Why are the *BSD less popular than Linux? Both are FOSS *nix systems who can run almost the same applications plus the underlying system is similar enough, so you can easily get a hang of it.
Also a /bsd/ general, I guess. Tell me why you use *BSD instead of Linux.
Other urls found in this thread:
joyent.com
appcanary.com
cvedetails.com
en.wikipedia.org
s.4cdn.org
youtube.com
freebsd.org
twitter.com
Because BSD is legitimately inferior.
Linux took over, face facts and move on.
Because most people aren't smart enough to use BSD, so they have to use the baby version. Linux users are to BSD users what Windows users are to Linux users.
1: Because it's inferior and
2: It's stupid to have a business that involves something that can be considered satanic imagery. You will lose out on a lot of money you could otherwise have. Any competition that don't use it will have a superior position.
cuck license
Because of DTrace, and it's why Netflix uses FreeBSD CDN (DTrace) and why it's used for BioInformatics (DTrace) and why it's used for crunching CRISPR algos (DTrace).
It's because BSD has the cuck license. Even if a big company made massive improvements to the codebase there's literally no reason for them to contribute upstream.
Like Sony?
This is simply not true. I run both gentoo and freebsd and the configuration of freebsd is literally easier then gentoo.
You are using BSD code right now in your phone, system (Mac/Win10/Linux), and likely everything embedded around you is also BSD. Everytime you watch Netflix you're using BSD.
>Android is BSD
HAHAHAHA
When I first started reading about differences between BSDs and Linux, I was intrigued because of their commitment to develop a system instead of a kernel patched with programs that can be used as an OS.
But none of them are supported on my hardware and I can't find solutions to my problems as easily, so it's linux for me. Although I still wish that there was a unified effort to develop an actual OS with all parts maintained by the same people.
I never understood that whole "develop a system instead of a kernel patched with programs" thing.
Can someone explain that to a retard?
I mean, it stall has a kernel, right? What's the real difference?
This is why:
appcanary.com
Look at all those unpatched vulns. Linux in 2016 is what Windows 98 is in terms of insecurity. If you aren't using a distro like Fedora (SELinux on my default to protect /proc ) or GrSec patches, you are literally running a wide open box any fool can exploit.
Meanwhile BSDs, Windows and MacOSX are taking great pains to secure and audit their systems over the last decade, Linux, not at all. Every one of the big distros (except Fedora) is shipping all security disabled by default.
What you should be doing is running netbsd/freebsd with Xen and then running Linux in a container to stop it's insecurity spreading
To be fair, most of those are already fixed, debian and ubuntu devs are just too stupid to update their packages/repos.
Also both windows and OSX have significantly more vulnerabilities than linux. All of the BSDs have less then all of them though. cvedetails.com
the BSD-kernels are significantly smaller than linux though. Linux is just a monolithic beast, which isn't meant nice here.
If we had statistic with vulns/serious erros density (e.g. vulns/loc) the numbers may be similar.
Also things like namespaces introduce a bunch of vulns, which is weird to bad. Subsystems intended to increase security breaking it....
this is why I use Linux From Scratch, self compiled the whole OS using the most secure hardened setup, not even running X or SystemD, running Wayland and OpenRC alon with stable KDE 5.8, GNU userland (minimal and latest) and Linux-Libre hardened kernel with libreboot and Intel ME in the processor disabled, tried all the CVE exploits and they all failed, BSD is superior though it just is not suited for daily use at all sadly, it has a superior kernel but a not so amazing userland, minimal GNU userland with kFreeBSD is the best setup but you can't really use it for daily use as a modern system yet, BSD even has better gaming performance, Wayland is also being ported to it
I like how the GNU Hurd kernel is designed it just is underdeveloped as hell, I would love to switch to it if it were at all a viable replacement for Linux
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring 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.
microkernels are pretty nice in theory.
and code/effort sharing can be done in userspace aswell, we'd just need more "official" libraries (what I think libblk is).
Hurd suffers from neglect and maybe a bit from linux popularity. The idea is nice, the current state is horrible.
openbsd is the most secure in the world
Reason 2 is honestly why I never even considered looking into or using BSD. I don't want to use / be seen by other people using an OS with some edgy satanist imagery. Linux is going to draw in more users just because of the fact that it's mascot is instead a cute penguin.
