TrueOS

/g/ hates it because they think it has bloatware
I believe it's better than FreeBSD but inferior to openBSD
Regardless it's better than debian/mint/

>>61603301
Let me guess you can't define what means "better".

>>61603367
tell me 3 reasons why it's not better than Mint/Debian other than muh DE

>>61603377
I don't even use them.

>>61603029
>FreeBSD fork
NO THANKS

>>61603301
What do you like so much about OpenBSD? I love OpenBSD philosophically, but my practical experience of the system itself was like jumping back a decade in terms of usability. I so much want to be convinced, but I just haven't been.

>>61603589
It's reliable if you are worried about privacy in your home and it can be used as a daily desktop if you don't care for anything other than watching anime

I want to use Solaris but OpenIndiana's newest version is called Hipster and I'd feel dirty.

File: yes-it-is.gif (2MB, 443x250px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 443x250px

When will people realize that NetBSD is actually the best BSD?

Why not just use FreeBSD? Their DE and shit is horrible.

>BSDs seems to be that they suck for desktop use, and TrueOS is a BSD that aims directly at desktop use.

So, they take a system that sucks ass for desktop use and make it for a desktop? Sounds like a recipe for success. I sure do love having no games or anything that is fucking useful. Even Linux at least lets ya have games or emulate Windows, picking a BSD is like saying you hate the ease of use of Windows, but you also hate having shit work like Linux so you make an abortion of an OS that lacks any of the good qualities of either.

>>61603377
The burden of proof is on you. Also, the fact that you lop in Debian with Mint just shows your ignorance.

Notwithstanding, nice dubs.

>>61603735
TrueOS has their own binary package manager and botique; on top of that, their packaging is much more oriented towards desktop, whereas desktop packages on FreeBSD may not necessarily be of high priority. Plus, more desktop-oriented defaults.

>>61603719
why is it the best BSD?

>>61603796
FreeBSD supports WINE and even has (an admittedly old) Linux compatibility layer for the FreeBSD kernel.

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

263KB, 631x651px

>>61603029
>>61604338
>>61604360
>>61604361

>>61604360
Not the same guy, but I believe NetBSD was one of the first free UNIX-like projects to support desktop, and continues to do so to this day, although there was a point in time when there was discussion of removing X11 from the binary repo and leaving it in the ports tree.

At one point NetBSD, as a consequence of their philosophy, had really good, thorough hardware support for normal x86 systems. As of today, it's still pretty good relative to fBSD--but not as good as OpenBSD.

File: 560.jpg (106KB, 470x560px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 470x560px

>>61604369
Daily reminder for all you lazy sysadmins out there to patch your shit.

>>61603679
That's literally the whole joke.

>>61604424
?

>>61604430
The joke is that you're a hipster for wanting to use a distro that's still in its formative stages as a desktop just for the sake of contrarianism.

>>61604440
I'm not trying to be contrarian, I just really enjoyed my VM of original Solaris and want to use something that comfy. But thanks for explaining, now I don't feel uncomfortable using it.

>>61604466
The fact that you would feel uncomfortable at all for using a piece of software just because of the branding rather than its utilitarian merit is absolutely stupid and masturbatory.

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

113KB, 1539x837px

>>61603719
Wew.

>>61604387
hmm I thought, if you want features and performance you would go freeBSD, if you want focus on security and nice code to look at OpenBSD. If you want compatibility and portable code and some nice architecture that enable rumpkernels then NetBSD. The only one I've never really tried (as a desktop) was NetBSD, though rumpkernels are really interesting, and also I did try compiling it and I was suprised how easy it was to cross compile for any arch i like, and no fiddling around with dependencies! netbsd has a great build system.

>>61604479
True enough.

>>61603029
>So, have any of you ever tried TrueOS? It's the operating system formerly known as PC-BSD
Why'd they change the name?

>>61603589
well, what did you try to do with it?
I installed a window manager and then got to writing code in vim. Sometimes I listen to music while coding too, which it also does without issue.

File: 1488638231320.png (69KB, 1024x640px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1024x640px

>>61603029
Yes, and it's truly shit. It doesn't even boot.

>>61604319
default zfs and snapshot integration with the file manager is really awesome, same with boot environment