Why do they get no love?

>>61598694
bsd on desktop are meh.
good for servers

>>61598778
werks for me anon
i game, work and shitpost all from my freebsd desktop

>>61598694
this is a christian board

Im currently debating trying it on my laptop (t430). What are he pros/cons in comparison to say Mint linux? looking to change my laptop to a comfy dev/ chilling computer no that i built my new workstation desktop

Please stop posting this Satan shit in /g/.
Some of us are on family pcs

>>61598933
>>61599081
would you convert if the logo changed to that of an angel?

Simply because GNU/Linux is vastly more popular and hes always been more main streamed relative to the BSDs.

>>61599254
licence

File: FreeBSD_01.png (130KB, 493x435px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 493x435px

>>61598694
*evolves*

File: 2535423345.jpg (71KB, 500x398px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 500x398px

>>61599532
thou shalt not take the lords name in vein
though shalt not bear false witness
BE GONE DAEMON

>>61598694
BSD allows jews to make money, that's why all software should be GPL. Jews can't major money off GPL, making it a pro white license.

File: FreeBSD_02.png (201KB, 536x542px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 536x542px

>>61600366
this is but a fraction of my power

>>61598694
Insecure piece of shit that shouldn't be run on anything but a router. Also they're literally cucks to Apple and Sony and are proud of it.

File: FriezaBSD.png (350KB, 522x424px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 522x424px

>>61598694
>>61600366
>>61600900
This isn't even my final form!

File: hiv-virus.jpg (89KB, 670x447px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 670x447px

>>61601179
>*blocks you're path*

>>61601923
Exposed.

>>61601923
eww

File: FreeBSD_04.png (450KB, 536x544px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 536x544px

>>61601923
>*blocks you're path*
Aieee! Evasive maneuvers!

>>61600996

I got a generally out dated laptop just to play around with OS without having to mess with anyone else computer that wasn't mine setting up partitions or dual boots. I'm not skilled with computers so I pretty much need a book or tutorial around whenever I try to do something.
If you have stupid questions, like I have an endless amount of them it's kind of nice running a different shell than most linux users so if someone tells you something destructive it doesn't work, but there are still enough similarities that it's not terribly difficult to look up an equivalent work around that is almost exactly spot on to what they're saying. I'm not a dev or anything though so mostly just use it for learning my way around vi or trying to do stuff like pull a tarball off a windows pc put it on a usb, mount it to the system then trying to initialize it and stuff like that without just plugging the pc into the internet, then when I start on then branching off reading about stuff unrelated to what I was looking up as a question I had to start with. The thing is it's really not that insecure I am purposely trying to keep mine rather non user friendly, I know people that struggle to use a GUI just setting it up to run off the command line would discourage pretty much most everyone I know from wanting to look around on it.

/g/ is too stupid for BSD.

File: no_features_no_vulnerabilities.png (113KB, 1539x837px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1539x837px

Because it's just as shitty as Linux but with far fewer features: https://media.defcon.org/DEF%20CON%2025/DEF%20CON%2025%20presentations/DEFCON-25-Ilja-van-Sprundel-BSD-Kern-Vulns.pdf

>>61603868
what "must have" features do you use that OpenBSD does not support?

File: cia.png (263KB, 631x651px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 631x651px

>>61598694

>>61603409
It's nice that you're learning anon. The worry of entering destructive commands is a non-issue at the end of the day. Just don't enter any commands posted on 4chan ever. And be very careful entering any commands that have "dd," or "sudo rm" in them from anywhere. dd is a very useful program that can be used to make an image of or re-image a drive, make bootable flash drives, etc. but you're literally one typo away from destroying your entire installation and all of your data. rm just removes files, but you can't cause much damage with it because without superuser privileges the most you can do is wipe your home directory, so just be careful while using it recursively (i.e. with the -r flag), and triple check that you're deleting that directory of your old gf, and not all of your school documents during an all-nighter, for instance.

If you can't install linux (or freebsd) on the main computer that you use (like if it's the family computer), you can buy a cheapo 160gb or so hard drive off ebay used, and install linux the entire drive with the main hdd unplugged, so that you don't have to install grub or whatever. Or you can do that, but leave both hdd's plugged, and boot into the linux hdd manually through the UEFI's boot menu.

While it's always nice to experiment, you should just learn with linux, and then return to freebsd when you're comfy in linux. There's mountains more community support and help available for linux than freebsd. More power to you if you can get FreeBSD to work for you, it's still a good OS albeit it not having things like selinux and as much massive community and corporate support. I'd say it's less secure than linux if you're going to run a server, but as a desktop, you're essentially just as safe because 95% of the battle is just to not run Windows. Anyway I hope you read this because I just spent a solid 5 minutes on this post.

