Why haven't you moved to *BSD yet, Sup Forums?

Why haven't you moved to *BSD yet, Sup Forums?

>no systemd/other Linux bullshit
>clean code, everything works perfectly

The Linux world is a mess, time to switch.

Other urls found in this thread:

embeddedarm.com/software/arm-netbsd-toaster.php
ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/5.9/packages/amd64/lmms-0.4.8p3.tgz
ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/5.9/packages/amd64/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Ok, I just abandon every piece of software, which is closed source and Linux-only just to use this time-sink operating system on my desktop.

Because it's in no state to be a daily driver.

I use the most recent version of *BSD

You can enable Linux binary compatibility on FreeBSD.
>time-sink operating system
You've clearly never used it.

Being a BSD user in 2016 is like being a Linux user in 2006. Some Debian faggot was using my laptop and couldn't figure out tcsh. Feels good that I can still be smug to normies after all these years.

Because I wish not to associate myself with people like you.

>using closed source software

BSD is the opposite of a timesink. It's offered as a complete package where devs actually took their time to make shit work rather than rushing out the latest gimmick.

It's the antithesis of Arch/Gentoo philosophy.

Part of work is Music/Audio production and other various creative software is used

this
>tfw is just works
>tfw no unnecessary shit

But I've been running *BSD systems for years. OS X on desktop and OpenBSD on laptops

I use it for some things, but the hardware support is somewhat lacking compared to Linux. Hopefully my graphics card is fully supported soon.

I should have gone with Nvidia.

>I should have gone with Nvidia.
But then you could guarantee OpenBSD won't support your GPU

Hear, hear!

Does tcsh have much over zsh?

it's completely different

it's a shell with C-like syntax

>no systemd/other Linux bullshit
But I like systemd. We migrated our servers from CentOS 5 to 7 and didn't have to worry about our modified initscripts since systemd is smart enough to clean up runtime directories when a service dies.

Even if you like systemd the Linux world is a mess.

ok, show me running skype without fixing/tweaking OSS or ALSA in a extremely-time-consuming fashion then.

> Linux binary compatibility
Great having compatibility with linux 2.6.18 when mainline linux is 4.6...

because you aren't supposed to use it unless you absolutely have to

freebsd assumes you aren't retarded and use proprietary linux software

Can I do programming and music mixing shit with a *bsd installed in my flash drive which will work on every computer? If so I wanna try it. Also only Linux is the Slackware Linux. Others are like a joke.

I tried installing FreeBSD, OpenBSD and PC-BSD on my hp2730p a couple of years ago and driver support wasn't very good. The tocuhscreen didn't work, when I would rotate my screen i'd have to run a terminal command to make it work.

On Debian it all works out of the box. Has BSD support for it improved? Because i might try dual-booting it. Thats why i always leave a spare 20G partition.

I do know you can apparently install OpenBSD directly to a flash drive.

Never bothered to actually try it myself though.

The FreeBSD chief had a spech where he said that the way systemd does things is generally right.

Still I'm pretty sure FreeBSD will have it's own version which the benefits of systemd but without it's problems. For me the devellopers behind systemd are enough reason to not use it. They way they did things in the past just doens't appeal to me.


Mang, BSD runs even on toasters:
>embeddedarm.com/software/arm-netbsd-toaster.php

Well my main concern is does it have a music mixing software and driver support

I do know OpenBSD apparently has great MIDI support.

As for the music software it's pretty much on par with Linux. If it's open source, it'll probably be ported. I'm sure there's a port of shitty lmms.

That's enough I think. Anyway I was already planning to try it sometime.

Yeah, just checked and there's a lmms package.
ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/5.9/packages/amd64/lmms-0.4.8p3.tgz
I've got no idea how old this version is, however.

Tried it.
Absolute garbage.
Never again.
Please drink all the bleach.

Fuck unix philosophy. Systmd is superior in every way.

No one uses you OS anyway.