I actually plan on helping with development, Linux is such a huge mess at this point that I am open to any other suggestions, I'm probably gonna switch to GNU/kFreeBSD
>tfw no one will rebrand it, improve it, and bring over creative and productive software for professionals
there's a decent to big user base of music/audio, photo, video, and etc people who would switch over to it or linux if they had those things. especially with apple being apple
>muh software for professionals
stop with this meme. I work at a data center and most of our servers run gnu/linux, with a few running BSD for testing and security reasons.
If that isn't """"professional"""" then I don't know what is
>tfw no one will rebrand it, improve it, and bring over creative and productive software for professionals
its called MacOS
Edgy logo.
Yes, people can go "It's a pun on deamon, you know... a background process" as much as they like, it still makes no business sense. Anyone using FreeBSD for business is a red flag because they are obviously not taking the customers they COULD have. So it's a ineffective organization if they do...
Unless of course the business sells satanic paraphernalia or if it otherwise fits into the theme. But then again they could just use that satanic linux disto.
> Why are the *BSD less popular than Linux?
> Tell me why you use *BSD instead of Linux.
If you want to know the answer for the first question, you should ask "why you use Linux instead of BSD".
Yes netflix is a very ineffective organization.
systemd/Linux < non-systemd/Linux < *BSD < Haiku < 9front < TempleOS
Wayland is going to depend on systemd soon though.
>that satanic linux disto.
If you mean Ubuntu Satanic Edition, it's been dead since years. Also Distrowatch refused to ever list it.
Thank you!
Not everyone is the specific niche of the market who is both freelance, works from home, spends 40 hours per day editing videos in Adobe Premiere and/or whatever.
Just like it doesn't matter what OS I use at home for my job, I can imagine the same is the case for a vast majority of people.
Well, any competitor can just point out that netflix uses edgy satanic software and then netflix is likely to lose out on thousands of dollars every month.
They only survive because there is no real competition. It's easy to point out that the "open connect appliances" run on satanic software and you would have effectively removed a huge market segment. At least in the world at large. Many religions considers satan to be a bad guy and even religions that don't (like hinduism) it can still be spinned as a omen of bad luck or something because they use a evil diety.
Netflix just don't have any serious competition.
Not everyone is some crazy religious nutter like you.
Most people wouldn't have a clue about what the competitor was talking about if they said that netfilx ran on """satanic""" software, nor would they care. They would just keep using netflix because it does exactly what they need it to.
>40 hours per day
Aah that's why they have everything on the same user account, or same operating system. There's no time for anything else.
You have to both edit YouTube videos 40 hours per day, and play your favorite games, and use Excel to graph those hours in.
>Not everyone is some crazy religious nutter like you.
Anyone selling products or services to the general public also have to sell to this market segment. And you make lots of assumptions about me, I am not even christian.
>Most people wouldn't have a clue about what the competitor was talking about if they said that netfilx ran on """satanic""" software, nor would they care.
Most people would not have a clue (which is kinda the point... For even christian tech people FreeBSD is not really anything particulary satanic other than it was made by homosexuals), but lots of people would care if done right.
>They would just keep using netflix because it does exactly what they need it to.
Yes, it would only matter if netflix had serious competition. As I said. A competitior could easily use this to get their customers and lots of people would be uneasy supporting 'satanic software'
It's like having a cartoon hitler as a logo. Not everyone is some crazy sjw.
Most people wouldn't have a clue about what the competitor was talking about if they said that netfilx ran on """nazi""" software, nor would they care. They would just keep using the company because it does exactly what they need it to.
But as user said, that all changes if there is a serious alternative around.
Android libc is a modified openbsd libc you idiot
Far from it.
No, now window$ collects your data and i'm sure osx isn't far behind.
Wow, 41 posts in and no one has given OP an accurate answer.
Here's the true reason, from a guy who was around when Linux came up: BSD was stirred up with legal troubles due to a lawsuit from AT&T, so everyone jumped onto the Linux bandwagon.
en.wikipedia.org
because nobody uses BSD, it's as simple as that
Like Sony.
