BSD And Other Things

>>57283835
I'd like to learn bsd, where should i start? What distro is the best?

>>57283913
Start with OpenBSD or FreeBSD, both have great documentation

>>57283835

Why did Theo allow shit like dbus into the ports? I can no longer build a workable openbsd desktop without shit like that ever since 2014 or so :(

Is there really any point in DragonFly existing? all I see in it is a more restrictive & less portable FreeBSD...

>TFW the only nonbsd system is my.phone
>TFW no BSD phone

>>57284622
>what is iOS

>>57284634
I'm not a faggot anon.

Why does bad get so much flak?
I'm currently running arch right now, but I've been curious about bsd for a while.

>>57284693
I'm really not sure. O just switched over completely to freebsd and its so damn refreshing. I can't see myself using Linux after this.

>>57284710
How different is it for everyday use?
Does it have all the same programs available on a regular Linux distro?

>>57283835
Is there any BSD "distro" with good desktop usage support and with a DE like Cinnamon?

>>57284741
PC-BSD is designed to do this. But uses KDE instead of Cinnamon. but with FreeBSD I do believe you can install Cinnamon

>>57284739
I only use emacs, Firefox and vlc so probably not the best person to ask. It does seem to have everything though.

how do I set fish to my default shell in FreeBSD?

>>57283913
Why?

>>57283835
Is this like a masochistic fetish or something? Linux doesn't work as it is, why move to a shittier OS? Honestly what is the appeal, hipsterdom?

>>57285041
If you don't like it, don't use it. It's as simple as that.

>>57285052
I don't even know what it is besides "some unused OS", I'm sincerely asking why anyone would use anything other than OSx let alone some mad obscure BSD thing

>>57285072
Freebsd literally just werks

>>57285234
Because not knowing what BSD even is can be fixed with a simple google search.

>>57285094
Explain to me in normal words why BSD is useful for someone who's not some l33t system admin.

Is it Unix-based? Is there a live disc image for me to try it out?

>>57285256
Because you want to.
>is it Unix-based?
It is Unix.

>>57285252
>>57285276
Alright I googled it, I get the basics. What does it mean for WhatsApp to be [somethinged] in BSD?

>>57285256
>Is there a live disc image for me to try it out?
I think all of the BSDs can be tried from the install media but only OpenBSD has X in the base and I'm not sure if the ramdisk kernel even has graphical drivers in it.

>>57285309
>What does it mean for WhatsApp to be [somethinged] in BSD?
I have absolutely no clue what you're asking.

>>57285334
download virtualbox or qemu-KVM, install it and have fun

>>57285256
It's a lot easier to manage as most of what you'll want to do in the FAQ (for OpenBSD anyway).
Most packages are the same and pkg_add is quite simple to use (there's a pkg_find script which helps).

I don't really have much to say other than the things you most likely know so I won't waste your time with it.


My personal experience of OpenBSD has been quite nice as the man pages cover mostly everything I need and the FAQ covers the rest. I would say it feels solid compared to linux as it's extremely difficult to break things (standard rm -rf / will still destroy your system).

These bsd shill threads are sponsored by Apple.
Apple hopes to persuade /g/ readers to install BSD.
A small percentage of the more autistic recruits will tough it out with this hopelessly broken system, and perhaps contribute some workarounds and usability patches.
An even smaller percentage of these recruits will go on to contribute usable code, which Apple is then free to plunder, and give nothing in return.
It's a great annoyance to the general /g/ user base to be constantly bombarded by this unrelenting shilling, but Apple doesn't care about that. Even the tiniest percentage of recruitment success is justification enough for any amount of cancer inflicted on this board.
If you don't believe me, try any of the bsd variants for yourself. If you don't agree that nobody in their right mind could possibly consider BSD as a suitable desktop os alternative when gnu+linux exists, well I don't know what to say.
But I'm just that sure you'll agree that anybody who touts BSD as something suitable for desktop os must be a paid shill.
It's just that shitty.
Once again, try it for yourself if you doubt my sincerity.

