if Arch users want minimalism, why do they not use *BSD?

Because nothing is comparable with it

>>58780440
Nothing of value is on BSD, besides the networking stack

>>58780440
because 99% of the arch users have no idea what they are doing and are fucked without their stupid wiki.

Arch just werks

>>58780440
>replace a meme with another one

>>58780522
>replace a meme with a better one

FTFY

File: 000097.png (857KB, 1269x674px) Image search: [Google]

857KB, 1269x674px

>openBSD repo
>180 000 commits
>230 stars

>>58780440
>minimalism
>arch
>bsd

choose one

File: 1479674012254.gif (3MB, 355x201px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 355x201px

>>58780680
>230

All of its users and their dogs.

>>58780705
I too, my good sir, use seL4 as my main OS!

The other day I was almost able to send a message over a serial cable, and it only took 2 hours of reading docs! Unfortunately it did require compiling and writing some code on a bloated Linux box, but I'm sure a compiler and editor that runs on L4 will eventually come along.

>>58780735
Are you retarded?
Arch is bloat because the devs are lazy autists that don't even separate dev headers from the main package forcing you to install bloat you'll never use. There are other things but this is the most obvious one.
BSD is bloat because they ship a "base system" and God forbid you try to remove or substitute some program. Everything else expects the base to be immutable and always there so random breakage is very likely if you try to alter it.
If you want minimalism you should use something like Alpine Linux.

FreeBSD is a bloated and insecure piece of flaming shit.

I'd use OpenBSD if they supported my video card.

>>58780887
>implying OpenBSD is secure
They don't audit ports and refuse to implement MAC, which means all the security goes out of the window once you actually have to use the damn thing.

They got some good idea, like mandatory pledge for many tools.

>>58780802
>BSD is bloat because they ship a "base system"

GNU is a base system. It's called userland.

>>58780921
windows has MAC. works great for security obviously.

Because I use Void Linux.

>>58780680
>>58780731
you mean the repo that's basically just a mirror?

they use CVS, you fucking mongoloids

>>58780887
you just trigged the freebsd fag

>>58781557
>>58781563

>>58780440
BSD isn't minimal at all. If it was minimal, I wouldn't use it. OpenBSD comes with a lot of stuff.

>>58780440
arch is actually more bloated than ubuntu, but archfags are too stupid to realize it
>bloated kernel
>bloated packages

>>58781531
That's different. Linux distros are build from separate pieces that you are free to mix and match and every package has precisely defined dependencies.
BSDs, on the other hand, have a base system - a collection of in-house utilities and some 3rd party software. Changing anything about the base system is asking for serious trouble because programs don't see it as individual packages but a huge amorphous blob that's identical on every system.

>>58781544
b8

>>58781800
It's not b8, it's sarcasm. You can change the base system a little by choosing what install sets you install during installation. But you're right, you cannot change too much: you get a complete Unix system.

literally the only point of the BSDs is to provide you with a "just werks" unix operating system, it's not for retarded ricers

>>58781715
how is the kernal more bloated if ubuntu uses the same one?

>>58781855
how new are you?
you can configure what gets compiled into the kernel so you can end up with a minimal kernel that's tailored to your machine as well as a huge monster with every feature ever.

>>58780440
The package manager is SO SLOW jesus

>>58780921
At least OpenBSD is secure out of the box, if you install something bad from ports that's your fault.

>>58783755

> My operating system is secure as long as I don't actually do anything with it.

Look at how dumb you are.

>>58783755
literally the point of most of the security stuff in openbsd is to prevent 3rd party software from misbehaving though

>>58784106

OpenBSD's approach to security is "write good, bugfree code and regularly audit it." which, while an admirable goal, doesn't scale.

>>58784182
no, they have ASLR and W^X for example

>>58784191
While those prevent entire classes of exploits, OpenBSD doesn't really have a way to mitigate damage once an exploit is successful.
That's what MAC is for, to limit the damage to a particular area.

>systemd users
>minimalism
you got it all wrong pal

BSD and Mac are the true unixes!

>>58784570
>mach kernel
>Unix

>>58784278
>That's what MAC is for, to limit the damage to a particular area.
How does Media Access Control do that?

>>58781800
>Changing anything about the base system is asking for serious trouble

Of course changing things creates bugs genius.

People don't "not change the base system" because their is some nefarious force preventing them from doing so. OpenBSD is a UNIX-like OS that includes and excels at everything you would expect from such an OS. it is respected as such and used as such. if you want to start customizing it to be your special snowflake you can join the ranks of the actual thousands of other retards that did so with "muh GNU/Linux distro"

BSD would be a good starting point for forking off a commercial OS.
If you're just a user managing everything yourself, it really doesn't matter.

>>58781822
BSD isn't Unix though.

>>58786908
>BSD would be a good starting point for forking off a commercial OS.
If it is then why did Android use Linux?

>>58784182
the opposite doesn't always scale either.

>>58786909
"UNIX" is just a rubber stamp

BSD is the closest to UNIX that exists.

>>58780802
>If you want minimalism you should use something like Alpine Linux.

Wrong. If you want for minimalism, use Crux. A real distro with KISS philosophy.

BSD isn't minimal. It has everything you should need right from the start.

But it's well-designed, so it happens to wind up being small.

>>58784278
mac for linux only exists because us government policy mandates its use therefore they did selinux. there was no grave problem that needed solving. time_t is actually a much better contribution to infosec.

>>58786961
macOS actually certifies as unix every release since 10.5.

File: agree.jpg (3KB, 114x111px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 114x111px

>>58787005

>>58787010
And? UNIX doesn't make it Unix.

File: glasses.jpg (19KB, 379x156px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 379x156px

>>58787010
>"UNIX" is just a rubber stamp

did you lose these?

>>58780921

>implying freetards actually use SELinux

>>58784098

They ship with their own httpd server, sshd server, smtpd server, anything sysadmin should need.

They also ship with full toolchain (including editors) for development work, and next release will come with libcxx LLVM/Clang in the base.

>>58784278

>MAC limit the damage

Have you ever setup SELinux?

Have you ever wrote exploit?

>>58786922
cuz most universities teach their mongoloids how to write device driver for linux not freebsd.