>>61604334
At home:
Hardware video decoding acceleration
Bluetooth
Modern hardware in general, WiFi modules and video cards in particular
At work:
Zero-copy network processing, i.e. DPDK and PF-RING
Docker
KVM
In general:
Software support, since most FOSS consider OpenBSD 3-tier platform and don't test on it.

>>61604362
Implying I do not want Aeris waifu inside of my porn machine.

>>61604365
Also as a side note you can still foobar your FreeBSD installation by pasting in destructive commands meant for linux, as the two still have core utils like rm and dd that use largely the same syntax, and FreeBSD's rm doesn't even have the --no-preserve-root safeguard.

>>61604407
do you have no need for a solid file server, web server or firewall?

>>61604827
> file server
Linux + Samba
> web server
Linux + Nginx
> firewall
Cisco ASA

>>61604827
At home - no.
At work, we have nginx and iptables working just fine.

installed netbsd yesterday but I can't login.
xdm starts and after login it tells me to choose something about widget or something like that and after that it restartd xdm

>>61598694
For me
>no- or more difficult pcie passthrough virtualization
>no graphics drivers for what I use

>>61604899
the cool thing about FOSS is that you can use lots of different things any time you want. you can also look at the code, and have a reasonable idea of the quality of the product. Although I do like linux for its features, I do believe OpenBSD to be a better quality product for the basics, just like linux being better than windows for servers and most things other than being compatible with normies.

>>61605122
> I do believe OpenBSD to be a better quality product for the basics
I kinda agree, but I find it too basic for any practical use, it lacks some essential features you'd expect from a modern desktop or server OS, as I've listed above, and it provides no killer features to justify the inconvenience. It supposed to be "more secure", but it's an unprovable claim, and it can be explained (per >>61603868) by 1) the general lack of features 2) no-one being interesting in it.

>>61598897
How do you game?
Do you run linux binaries?

>>61604442
Your waifu is a slut

>>61605205
i think you have explained it, for some shitty pc or old hardware you pick up for free, something like openBSD is perfect. It is in a lot of respects a hobbyist OS, the devs really don't care what others think. As for security being an unprovable claim, don't think absence of the evidence for it being more secure is evidence that it is not the most secure. It doesn't matter how few people encounter it, if some company or other flouted claims of being the most secure they would outed very swiftly if they were bullshitting. Why has no one claimed the glory of of completely owning the "most security focussed OS"?

File: bsd_bugs.png (43KB, 699x771px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 699x771px

>>61605431
> Why has no one claimed the glory of of completely owning the "most security focussed OS"?
They have, at least twice, according to OpenBSD folks themselves. But other than that, I think the lack of adoption by the industry is the main reason so few people are interested in debunking the claim. That's not to say I don't think they're more secure than Linux: they certainly follow more strict development practices and audit their code a lot. But it's still not a "rock solid" solution, and the price you have to pay to get it doesn't justify it.

>>61605549
i've been lead to believe in the case of bugs for OpenBSD they are reported even if there are vulnerable, not necessarily exploitable, the case is different with other OS with more being actually exploitable, the stats are a bit flawed. The "more people using it" argument is similar to what windows users flout when arguing the supreriority of windows over linux....

>>61605627
> The "more people using it" argument is similar to what windows users flout when arguing the supreriority of windows over linux....
The argument isn't "more people are using it, therefore, it's better", it's "more people are using it in production, therefore, more people are actively looking for vulnerabilities to exploit or to fix, which is better for security than when it's only the developers who're interested enough to audit the code". In other words, maybe OpenBSD has 3x times fewer bugs per 1000sloc, but it's still not 0. And Linux has more pairs of eyes looking at the code, meaning these bugs are found and fixed.

>>61605725
but more people are actively looking for vulnerabilities in windows right? (and using it more in production...)

>>61605984
Maybe, but they have no access to the source code and they can't just start a pull request to fix it.

>>61606035
i dunno, I think the many eyes argument is flawed. many eyes were on sendmail and bind back in the day and they had the worst flaws ever. programmers just need some pride in their work.

>>61606114
also, 1 set of competant eyes beats a whole lot of incompetent ones..

>>61606135
Are you implying Linux developers are less competent?

>>61606152
no, just arguing against many eyes. it's not as important as made out.

>>61598694
>24/7 shilling is no love
I guess nothing is loved anymore anon