>Android libc
Don't be so proud. Bionic is needed because glibc isn't embedded friendly and g even wanted to be it more dumber than the openbsd one, sot they forked out a bunch of code. Now it's a totally different animal, fully dependent on the linux kernel, but you can make diffs if you are into it.
>Far from it.
Wow what a great retort. You sure showed him.
That's just an excuse.
Legal battle and FUD in the 90s and lack of critical mass since then. Coincidences also happen and BSD was lucky not to go the way of Xenix.
I run NetBSD and OpenBSD on my servers and routers, anything I don't need to try funny new things on. It's stable, predictable and boring. NetBSD is low effort and low maintenance. OpenBSD even more so.
pf is the best firewall and pkgsrc with pkgin would be my choice if the *nix world should for some reason ever standardise on a single package system. The separation between base system and third party packages makes the system feel more robust and NetBSD's init system is the most comfortable I've ever seen, apart from maybe SMF in Solaris. The source tree, and kernel structure are easier to understand than in Linux and new features like rump kernels and lua scripting in kernel are speeding up development considerably. Accounting for different architectures such as the big endian SPARC64 and old-timey VAX help uncover poorly written code and write robust implementatinos which don't make stupid assumptions about things, which is good for stability and security of programs.
You can't really do anything with just a kernel. Booting into a kernel with a dead userspace is as useless as getting POST and nothing on the system drive.
In NetBSD, for instance, every package is installed in the /usr/pkg subhierarchy, which on a proper production system would likely lie on its own disk or at least partition. If you manage to royally fuck up and destroy your entire system, rescuing in single user mode or booting a base system disk will let you operate a full opetrating system with all the usual tools to try and fix your system.
This is more of a historical issue since with linux you would of course rescue using something like a live system with a full distribution. Still, the BSDs' base systems are designed as one consistent package with the same design methods used across the board. Some people appreciate that. Myself, I see upsides both in the "base system" and the multiple packages for kernel and userland schools of thought.
NetBSD has a flag. It used to be daemons in Iwo Jima but now it's just a recognizable flag logo. OpenBSD has a pufferfish. Any devils in those systems are historical. Even the FreeBSD logo takes some imagination to recognize as a horned head anymore.
You keep making these threads because you don't get the answer you want, ignore it, wait a few hours, and then make it again.
where should I start?
-spent 10 years of its life arguing with companies over nomenclature. Can't even get the name right. 10 years in question was the "golden age" in the 90s, the most critical time.
-entire community is full of autists so pure it makes linux users look like social workers
-"design philosophy" is stuck in the 80s and even 70s and they just insist "you don't need that" towards every one of your needs even if one of them is "I want to watch a video"
-literally no software, drivers, for anything
-doesn't work except on a couple of laptops made after 2000 and 25 year old computers because "that's all you need"
-typical pro-bsd rant goes like "Well if you just throw out 99% of your needs than bsd can work for you I don't understand why you don't do that"
-runs no business apps or anything important
-license is shit and multiple companies like sony and apple have stolen it and they don't have to contribute back
-entire community won't recognize the web after 1995 and just call it "bad" as they jerk off for decades in IRC. the creationists of the internet.
-the few employed bsd users are never in the technology field. big red flag.
-only bsd communities exist when they can ban 99% of users and posts as they stay ignorant
-"holier than thou" at every conceivable turn
-professional dropout contrarians
should about cover it
I use Ubuntu on my laptop and Dragonfly BSD on my server. I would much rather switch to OpenIndiana if Microsoft screwed Linux somehow.
BSD has no drivers, that's the problem. I would be using OpenBSD if it worked on my machine. Until then, I will continue to use Slackware.
This is a good answer. FreeBSD is cool because the communities so small you could actually make realistic contributions because a lot of essential stuff isn't being maintained. Using OpenBSD for routers is such a good example of where these operating systems shine. You could stick FreeBSD on a computer that was just receiving data all day and needed to sort it in some minimal way with a C program. They shine in cases like this because their extremely slow and minimal development process has lead to them making the most correct decisions. Plus the community is way less bad than some people say on a personal level there are a lot of fun people involved in the projects but yeah they are serious when talking bsd if they weren't it wouldn't be such a serious project?