>Fuck unix philosophy. Systmd is superior in every way.
Yeah, bloated shit that often has a lot of problems is much better than something that's simple and works, I totally agree.
>No one uses you OS anyway.
Source: your ignorant opinion

See:

Because I love LVM and BSD hasn't got it. Because logind will become what systemd is.

Remember, GPL is a cuckold license. Use BSD if you want true freedom.

I recently moved to FreeBSD and I'm liking it.
There is one annoying as fuck problem though, and I can see how it would negatively affect someone's workflow: linux executables often segfault.
For the rest, I'm happy with it, really happy

BSD is for bourgeois faggots

you can always install an operating system in a flash drive and boot from it. Always. (unless of course your computer is (really) old and doesn't boot from a usb drive).
Just plug an empty usb drive (not the one from where you're installing) and tell bsd to install everything there.
Watch out though, a lot of the low level disk operations work differently on BSD, one confusing aspect when coming from linuks is that /dev/sd{a,b,c...} is not /dev/ada{0..} for hard disks and /dev/da{0..} for flash drives

BSD is cuck license you moron.
Please enjoy your corporate assrape.
Linux has left BSD in its rear view mirror because GPL.

always go with native binaries first

linux emulation should be your very VERY last resort

You don't emulate, you add a compatibility layer. Emulating is running shit meant from one architecture in another

>one confusing aspect when coming from linuks is that /dev/sd{a,b,c...} is not /dev/ada{0..} for hard disks and /dev/da{0..} for flash drives
depends how long you've been using linux for, linux didn't always put most types of disk onto "sd"

well that's semantics at this point, i've seen some BSDs even refer to it as the "linuxulator"

Why aren't you running Arch Linux on your phone yet?

the word "emulate" simply means "to be/act like", while commonly used in computing to refer to cpu emulation, that not all it can mean

the linux emulator in freebsd works somewhat like wine (from what i've read), they are emulators, just not cpu/machine emulators

Because I'm not a virgin

Lie

Can't

tfw the Antergos (Arch) distro on my linux workstation just segfaulted from last update

I run BSD full time on my regular workstation however I need a linux distro for virtualization/testing cross platform builds. The problem is finding one that can survive an update and not need constant maintenance

Time to look into vmm(4)

is vmd and vmm even done?

i thought it was a -current/6.0 thing

Some stuff works, like vmctl will run firefox in a VM (amd64), it will generally look like KVM when done.

Roadmap is
- full OpenBSD install amd64 first
- legacy i386 BSD install
- other systems, like ARM

Do you even know what WINE stands for?

>clean code, everything works perfectly
>everything works perfectly
>everything works

im glad you didn't post that epic nothing werkz pasta again because you were too autistic to get the GNU/Linux pasta in the first place

originally WINdows Emulator, changed because people kept confusing it for a machine emulator

Always been curious about BSD.

Could I get maven working on it without much hassle? JDK? MySQL/MariaDB? I feel at home on linux, but I wouldn't mind trying it.

>using linux in something resembling a production environment
Why the hell aren't you using Debian stable?

ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/5.9/packages/amd64/
ctrl+f and the name of your packages here

chances are that if it's open source, it'll be here

i've been using arch on a production web/mail server for 2 years

and that is why both of your arms are in casts desu~

>needs a distro that can survive an update and doesn't need constant maintenance
>installs literally the worst distro in those aspects

that's one reason why i picked that image

>using arch on a production web/mail server for 2 years

if 50 Shades of Grey had been set in an IT department this would have been the plot synopsis

>Skype
There's your problem

Isn't skype for linux a barely maintained buggy piece of shit too though? I think Microsoft just doesn't care about other platforms.

Fuck it I'll try a BSD. Which one shall I start with? Will be on a T410 if that makes any difference.

OpenBSD or FreeBSD.

Hope you don't have a Nvidia GPU.

FreeBSD has proprietary Nvidia drivers.

