Hi, I'm FreeBSD, it's nice to meet you!

Hi, I'm FreeBSD, it's nice to meet you!

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_(computing)#Shared_libraries
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Just switch to Linux already

Why would you want to Linux when FreeBSD exists?

Because Linux is superior

has anyone had trouble with pkg? freebsd wont sync. i think its because i downloaded 12 current and not the most stable version. it was working but the repos didnt give a fuck about me. also doesnt help the bsd site is useless and i have to rely on random info from russians on youtube. just fugin kill me. still better than dealing with gaynoo slash loonix.

Tell me one thing that Linux does that is superior?

Anyone?

Hi Intel

Hi anonymous

anyone what?

Does anyone know

Being a working system on actual hardware, ironically commercial software support and generally its better at managing binarys. But I have to admit that ports are neat.

Since you are obviously OP: Just switch back to linux and you will bei fine :^)

I don't use Linux though

Let's skip the fact that you can't install it on logical partition.
I was willing to sacrafice the whole HDD for it and it showed me 20TB of free space (my HDD is 500GB).
When I pressed install it gave me I/O error then I realised I can just run it in VM and there is no point in installing memeOS.

Hi FreeBSD. I believe FreeNAS is based on you. Lovely program, that.

However, for a desktop solution, nothing beats Linux. We get everything first and graphics and wifi just werk.

copied and pasted

Linux is better supported, but it's good for bigger computer nerds.

I'm not a massive neckbeard who needs the most esoteric software possible

>binarys
Hey, Rakeesh, how you doing?

>Linux isn't real UNIX

>being an collectivist beardlet

No Volcanic Islands support.

/thread

>someone used a technical term
>this has just gotta be pooinloos

What?

fuck you

>nothing beats Linux. We get everything first and graphics and wifi just werk.

get back in the server room

FreeBSD is a working system on actual hardware. I run a GTX 1080 on it and a Skylake Xeon. It's supported on pretty much every real device that's useful to actual server or workstation needs, just like Linux, so your argument is kind of moot.

Also it easily runs on ARM devices like rpi2/3, beaglebones and Pine64. What you're referring to is the state of FreeBSD a couple of years ago.

What about software versions ? Are they up-to-date or they're stuck in the past like Debian stable ?

>yfw it took me less than five minutes to connect to wifi on my laptop from the Arch ISO
What's it like living with Down's, dipshit?

if it supported skylake or polaris I would use it. So I might consider switching in a few years. I used it daily once for a while and had no problems really.

*BSD is only useful for proprietary OS base because the license lets you capitalize on the work of BSD developers for absolutely no cost. BSD developers are ultra cucks.

Prove me wrong.

PROTIP: You can't.

That depends on whether you run 12.0-CURRENT. Those are very up to date and often even have beta versions of packages. I find myself having a newer version of Firefox and chromium than that in an Arch VM i often use to test things on the Linux side. I'd imagine 11.0-RELEASE follows a more Debian model though.

It does support Skylake and Kaby Lake, as well as Ryzen. I use a Skylake Xeon on it.

Alright then just Polaris then.

The comfiest OS.

oh is that so? its a license for those who dont want to get wrapped in legal wars like the gpl, but still want to see their work used, it's the get work done license, the real get your shit used for anything license the real
i'm contributing code because it will improve the project license and it is the i'm only contributing because maintaining my code is hard license, all of it because it doesnt need to threaten anyone with a big stick

there is only one ports tree, but there are tree snapshots taken every yearly quarter

I still don't understand why anyone uses Linux when FreeBSD is available.

Why would you recommend FreeBSD over Linux?

He's a masochist

>dont want to get wrapped in legal wars
Still get wrapped in legal war.

No software.

Dude, do you even program?

maybe the repos just aren't up to date yet

anything made for linux can run in BSD

>less than 5 minutes
Is this an accomplishment or something?

>No software.

Now you know how Windows user feel when they try GNUmale/LincuckOS.

No it doesn't, that's like saying anything made for Windows can be run in WINE.

Nice driver supp---
Thank god it supports 802.11ac fina--
ee is such a simple text edi--
I love how basically every application is a port from linux

>a port from Linux
What is POSIX? Also GNU is literally a Unix clone and a lot of modern utilities are clones from Sun. None of that shit matters though, the whole point is portability so that you DON'T have to be tied to a single OS.

