Which *nix should i use?

>>59409056
Depends on the use case.
For servers, I'd go Linux -> FreeBSD -> OpenBSD and then make up your mind on what best fits you.

>>59409064
And here i thought FreeBSD was supposed to have the best servers

i keep hearing good things about the bsd license, is it really that good?

File: desktop.png (107KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1680x1050px

FreeBSD personally

>>59409641
Is it good for personal use and work?

>>59409641
You have 2 USBs in but FreeBSD is garbage so you can't access them

>>59409056
openbsd has shit performance. it's ok for a router but for serious work, choose something better
>>59409616
only autists actually give a fuck about the license

Huh, looks like there's a linux compatibility layer and there have been lots of work put towards it recently, this is cool.

FBSD because yes -'

>>59409223
The best for servers is SmartOS, which is based on Illumos. hhtps://www.joyent.com/smartos

BTRFS/ZoL doesn't beat Illumos ZFS. FreeBSD ZFS is pretty standalone in the OS; It can only since recently deal with a hot spare drive and thats it. IO scheduling on FreeBSD is spartan; It will always favor large IO and starve small read / writes. SmartOS wins.

LXC doesn't beat FreeBSD jails or Solaris zones since LXC is not considered a security boundary. SmartOS has zones, it wins when combined with above.

SmartOS comes with a ton of Solaris tools like DTrace and other reliability software so you have absolute guaranteed uptime no matter what happens.

Systemd doesn't beat SMF on Illumos. SMF really nailed it (Systemd is overkill and plain RC scripts in FreeBSD are weak).

Start up SmartOS, create a zone (KVM) that runs OpenBSD current as your main firewall. Then run your apps in SmartOS containers that are all segregated by both SmartOS and OpenBSD (or FreeBSD, though their pf is behind OpenBSD).

>>59410427
Both have their merits. At FreeBSD we work closely with the illumos folks, and the IO scheduling isn't spartan, you can tune it very finely.

DTrace development is mainly happening on FreeBSD these days, despite the fact that Bryan wrote it originally. Despite that, you'll get all the changes ported eventually, no matter how complex they are.

Zones are containers, you can't spin up OpenBSD in a zone, you can only spin up illumos, perhaps an LX branded zone, but still illumos. Crossbow is more mature than VIMAGE, but VIMAGE is pretty safe to use in production. Though KVM is available on illumos and some very smart people worked on it(Robert Mustacchi, I'm looking at you), in FreeBSD you have bhyve, which is pretty similar and let's you spin up different kernels too.

As per ZFS, it's decent on FreeBSD, but no doubt better on illumos.

There are a couple of things with FreeBSD that are better than the illumos counter parts, namely kqueue(2) as it allows for a very general way to notify about events, which makes very complex functionality possible.

It just comes down to what you need at this point.

FreeBSD especially if you have a memepad.

>>59409641
What's that window manager?

>>59410560
>>59410427
hell, i'll take both

>>59410323
They've had a linux binary compatibility/emulation for years anon. You should read up on about it, it's very interesting. It'll take you a half hour, maybe an hour to read their thesis about it. Very good stuff.

File: 1475515156926.jpg (223KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1200x1200px

>>59409056
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

>>59410934
you mean Systemd/Linux

>>59410934
Away with your autism to linux land

File: 1466493176364.jpg (329KB, 1024x577px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 1024x577px

>>59410946
What we say is that you ought to give the system's principal developer a share of the credit. The principal developer is the GNU Project, and the system is basically GNU.

If you feel even more strongly about giving credit where it is due, you might feel that some secondary contributors also deserve credit in the system's name. If so, far be it from us to argue against it. If you feel that X11 deserves credit in the system's name, and you want to call the system GNU/X11/Linux, please do. If you feel that Perl simply cries out for mention, and you want to write GNU/Linux/Perl, go ahead.

Since a long name such as GNU/X11/Apache/Linux/TeX/Perl/Python/FreeCiv becomes absurd, at some point you will have to set a threshold and omit the names of the many other secondary contributions. There is no one obvious right place to set the threshold, so wherever you set it, we won't argue against it.

Different threshold levels would lead to different choices of name for the system. But one name that cannot result from concerns of fairness and giving credit, not for any possible threshold level, is “Linux”. It can't be fair to give all the credit to one secondary contribution (Linux) while omitting the principal contribution (GNU).

>>59410427
>no arguments, just statements

>>59410560
>At FreeBSD we work closely with the illumos folks
Yep, steaing fetures, drivers... Though recently they don't have money to do much with legacy code.

>>59409641
Take the poo in the loo!

>>59409056
OpenBSD is not hacked by the CIA.

>>59410560
Calm down Bryan.

>>59411511
openssh hacked

>>59411532
Recently?
I'm gonna need a source.

If you have to ask, Ubuntu.

>>59409223
FreeBSD has the best servers but no support. I can use any one of dozens of orchestration systems to automatically manage hundreds of Linux VMs, or I can work overtime getting FreeBSD to work all of the monitoring and management tools available.

>>59410427
Few years ago I tried running SmartOS but I couldnt figure it out because it was so very much different from Linux and FreeBSD and I havent taken the time to try to research it since, but I think I may.

>>59411554
>>59411598
GNU/Linux*
>>59411511
>>59411532
cracked*

>>59410578
I too am curious. It's quite slick looking. A little less minimal than I am looking around for. Not bad looking though.

>>59411554
>FreeBSD has the best servers but no support
BSD is an os, not to mention how can something be best, without support.

>>59409056
I really like how everything in FreeBSD is built to work together nicely. The handbooks are great, too.

>>59411848
> work together nicely.
what do you mean?