Why would someone voluntarily choose to run Linux when the BSDs exist?

Why would someone voluntarily choose to run Linux when the BSDs exist?

Literally every Linux program runs on them anyway.

Other urls found in this thread:

over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/03
linfo.org/bsdlicense.html
over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/01
anyforums.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>shilling BSD
Why would you want more open source hipsters shitting up the BSD code base?

How many hipsters browse Sup Forums?

why isn't there a bsd where the mascot is a cacodemon

BSD is too much of a hassle to set up

I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering 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.

I've heard dev team after dev team describe starting a major project on BSD, get a year in and have undebuggable non deterministic behavior. One of them was able to reason out a flaw in the BSD network stack and dig themselves out of their 2 month hell. The others did not and eventually lost funding for their projects.

>Literally every Linux program runs on them anyway.
Wrong, it can't run the latest and best versions of systemd :^)

>every Linux program runs on them anyway
What is systemd?

Gentoo/Arch linux are easy right?

Nope, it can't. systemd relies on way too much stuff specific to Linux to operate outside that environment. You wouldn't want it to, anyway. systemd seems to have deliberately modeled itself after BSD init scripts, so if you're already used to it, BSD will seem strangely familiar.

99% of Linux users could not get a BSD desktop up and running.

You might as well say that 99% of computers users couldn't. But what's your point?

Drivers.

my point is that you should install windows 10

Linux has higher hardware compatibility.

Actually, I was asking the guy who I replied to, not you Mr. 13th Unique Poster in the Thread.

If you can't understand the simple logic here I don't know why I should continue speaking with you.

Oh, it was just some bait. My bad. Carry on.

>bsd
im so sorry for your loss ;(

>Literally every Linux program runs on them anyway.
So why use BSD over Linux?

Can BSD run Wine?

the judge said i wasnt allowed to use linux within 500 yards of any playgrounds anymore :(

Because BSD systems are superior

For anyone above 120 IQ it is easy

Why?

No GPL cancer.

over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/03
>Linux has never had any sort of separation between what is the "base system" and what is "addon utilities". The entire system is "addon utilities". MySQL is no different from ls from KDE from whois from dc from GnuCash from ... Every bit of the system is just one or another add-on package.
>By contrast, BSD has always had a centralized development model. There's always been an entity that's "in charge" of the system. BSD doesn't use GNU ls or GNU libc, it uses BSD's ls and BSD's libc, which are direct descendents of the ls and libc that were in the CSRG-distributed BSD releases. They've never been developed or packaged independently. You can't go "download BSD libc" somewhere, because in the BSD world, libc by itself is meaningless. ls by itself is meaningless. The kernel by itself is meaningless. The system as a whole is one piece, not a bunch of little pieces.

Also this

bsd mentality is the cancer of free software

Please do explain

I fail to see why that's a problem. If it works, then it works.

Then continue using Linux, nobody's stopping you.

>modularity is shit
>there should be a "base system"
>it worked so well for Microsoft

this is exactly the way of thinking that leads to shit like heartbleed

To each his own, I prefer the BSD style.

im talking licensing. copy left is ethical, permissive licences are a way for commercial projects to abuse the system.

But it did work really well for Microsoft.

If people find a problem that gets fixed, then problem solved. I don't expect everything to be perfect first go, I do expect a culture of continual improvement.

Companies aren't just going to conform because you want them to. I'd rather see them develop with BSD licensed software and not give back than poorly reinvent the wheel.

Copyleft doesn't prevent corporations exploiting your work. Facebook was built on Linux. Android is forked from Linux.

Copyleft exists because of a perceived problem that forking free software into proprietary software is a bad thing. Facebook being built on Linux is not a bad thing because Facebook doesn't distribute Linux as proprietary software.

at least they have to contribute. they cant just grab it, modify it and releqse the modified version as proprietary

Who cares if they do or don't? I've always seen BSD licensed software as plopping the source code on the table and saying look what I made. You can use it if you want, or not, I don't care. Just give me credit if you do.

I fail to see the issue with such a thing.

>Due to the extremely minimal restrictions of BSD-style licenses, software released under such licenses can be freely modified and used in proprietary (i.e., commercial) software for which the source code is kept secret.
linfo.org/bsdlicense.html

#CuckBSD

Security, stability and zfs.

Yes.

So are you saying BSD is even harder?

>le epik cuck maymay

Doesn't realize that open source is literally cuckold.

Nice try cucknix

>le
>>>/plebbit/

>implying I've ever been there
I'm just making fun of you user

it encourages proprietary software as theres no enforcement of releasing modified sources. its a massive ethical issue

I'm not a delusional freetard, I couldn't give less of a shit
.

Most underrated post. I have no use of a system that cannot setup drivers for my devices. Linux itself is so shit, why would I downgrade myself further with BSD?

So why do you ask "who gives a shit" if you don't like the answer? Doesn't it make more sense to not ask the question if you don't like the answer?

It entirely depends on your hardware. My laptop's better supported by OpenBSD than it is by Linux and Windows.

Before responding, please read this:

over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/01

There is no reason other than hardware support to stay at Linux. Have fun with bunch of software that can be made to act like an OS.

My laptop had issues with Ubuntu getting my wifi and audio working, the most mainstream distro. I dare not think how much shit I would be in with BSD.

