>Thinking Linux is the best alternative os fucking normies

File: 1471964052803.webm (589KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

589KB, 1366x768px

>>59561553

>>59561553
>using the Ubuntu of BSDs

>>59561564
>not installing Guest Tools
>using Linux as a host

>>59561605
Its like you were trying to make it fail

>>59561553

>pcbsd

>>>/trash/

Use Any BSD instead of this shit!

>>59561553
GPU Drivers is the only reason for linux, otherwise
>PCBSD
>Not Dragonfly

>>59561553
>not realizing Mac OS is not only the best BSD, but also best alt OS

>>59562575
>thinking MacOS is BSD

>>59562676
>thinking Mac OS isn't a BSD

>>59562744
>thinking darwin is BSD
>thinking that OSX has enough BSD in it to be considered BSD
>being this naive

>>59562886
>BSD descendant isn't BSD
How much code do the modern BSDs have from their original forks? They're still considered BSD.

>>59563353
>original forks
>NetBSD
I'd say 100%?

>>59563431
There's no goddamned way any of them have 100% of the original code.

>>59561553
>anti-normie singaling this hard

>>59563440
Code doesn't vanish, it's still there.

>>59563526
It gets replaced over time. If 100% of the original code was there that'd mean that NetBSD is just a 20 year old OS with some modern software tacked on. That's clearly not the case.

>>59561605

There are no guest additions for any *BSD dumbass.

>>59563540
It's almost 30 years of code being tacked on but not necessarily replaced. You can still run netbsd 1.0 or probly earlier. What was the point of your question? How BSD it is?

>>59563573
You were saying that OS X doesn't contain much BSD code and therefore isn't BSD, by that logic the other BSDs aren't either as the actual BSD code has been replaced.
>You can still run netbsd 1.0 or probly earlier
That could not possibly be less relevant.

>>59563608
It's still the same project, it could be reused. NetBSD the descendent of BSDi, freebsd and them came later from that project. They're obviously one step removed compared to netbsd so where does OSX come from? That's the only real measure of BSDness.

>>59563608

I'm not involved in this retarded argument but I just want to interject to say that BSD has nothing to do with any of the *BSDs. Also UNIX-like OSes aren't UNIX so stop deluding yourselves assholes; naming rights matter.

>>59563634
>so where does OSX come from?
NeXTSTEP, which is based on BSD 4.3. When they turned it into OS X they updated it with FreeBSD components.

>>59563660
Who said anything about UNIX (which OS X is, by the way)?

>>59563634
FreeBSD since FreeBSD 2.0 release has been based on 4.4BSD-Lite.

>>59563699

>Who said anything about UNIX (which OS X is, by the way)?

Wrong. First of all, there isn't an OS called "OS X", it changed its name and it's macOS. Second, only a few versions of it were registered to certain versions of the UNIX standard. You're basically retarded and you should stop browsing this fine board.

>>59563660
>BSD has nothing to do with any of the *BSDs
you should have stayed quiet.

>>59563699
>Who said anything about UNIX (which OS X is, by the way)?
not POSIX compliant therefore not UNIX

>>59563608
>You were saying that OS X doesn't contain much BSD code and therefore isn't BSD, by that logic the other BSDs aren't either as the actual BSD code has been replaced.
OSX does not claim to be BSD whereas FreeBSD does. OSX is even farther from BSD than android is to Linux

>>59563551
You sir are a moron

>>59563353
They are considered BSD beacuse they are the natual evolution of BSD. Windwos 10 and Windows NT are both windows.

>>59563766

>I don't know shit and I like to delude myself into thinking that I'm using a UNIX system when it's actually UNIX-like

KYS

File: OS X 10.12 UNIX cert.jpg (147KB, 726x869px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 726x869px

>>59563758
>Wrong.
Wrong.
>First of all, there isn't an OS called "OS X", it changed its name and it's macOS
I really don't give a shit what OS X has been renamed to, it's OS X.
>Second, only a few versions of it were registered to certain versions of the UNIX standard
Every OS X version since Mac OS X 10.5 on Intel has been UNIX certified.
>You're basically retarded
Says the literal retard who's talking out of his ass.

>>59563769
>not POSIX compliant therefore not UNIX
Not only is it POSIX compliant, it's UNIX certified.
>OSX does not claim to be BSD whereas FreeBSD does.
Whatever you say buddy
>They are considered BSD beacuse they are the natual evolution of BSD
OS X has also evolved from BSD.

File: Untitled.png (9KB, 1214x77px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 1214x77px

>>59563769

>You sir are a moron

No, you're a retard who doesn't even read the documentation of the stuff you use. You're an idiot and you're no sir.

>>59563783
I know more about BSD systems than the shit you're spouting.

I doubt you can define what the fuck you are saying. "natural evolution of BSD..." fucking bullshit. There was no need for CSRG to exist after the internet became available to the masses.

>>59563819

>I know more about BSD systems than the shit you're spouting.

Why does it matter that you know about an OS that died decades ago and that no hardware can support anymore? I know about *BSD systems, those are actually somewhat relevant in the current year.

>>59563841
>I have no idea what 4.4BSD-Lite is and it's relevance today.

K, kiddo.