>>57285844
Sure thing, shitposter

>>57285911
thinking everyone out to get you is a good sign of schizophrenia

>>57285922
And irrelevant shitposts are a sign of autism

>>57283835
>autism, the thread
well, the cartoon sure is a good start

>>57283913
FreeBSD, then graduate to OpenBSD

>not using secure trips
>being retarded
thread derailed

File: IMG_2509.jpg (1MB, 2968x1668px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2968x1668px

I HAVE GHOSTBSD IN A VM WHAT SHOULD I DO WITH IT!?

>>57285508
pkg_find? don't you mean pkg_info -Q?

Does Free or Open BSD make a generally 'better' desktop workspace?

>>57286262
it's about on par with linux

whether or not that's good is up to you

i like openbsd's cwm though

>>57286262
FreeBSD with Lumina is equivalent to the OS/2 & Windows experience that so many people like.
OpenBSD is a more X11/Unix experience.

>>57284741
TrueOS.

>>57284780
You stupid nigger, all BSDs can use the X Window System.

Also, PC-BSD is now TrueOS. They use Lumina, not KDE.

>>57285072
> uses OS X
> claims people who use the BSDs are hipsters
lol

>>57285256
>>57285309
Kill yourself.

>>57285276
> It is Unix.
No, it isn't.

>>57285844
lol, muh "Year of the Linux Desktop" fag get out

>>57287044

Lol he's trying to prove it so hard. I'm the real one.

POLARIS support on FreeBSD when?
Kernel panic on xserver-next and drm-next-4.7.

>>57284951
chsh -s /path/to/the/binary

>>57287033
Yes it is

>>57287607
No, it isn't.

Unix is Unix. BSDs are UNIX.

>>57288021
BSDs are Unix and definitely not UNIX

What's a good configuration for pf?

>>57288049
a blank file: it allows everything

>>57288029
> AT&T finally sold its rights in Unix to Novell in the early 1990s, which then sold its Unix business to the Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) in 1995,[4] but the UNIX trademark passed to the industry standards consortium The Open Group, which allows the use of the mark for certified operating systems compliant with the Single UNIX Specification (SUS).
BSDs are UNIX, or Unix-like. They are NOT Unix.

>>57288076
you have it backwards bro.

>>57288076
They're not UNIX certified and are therefore not UNIX, however they are Unix.

>>57288058
That's sort of what I don't want.

>>57288098
Prove it.

>>57288108
If they aren't UNIX, they're Unix-like. I said that in that post.

>>57288108
Oh, and they're not Unix, either.

>>57288189
Unix and UNIX are two different things, they can definitely be Unix without being UNIX. Hell, there are two Linux distros that are UNIX certified and they're definitely not Unix.

>>57288189

quick block all

>>57284458
Sure.

The SMP approach is entirely different to that of Linux/Freebsd.

Instead of fine grained locking, dfly implemented concurrent system servers. By minimising resource sharing, contention is prevented, and scalability is awesome. Only BSD that holds its own against Linux.

It only supports amd64 because the developer base is very small, and focus is on finishing the initial set of goals first.

I suspect this will change when RISC-V is available.

>>57288189
>>57288202
Easily, My definition of Unix is that it contains ATT Unix code. You can see that it does by reading the USL v. BSDi lawsuit.

Code copying and theft of trade secrets was alleged. The actual infringing code was not identified for nearly two years. The lawsuit could have dragged on for much longer but for the fact that Novell bought USL from AT&T and sought a settlement. In the end, three files were removed from the 18,000 that made up the distribution, and a number of minor changes were made to other files. In addition, the University agreed to add USL copyrights to about 70 files, with the stipulation that those files continued to be freely redistributed.

UNIX now only means POSIX compliance.

>>57288217
so it kind of operates like a microkernel?

File: 1475043711445.jpg (62KB, 623x713px)

62KB, 623x713px

>>57285316

>I think all of the BSDs can be tried from the install media but only OpenBSD has X in the base

um... what???

I run OpenBSD (Still on 5.8). There's no official live disc I know of. Same for NetBSD. FreeBSD has a live option from the installation disc though.