Then why is clang better than gcc right now?
I use Kevin Net everyday and I don't see a problem with it.
I meant Solus sorry.
Right? I mean it shows things based on what I like and ads aimed at me while just getting a bit of my data to do that.
the end returns to mac ofc
>Why do you use OpenBSD instead of GNU/Linux?
Because security.
>Why are the *BSD less popular?
Community is harsher. Difficult to get installed as well. For example, press "W" at a particular point in the OSD installer and get your disk wiped without any confirmation. Taking the use of OpenBSD's fdisk into account, I'd say it's harder to get installed than Gentoo.
The underlying system is not like GNU/Linux at all. You know how you can dd to /dev/sdb in GNU/Linux? Well, it's /dev/rsnd0c in bsd, and you have to learn why.
Oh, and to the person who made the comments on Satanic imagery, that only applies to FreeBSD. Each BSD has their own logo.
And Netflix runs OpenBSD, who's mascot is a pufferfish, I don't see how that could effect the religous....
I think Netflix runs FreeBSD though. Otherwise this
>Because security.
Meme.
>Community is harsher.
Bullshit. They are welcoming if you are not a Sup Forums tier butthurt denial.
>For example, press "W" at a particular point in the OSD installer
Every linux tui/cli installer have this "feature". BTW the default partitioning of openbsd is total bullshit and even Theo considered it as an issue.
>Taking the use of OpenBSD's fdisk into account, I'd say it's harder to get installed than Gentoo.
It's fucking automated. On gentoo you have to make a chroot, compile your own kernel and everything (if you are not a cuck).
>Well, it's /dev/rsnd0c in bsd
And wdc on other machine. No learning needed.
>GNU/Linux
Tried it. It sucks. The BSD license is useful if you want a proprietary friendly project, but there's absolutely zero point in an entire BSDos. Unless your a sony playstation.
GNU+Linux exists. Why make everything a struggle?
Does Apple sponsor these threads in the hope they'll recruit devs to fix bsd or are there really BSD fanbois irl?
I have (You)s to give so I'll humor you.
>Tried it
No you didn't, or you'd have enough of a clue to say which one you tried or how exactly was it below your standards.
>The BSD license is useful if you want a proprietary friendly project
The BSD license is useful if you want a free software friendly project. Permissive to GPL is a one way street.
BSD is a proper server OS.
Linux is a toy, a useful one, but still a toy. You can tell this because it tries to be both a server and a desktop, that alone should tell you its not the best at either.
BSD for reliability, security, and performance.
Free software wars. Retarded edition.
>You can tell this because it tries to be both a server and a desktop
Go away and stop embarrassing the userbase of my OS of choice.
Servers and desktops aren't inherently that much different. Desktops take advantage of the server-client model and will likely increasingly do so again in the future.
>BSD is legitimately inferior
If that were true why are GNU/Linux users so scared of people trying it out?
>face facts and move on
Fact: GNU/Linux is a shitty windows clone of the *NIX world and you don't want people to see it for what it is.
But I did try it. It sucks. Don't tell me what I did and didn't try. If you don't like honest answers to your questions, stop asking them.
BSD is the best ever. Feel better?
>But I did try it. It sucks
What specifically sucked about it?
>It sucks
>Here's why:
>...
How about instead of trying to flame you explain how you came to form your opinions?
>Fact: GNU/Linux is a shitty windows clone
Every fucking thing. So much shit broken. Running windows firefox.exe in win to be able to view web content.
It's utter god damned fucking trash. I urge anybody who doubts it to give it a go.
BSD is a flaming pile of shit. Feeling better? Now that we're best friends, mind sharing experiences together? I tried OpenBSD and found that the installation procedure was too quick and convenient and the firewall syntax was too flexible and ahead of its rivals.
Which BSD did you try and what did you find lacking you question-evading cumdump? Baseless insulting isn't criticism.
>Running windows firefox.exe in win to be able to view web content.
