FreeBSd

> first class ZFS support
> networking stack blows windows and linux out of the water
> jails more secure than Linux containers by a large margin
> simple rc.conf service management

If you don't understand why these things are awesome, you probably just haven't been around Linux long enough.

>>57416201
I mean for a desktop experience.

It's okay if you don't care about security at all.

https://vez.mrsk.me/freebsd-defaults.txt

>>57416567
LOL

>>57416567
Wahhh I can't configure sendmail...

>>57416252
FreeBSD is a server OS

>>57416252
It's good, but as a desktop it's about on par with Arch or Gentoo. The bad news is that you'll need to generate a basic X config yourself, and it doesn't come with a desktop environment out of the box. The good news is that neither of these things are that hard, and are made much easier by the fact that FreeBSD has none of the added bloat that comes with "modern" systemd-infested Linux distros.

>>57416252
See https://cooltrainer.org/a-freebsd-desktop-howto/ for a rough idea of what >>57416785 is talking about. (These instructions are still entirely compatible with FreeBSD 11). As a final note, using ports for everything is extremely autistic if you want to set up a desktop. Building X, a desktop environment, and your web browsers from source is WAY more trouble than it's worth for a desktop. If you want the machine to primarily be a server, ports will probably get you better performance and security, though.

I'm currently running FreeBSD with XFCE on one of my desktops, but it still functions primarily as a server--there's really no denying that it's much better as a server OS.

>>57416201
You forgot to add
>Defaults to clang rather than gcc

>>57416855
>Building X, a desktop environment, and your web browsers from source is WAY more trouble than it's worth for a desktop
this, what the fuck is the point when it starts pulling in GCC and gmake and all that other shit

>>57416077
It's okay, but for most people linux is probably going to be better (On desktop)

>>57416077
For server use it's awesome. Set up my home server with 10.3 not too long ago and the whole thing was a cinch. Definitely easier than getting a similar Linux setup up and running – no exceptions/quirks/ifs/buts, everything just worked exactly as it's supposed to. With Linux there's always some stupid little shit that that's unique to your particular setup that complicates things, which can be maddening.

Best server and unix experience you can have. Good security. Excellent stability. Great ZFS support.
>Desktop Experience
What are you some NEET who plays gaymes?

>>57417156
why does *bsd not audit any ports & packages while claiming to be secure though?

>>57416077
It's an angry, brooding, impotent, meme.

I wouldn't use FreeBSD for desktop. Even the FreeBSD devs don't use it for desktop.
Which is fair enough as they just want a great server OS.

>>57417180
Because it's not their job to dumb fuck

>>57417198
why claim to be safe when the packages they provide you with arent audited? it's their job to make sure the software they are distributing is safe & secure?

>>57417212
It's the users job to not be fucking retards.

File: smug_anime_girl.png (337KB, 398x582px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 398x582px

>>57417212
>he doesn't know how difficult auditing one application is
>let alone thousands

>>57417230
>BSD team let insecure software into repos, they dont tell anyone about it because not audited. not one of them.
>user installs software
>user is to blame

>>57417258
Yep

File: puffy60.gif (82KB, 599x199px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 599x199px

Why would I use FreeBSD over OpenBSD?

>>57417281
Cuz OpenBSD sucks

>>57417239
he's probably the same guy who asks why openbsd doesn't have their own internet browser 2bh

>>57416785
>arch
>anywhere close to freebsd or gentoo
enjoy your script kiddie OS

>>57417281
Real Journaling filesystems instead of retarded soft updates

>>57417281
Better support, but that's about it. Also, has OpenBSD dropped linux compatibility yet? I heard they were planning to

>>57417748
in 6.0 they did fully remove it i believe

It's crap. There, I said it.

>>57417755
no going to provide any points or reasons..?

>>57417753
That kinda sucks desu

>>57416077
for servers? preety darn good, for dekstop? not really.

>>57416077
BSD init has some good touches.

The userland software is autistic though.

ls -l file

versus

ls file -l

FreeBSD and everything else can do the first.

Linux lets you do the second (if you remember wanting a switch right before you hit enter), but FreeBSD bitches.

>>57418303
well it's not THAT big of a deal, just press ctrl+a to go to the beginning of the line and put -l in

>>57418221
this senpai. If you try to use it as a desktop OS you'll just be using half baked Linux ports. Most of the DEs are all ported from Linux and half of them don't work right.

Basically, the only thing that matters for a desktop/laptop OS is driver support (and *nix portability). Anything else can be fixed by installing more software, but fuck needing to do legwork to get the hardware to work.

>>57418303
The second requires 100 lines of unmanageable spaghetti code :^)

https://gist.github.com/fogus/1094067

FreeBSD and NetBSD are memes. OpenBSD is the only one that should be taken seriously.

>>57419057
>https://gist.github.com/fogus/1094067
>void
>main(int argc, char *argv[])

Stopped reading.

>>57419214
are you talking about the plan 9 one? there's a good reason for that, actually

plan 9's dialect of C is really fucking weird

>>57419295
What else?
I am always assuming standard C. C90, though. Because I have to make sure that it compiles properly on all compilers.

>>57419363
http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/programming/c_programming_in_plan_9
take a look here, it's actually pretty neat but pretty counter-intuitive when you realize that the point of C is to be portable

>>57419426
>http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/programming/c_programming_in_plan_9
>If you’re one of these guys, then you better get used to it.

Yeah, well, I got a better idea - I'll just go and leave you with your autistic shit alone.

>>57419492
I read that article and am not surprised that plan 9 has died. I guess Linus talks the same way, but he essentially still follows the GNU (K&R) conventions that everyone already knows how to use properly and are slightly less of a waste of space.

>>57419426
It's pretty neat except Plan 9 is dead. So yeah. Good job being neat and dead, I guess.

>>57419743
>I read that article and am not surprised that plan 9 has died. I guess Linus talks the same way

He stole the idea of namespaces from plan9, which in turn allows things like containerization(LXC/LXD) in Linux.