I use BSD because it's easier to use for C programming.
All the GNU/Linux distros I tried didn't include compilers in the default install, which is pretty retarded for a supposedly Unix-like system.
And so far, I'm enjoying doing C on FreeBSD and OpenBSD. I unfortunately made the mistake of owning an Nvidia video card, which has no drivers, but otherwise things are great.
A lot of the userland programs have much saner defaults and man pages, too, compared to GNU programs.

If you can't at least program in C and make both sh and csh shell scripts, your opinions on Unix-like operating systems are more shallow.

Nah

>There's no reason other than hardware support, video games, software support and ease of use to stay with Windows. You may as well switch to Linux now

That's a very stupid reasoning fellow stranger. You can do C development on stone wheels just by visiting your stone age repo.

But the discussion is about switching from Linux to BSD. I don't follow your logic.

You think I was expecting better driver support on OpenBSD? I definitely wasn't, but I was wrong. You won't know if you are till you try.

Why would you switch to BSD if it has worse hardware support and doesn't offer anything additional? Im trying to draw a comparison here. The logic you're using is faulty. It's a why fix it if it ain't broke situation.

Unfortunately, that article is really, terribly old, and only has authoritarian reasons for preferring BSDs. I'm a BSD user and I say this. He doesn't mention much technical stuff that's relevant today.

>Yfw "man ed" with the ganoo shell utils
>yfw ed's info page

Right when the world thought that actually using ed was the biggest waste of time on a *nix, GNU started packaging a useless tutorial and shoved the useful command reference way in the back of the book.

Not everything is about drivers. I run simulation software on servers for example. I'd rather do this on an OS that has actual documentation instead of weird patch whatever you find OS like any linux distribution.

Drivers are relevant for desktop-laptop-home-personal use.

>yfw info anything
fuck GNU

But philosophical differences remain the same. I thought it was quite valid.

Yeah, I learnt how to use GNU info and was terribly disappointed in LISP machine refugees' attempts to destroy Unix.

I still desire to learn Scheme some day, though.

It was a good idea once, when everything was getting started and "GNU/Linux" was actually just GNU and Linux. It made the basic system more usable along with long options.

But now the shell is for pros, so all the friendly bloat is fucking useless and gets in the way of what the shell is actually used for.

man was made for printing physical pages
info was made for consoles

both are dated now that we have html pages

Some of the OpenBSD mandoc stuff makes man pages, when rendered as HTML, have sweet features like useful hyperlinks.

>companies pay full time employees to improve FOSS like Linux
>FOSS is cuckold
Sure thing, user.

man pages are great for quick, on-line help

Reminds me, the BSDs have better official newb tutorials.
I'd have never learnt how to use any Unixlike, without the FreeBSD handbook.

>he never had to SSH into an obscure UNIX machine with some obscure variant of a core utility
>installs full graphics stack on a server to view documentation

I'm not him but the only ones who is being c*cked in FOSS are the original developers. They basically give away everything for nothing.

So Google is a cuck for developing Chromium and Android?

Is google the original developer of Android?

Freebsd includes OSS in the base installation and it just werks. No alsa or pulseaudio. I found that very refreshing.

This is something I do like a lot about freebsd, it's a relatively plain installation, but basic things you would naturally want are still included. It's not like linux, where you either get something loaded up with dozens of junk applications for no reason, or you get something with basically nothing. Freebsd feels like a complete, well thought-out, basic operating system.

You might technically be able to do more with linux than BSD, but I think BSD is more enjoyable to use.

The handbook is so great. The only thing comparable for linux is the fucking Arch wiki.

So what are the pros and cons between the different BSD's?

Which one do I use if i want an OS-X like experience in a VM, for research purposes

How well does Steam run on it?

>paid MS shills propping up their code base they take from because BSD's shit license allows fucking shitty non-free companies to take over and abuse BSD code without giving back
Nice going, BSD, not only do you suck at making a license but you helped Microsoft become an even bigger troll.

stop talking to yourself

Wifi drivers. They're a pain in the ass with BSD on every system I have, other than that I'd go all in

Because to me BSD is awful in the drivers department and everything that BSD has like libressl and other neat features I can just port over to my OS. Maybe if BSD had better driver support, I'll switch but for now I'm sticking to linux.

Enjoy your probably completely fine OS retard!

If MS hadn't adopted the networking code from BSD the internet would run on proprietary standard code right now

imagine all the suffering if everyone had to write their own stack

OpenBSD doesn't have guest additions for virtualbox so I don't see the point

Name one company that pays linux?
Also sharing your code is as cuck as it gets.

>I don't care
>except if you use it in GPL software
>then I'm gonna cry like a bitch about "GPL is stealing muh BSD code"

there's no need to lie on the internet

>that feel when you write your programs to use epoll
>that feel when you know that your program won't run on bsd
>that feel when you are as bad as win32 programmers
why do all unix-like oses have their own, better-than-poll poll implementation?

>didn't include compilers in the default install
>waaaaaaaah
>how do I install shit?
>this is too hard
top fucking cuck

>I just run software
>but muh OS documentation tho
>running software is hard
do you even listen to your retarded shit, stupid fuck?

does it runs blender? does it support nvidia gpus?

>I'd have never
you're extremely dumb

What did windows ever do for us?