Nigger what? Have you ever actually used a computer or did you just pick out random words from Facebook for Dummies?
You have to understand what bsdrones do to get their "security". Their entire philosophy is "chop fucking everything out". so if you were to do this with linux, you'd re-make bsd wherein you'd have 0 software or drivers, I'm even talking like any DE. I'm not joking around when I say that they honestly think chopping out nic drivers is a good idea because it eliminates internet traffic because muh security.
similar example was a thread we had yesterday where GO programming shits claimed their lang was better because they had a higher number for requests per second but had no frameworks. Yeah, you're totally going to get people to use this.
The saying goes, if you cut off a dog's legs, he'll never break them. that doesn't mean you've succeeded. The microsecond something goes wrong with bsd, they immediately blame "muh ports" or anyone who bothered to make a driver for bsd. this is why I keep calling bsd a holy religious text that cannot be changed.
hilariously enough one of the things that bsdlords "chop out" is their social lives and their own community vis a vis these messages which are essentially "fuck off" any time anyone wants any software or hardware made after 2000 to work. unfortunately they get jealous that linux succeeded and leave the irc circlejerk every once in a while to whine about it, which is why we have all bsd threads.
thread
I'm going to try it this winter break. Honestly, I'm kind of intimidated using it, though, because I'm not that tech savvy and have only used lubuntu.
>It's because BSD has the cuck license. Even if a big company made massive improvements to the codebase there's literally no reason for them to contribute upstream
Can't this be seen as a good thing, though? Does this not make BSD completely community driven, and free from corporate interests?
bsd is ego-driven mostly
Honestly? It's because of the c̲u̲c̲k̲ ̲l̲i̲c̲e̲n̲c̲e̲
You replied to him with a tumblr tier reaction gif!
Wew lad you really showed him!
the cluck word
firefox.exe in wine.
As recommended in the forum.
>Does this not make BSD completely community driven, and free from corporate interests?
Then you will got your hurr durr basement dweller devs from wincucks.
At least BSD is under the radar and don't have to dealt with this kind of shitposts. >57872250
Here is your well deserved (You) for your delicious post that made my btfo: s.4cdn.org
:^)
One of the things that actually did work.
Among the legion of things broken.
BSD fuck sucks. Tell me I didn't really install it again, faggot.
I tried it because I was curious to see what a shit OS is like (based on Sup Forums's hate for it) and it was surprisingly pleasant. If it had better driver support, I'd use it full time. Feels a lot more organized and purposeful unlike linux
For sure it's OpenBSD + FreeBSD + NetBSD libc.
>tfw openbsd makes some parodies of popular song
>GNU has this: youtube.com
>be a complete retard
>quickly change the subject
installing is very easy. its upgrading that is hard.
>Every linux tui/cli installer have this "feature". BTW the default partitioning of openbsd is total bullshit and even Theo considered it as an issue.
It should at least ask for a confirmation though.
As for the default partitioning scheme, the only problem I have with it is the sheer number of partitions it creates. It's apparently good for security though, that's understandable if you need to enable wxneeded only for /usr/local
only because we have gcc in the first place. if gcc never existed, there wouldn't be any free software movement, no foss compilers to begin with
BSD existed before GNU/GPL.
I read a mail by Theo de Raadt addressed to Stallman about this, unfortunately I can't find it anymore.
Stallman convinced him to open source BSD. It was closed to begin with.
>Stallman convinced Theo de Raadt to open source BSD
>when he didn't work on any BSD until about 1993
sure
BSD is good at making parodies (biggest one yet is Linux)
freebsd.org
FreeBSD missed their moment. Also, Linux suffers from the Windows effect -- where everyone is already using it so its the safe choice. There is no killer app, to push bigger adoption of FreeBSD -- zfs could have been it but it works 'okish' on Linux now so . . .
About a decade back I switched from FreeBSD to Linux, just because at the time software/hardware support wasn't there -- FreeBSD was *just* getting the official nvidia drivers and SUN Java port. I miss FreeBSD, but there's no compelling reason to go back, other than nostalgia, at this point.
Which is harder to install: Gentoo or OpenBSD?
Gentoo.
Although it's not really hard, it's more tedious.