.

>>57047846
Serious answer:
https://www.freshports.org/

>>57047846
Because Linux is broken garbage.
I want some sanity in my PC experience.

>>57047846
Because GNU software is insanely bad. It's like someone tried to write a Lisp machine userland for a Unix kernel.

>>57049796
Why would you want Nouveau? I don't think you're aware of how much of an unfinished buggy mess Nouveau is. Nvidia can probably make drivers for OpenBSD, but what's the point, that goes against the whole principle of it in the first place. There is however a proprietary Nvidia driver for FreeBSD though.

>>57049164
Thanks

Why is FreeBSD such an insecure mess?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXS8ljif9b8

>>57055454
Because the focus isn't security, their focus is to provide a high performance system which works out of the box, is customisable for power users and has support for every feature you could want in an OS. FreeBSD and OpenBSD are worlds apart from each other, they're not really the same operating system nor do they focus on the same things at all.

>>57055454
There are a number of reasons, the two main ones are the low standards for software and the lack of auditing. The auditing is the most important, because without being able to say what is in 100% of your system's code, you cannot make any statements one way or the other about its security. A lot of developers have the attitude that simply opening code alone guarantees code comprehension when it really doesn't.

>>57055495
>>57055561
In which case I don't see how FreeBSD is better than openSUSE with SELinux

>>57055592
One is Linux, one is BSD. You're choosing two completely different operating systems, it's like asking whether you'd prefer macOS or Windows, it's really up to you.

>>57046535
WHY DOES THAT BLOWFISH HAVE SMUG NIGGER LIPS?

>>57055839
True, but we can compare them in terms of usability and security.