>>59563807

As I said, only some versions were registered to certain versions of the UNIX standard. Thanks for posting proof of exactly that. You can keep using your outdated OS, but I will be using a newer one called macOS.

>>59563882
>but I will be using a newer one called macOS.
He posted the UNIX certification for MacOS you putz.

File: im4326.gif (3MB, 359x202px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 359x202px

Gotta love the naming spergs.

>>59563882
>only some versions
Literally every version since they first got certification has been certified, you fucking dolt.
>You can keep using your outdated OS
Well I am using OS X El Capitan, but I just posted a photo specifically about OS X Sierra.

>>59563882
>but I will be using a newer one called macOS
Did you look at the picture he posted?

>>59563860

>g-guise...
>t-this 'BSD' has no AT&T code but it's totally a legit original BSD
>o-ok?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>>59563899

Wrong in several ways, first of all, that specification is for macOS, not MacOS; that's an earlier name. Second, how is this evidence of the wild claim that "OS X is UNIX"? This is just evidence that a specific version of an OS (which is not OS X by the way) is UNIX.

>>59563919

>Literally every version since they first got certification has been certified, you fucking dolt.
>not knowing how to read

How about the versions before they got certified retard? Then don't come and say that OS X is UNIX because the image you posted isn't even for OS X.

>Well I am using OS X El Capitan, but I just posted a photo specifically about OS X Sierra.

OS X Sierra doesn't exist. You probably meant macOS Sierra, which is not OS X and isn't related to your claim of "OS X being UNIX". Are you all pretending to be retarded or just genuinely ignorant.

File: 1316958506180.png (229KB, 292x355px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 292x355px

So has Haiku OS ever shaped up to be decent for desktop usage?

>>59563980
Not having AT&T code is almost the hallmark of BSD. Though which code is or is not originally AT&T's copyright is a good question.

>>59562575
>thinking MacOhShit is a alt OS

>>59563353
>implying Windows 10 is Multics

>>59563551
https://wiki.freebsd.org/VirtualBox#Installing_Guest_Additions_for_FreeBSD_guests

>>59563608
Except the definition of BSD has changed. Even if 99% of the original code is no longer in BSD, modern BSD defines what BSD is. But an operating system that branched off from BSD and went its own way, doesn't fit the modern BSD code, so it's not really BSD.

>>59563699
It's UNIX, but not Unix. Linux, however, is Unix.

>>59563783
>claim that BSD has nothing to do with BSD
>cry when people call you a retard

>>59563769
>not POSIX compliant therefore not UNIX
POSIX != SUS

>>59563841
This asterisk autism is literally Tumblr tier.

>>59563980
>How about the versions before they got certified retard?
Given you're so fixated on exact names, all of the versions that aren't certified are Mac OS X and therefore don't count when I say OS X. Eat a dick, you piece of shit.
>Then don't come and say that OS X is UNIX because the image you posted isn't even for OS X.
I'm getting really sick of your semantics. You know what I mean as well as I do, you goddamned autist.

>>59564040
>POSIX != SUS
Well to be fair POSIX is a part of the standard. If it's not POSIX compliant then it certainly isn't UNIX.

>>59564060
>Well to be fair POSIX is a part of the standard. If it's not POSIX compliant then it certainly isn't UNIX.
Is the version of MacOS used by normies actually 100% compliant with POSIX?

>>59564093
If it wasn't then it wouldn't be UNIX certified.

>>59564040
>POSIX != SUS
Wrong, They are unified under the Austin Group.

>>59564093
>100% compliant with POSIX
Think those days are gone for every system.

>>59561553
PC-BSD and TrueOS are seriously junk though.

Install FreeBSD or OpenBSD.

whats the debian of BSDs?
>fairly simple but not hand holdey
>decent packages and defaults
>good for server or desktop
>good enough that everyone and their mom makes derivative distros of it

>>59561553
Learned to fear every update. But I did learn that gnome absolutely sucked so I avoided it when learning linux. Been a year and I'm not tempted to revisit it.

>>59563904
Endless loop.

File: unix.png (42KB, 850x610px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 850x610px

>>59562676
>>59562744
>>59563353
>>59563699
>>59563807
>>59563841
>>59563819
>>59563980
>Anonymous 03/24/17(Fri)18:40:41 No.595639
>>59564040
This is it. macOS is BSD and BSD is UNIX. GNU/Linux isn't UNIX, it's UNIX like.

Now please shut the fuck up!

>>59568426
>macOS is BSD
So... there is native support for Photoshop and MS office on BSD.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   :^)

>>59561553
>thinking Linux is an OS
fucking computer illiterates

>>59561553
Come back when, at the very, very least, sky lake and bcm43xx hardware is supported. "We totally support it but actually we know full well it never worked and probably never will" doesn't count.

>>59570338
>freebsd software doesnt run on 4.4bsd
wow 4.4bsd not even bsd

>>59570779
What a great victory for BSD community.

>not reactos and freedos dual boot
>not emacs as desktop on haiku os kernel with sgi irix drivers

>>59561553
hi bradman

>>59561553
>alternative
Linux kernel is standard for servers since 239 b.c.

>>59570338
On one of the BSD OSs, yes.