>>57285844
This might be true

>>57288203
> In October 1993, Novell, the company that owned the rights to the Unix System V source at the time, transferred the trademarks of Unix to the X/Open Company (now The Open Group),[26] and in 1995 sold the related business operations to Santa Cruz Operation (SCO).[27] Whether Novell also sold the copyrights to the actual software was the subject of a 2006 federal lawsuit, SCO v. Novell, which Novell won. The case was appealed, but on August 30, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the trial decisions, closing the case.[28] Unix vendor SCO Group Inc. accused Novell of slander of title.
>
> The present owner of the trademark UNIX is The Open Group, an industry standards consortium. Only systems fully compliant with and certified to the Single UNIX Specification qualify as "UNIX" (others are called "Unix system-like" or "Unix-like").

>>57288252
> Easily, My definition of Unix
> My definition of Unix
Okay.

My definition of Unix is before 4.4BSD was released.

>>57288314
OpenBSD allows you to install the X Window System by default.

>>57288203
Linux can be UNIX and Unix-like, but not Unix, and the same goes for the BSDs.

>>57288370
I agree with everything but the BSD part.

>>57288354
There's literally 3 definition of Unix.
Genetic Unix - derived directly from ATT code. Which BSD is
UNIX compliance - which is copyright UNIX and compliant with POSIX/SUS
Unix alikes - derived from the philosophy of Unix.

>>57288370
see >>57288252
BSD has ATT Unix Code in it making it Unix.

>>57288257
If you mean a microkernel-based multiserver OS, then yes, except no microkernel. LWKT is the name of the kernel thread implementation.

I personally prefer an actual microkernel like seL4 with Genode or Minix3, but I think that demonstrating that the multiserver approach is much better than a lock clusterfuck is a very important step which Dragonfly is close to achieving.

Once Dragonfly beats the crap out of Linux to everybody's attention, the multiserver approach will be effectively validated, corporate money will come, progress will accelerate, and the era of Linux will end.

>>57288408
Quality != popularity
No matter how good something is, not every good thing becomes popular.

File: you.jpg (43KB, 570x587px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 570x587px

>>57284710
>so damn refreshing
> I can't see myself using Linux after this.
>I only use emacs, Firefox and vlc so probably not the best person to ask.

>>57288382
No, it's true.

>>57288389
> Genetic Unix - derived directly from ATT code. Which BSD is
PATENTLY FALSE.
Unix had two general "forks" over its history, the AT&T fork (System III and V family), which still lives on mostly in Solaris, and the BSD fork, which lives on in Mac OS, OpenBSD, and a few others.

You are pretty much correct on the rest.

> BSD has ATT Unix Code in it making it Unix.
No it doesn't you dumb fuck. All BSDs after and including the 4.4BSD release have NO AT&T CODE.

> Keith, in particular, built a ragtag team (in those days, USENIX conferences were a gold mine for such team building) and led these rebels to rewrite and replace all the Imperial AT&T code, piece by piece, starting with the libraries and userland programs.

>>57288429
Surely nobody cares about scalability or performance.

I'm not talking about the riffraff, but rather, about the likes of Google choosing to base the next version of Android on the better design.

>>57288468
>No it doesn't you dumb fuck. All BSDs after and including the 4.4BSD release have NO AT&T CODE.

Yet another retard who didn't read the USL v BSDi ruling that was released 10 FUCKING years ago and is spouting old ass non-truths. Read the fucking thread.

File: 1452910276957.jpg (11KB, 232x185px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 232x185px

>>57288354
>OpenBSD allows you to install the X Window System by default.

that doesn't make it a "live disc" Jethro.

>>57288314
Oh I must have remembered wrong. I might have been thinking of the post-install where the installer lets you log into the system to configure stuff.

>>57288501
> implying
Oh, so the official OpenBSD page is lying?

https://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#44

Just to be safe, 4.4BSD-Lite is the first BSD after the AT&T lawsuit.

>>57288557
> >I think all of the BSDs can be tried from the install media but only OpenBSD has X in the base
>
> um... what???

I assumed you were confused by what he meant by X, I wasn't necessarily posting regarding the rest of your post.

>>57288468
>macOS
XNU'S Not Unix
Nice try, but mach isn't Unix

>>57288607
>Nice try, but mach isn't Unix
It can be. ie Digital Unix Tru64 used in alphastations.

>>57288607
You're completely right.
It's not Unix.
It's UNIX, or Unix-like.