FreeBSD

>proprietary anything

Guess it's FreeBSD then. Just out of curiosity, why not a different one?

If you have nvidia hardware you're kinda screwed on any platform unless you use the proprietary drivers. Nouveau only works decent at best and generally only on really old shit.

Because Nvidia sucks.

Even Linux kernel devs hate dealing with them, and OpenBSD certainly doesn't want to deal with them.

Go suck on Richard Stallman
Not every proprietary program is malware

I like linux bullshit.
>>clean code, everything works perfectly
Everything works even perfectlier on linux because we have drivers.

>Not every proprietary program is malware
But all malware is proprietary

I'd just like to interject for moment. What you're refering to as BSD, is in fact, Nothing-werks/BSD, or as I've recently taken to calling it, Nothing-werks plus BSD. BSD is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning Nothing-werks system made useful by the Nothing-werks corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the Nothing-werks system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of Nothing-werks which is widely used today is often called BSD, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the Nothing-werks system, developed by the Nothing-werks Project.
There really is a BSD, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. BSD 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. BSD is normally used in combination with the Nothing-werks operating system: the whole system is basically Nothing-werks with BSD added, or Nothing-werks/BSD. All the so-called BSD distributions are really distributions of Nothing-werks/BSD!

>haha look i swap words without understanding meanings xD

>haha look i unironically use bsd

that you Theo?

how do you ironically use an operating system, you fucking retard

If you're using Arch in a production environment you're using it ironically

>MIT license
discarded

>discarding software because it gives you more freedom
Found the fascist. Go back to Windows.

The BSDs are different operating systems, they have different kernels, APIs/ABIs, and system level utilities. They're about as closely related to one another as they are to any other Unix-like system. Comparing the BSDs to Linux distros is not really possible because the BSDs aren't made up of individual components that are maintained by various groups, the BSDs are an entire unit.

>>no systemd/other Linux bullshit
systemd > system v init bullshit

>>clean code, everything works perfectly
Go home Theo. Nobody cares about how pure your code is when it's slow, buggy and doesn't even support a fraction of the hardware in a normal laptop.

>The Linux world is a mess, time to switch.
Mess? Nothing is more messy than the fractioned BSD camp, where you have 142 different versions trying to essentially be the same thing: an OS that was outdated 25 years ago.

No, I'll stick to Linux. At least they don't have any pretentious goals of being a "hurr durr true UNIX".

>these fucking threads all day long

Do you guys even have an argument other than the obvious systemd one? Not that I dislike BSDs, because they do work, on the limited fucking range of hardware they support. BSDs are horribly slow to catch up with the latest developments, mostly due to the small community and zero corporate interest.

>Do you guys even have an argument other than the obvious systemd one?
Yes, but at this point I'm pretty sure the same guy's always making these threads just to shitpost in them.

So what?

You mean OpenBSD.
FreeBSD is like Mac OS X.

>code is when it's slow, buggy
top kek
>Nothing is more messy than the fractioned BSD camp, where you have 142 different versions trying to essentially be the same thing
That's literally the Linux world

>At least they don't have any pretentious goals of being a "hurr durr true UNIX".
not exactly a goal when it's already achieved

>top kek
I don't know why you would "kek" about it? It's true, OpenBSD doesn't even consider local exploits to be real exploits.

>That's literally the Linux world
Are you seriously implying that different versions of X window system is the same thing as completely different kernels, ABIs, utilities, bootstrappings, etc?

>achieved
I wasn't aware that any of the BSDs were UNIX 03 certified.

>doesn't understand that each of the BSD OSes is less fragmented than the single GNU/Linux OS
Remember, GNU/Linux is one single operating system.

I don't like waiting 5 years for my system to boot.

>he thinks that different versions of X window system is the only thing that's messy about Linux

Means literally nothing.

It's just an excuse for The Open Group to make money.

UNIX the trademark and Unix the OS are two different things. BSDs are Unix descendants.