>I love how basically every application is a port from linux
why does Sup Forums have so much people who think they know what they're talking about?

prove me wrong lol

Trust me, anything for Linux can run in BSD. They are compatible

i don't have to

Yes, ok then how many applications can you install without: emulators/linux_base-c6 and loading the linux kernel module. Then explain how many drivers you can install without linux libraries. IT'S ALMOST LIKE FREEBSD DEVS PORT DRIVERS INSTEAD OF MAKING THEIR OWN WOW

>Yes, ok then how many applications can you install without: emulators/linux_base-c6 and loading the linux kernel module.
a lot? i don't use retarded proprietary software

I don't think you have a good understanding of how software is written or works, and unfortunately I don't have the patience or time to give you right now but I encourage you to look into it on your own if it bothers you this much, look into driver development and portable software design.

but linux kernel and modules arent proprietary and a lot of open source applications are made specifically for servers and desktops running GNU/Linux

>linux libraries
user...

>a lot of open source applications are made specifically for servers and desktops running GNU/Linux
show me one that isn't done by redhat

Access USBs, smartphoned, external hard drives without being autistic

Or you could just check Github

NetBSD finally fixed the issue with Radeon driver that caused kernel panics, but the PC I wanted it on died, so there's no point in it for me anymore.

what?

nope, burden of proof is on you

make a claim then back it up you stupid underage nigger

define what a library is

There are plenty of proprietary kernel modules, what are you talking about? Only proprietary Linux software that relies on them will require them.

>made specifically for GNU/Linux
When you make an effort to avoid GNU-isms and target POSIX I don't think that's the case. Even if you only ever intend to run on GNU a lot of people want to be built with clang or another non-gcc compiler.

there are different types. the one you are looking for is probably shared.

wikipedia could probably do a better explanation than i can: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_(computing)#Shared_libraries

Alright alright, I'll admit I keep forgetting about proprietary modules (e.g nvidia).

>need Linux DRM to even have functional Xorg on anything modern.

maybe dont use a shitty example

It's okay, the important thing is that there's no need to be concerned about portability, you're treating it like it's a bad thing when it is in fact one of the most important things in software. Do not fault an OS for being POSIX compliant and porting POSIX software to it, that's what developers intended for, people to run and use their software, on any platform. It takes effort to be portable and it should be appreciated.

For me personally it is why I choose the software I do, I like the fact that on any OS I can use the same editor, the same media player, the same config files, etc. and it all works exactly the same. This is a good thing, exclusivity seems pointless to me, what good is program X if I can't run it on my machine or OS?

There's 0 reasons for *nix users to fight amongst themselves, we all share simillar ideals of practicality and convenience.

A shitty example is better than nothing, you have presented absolutely nothing other than a baseless claim, that's simply unfair and wrong. Either back your claim or stop making it.

You're right, POSIX compliance is something many (including me) have taken for granted.

uh, we got the linux kpi layer coming up and it has fully functional driver support, thanks.

It's more like:

"FUCK YOU FOR HAVING MODERN HARDWARE, I'M NOT WORKING WITH YOU"

that hasn't been an concern for a while now.

But your example is so utterly retarded, it really refutes the point you are trying to make. Any point I use to try to back up my claim really won't be productive as you already posed a counter-productive one, so we will be back in square one.

Well kiddo, you have no idea why Nvidia went with a closed-source soulution to the whole driver issue I can tell. Probally still in diapers when they first introduced it, I'm guessing.

lol?

good for you faggot.
Its still, yet another linux subsystem shim your shitty OS needs because it's irrelevant.

My 6600k and rx480 won't work, so yes, it's very real, and proves you have no idea what you are talking about

When did the BSDs begin to get popular on Sup Forums? I've seen a lot more activity around them recently.

It's not my example, I am simply stating such. You're still actively avoiding the issue, you still need to back your claim one way or another, failing to do so proves nothing and only further reinforces the beliefs of the other side that you don't know what you're talking about.

The other user wants an example and one has not been presented, the burden of proof lies on the claimant.
>this is the case and here is proof of it, you can look at it yourself and come to the same conclusion as me

We are all discussing here, not arguing so I'm trying to help further the discussion, not trying to attack you.

Linux, with it's 2% market share, is too mainstream now

cuck license appeases certain dipshit libertarians.

also it's mega contrarian compared to loonix, thus super special snowflake.

>2% market share
>literally half the earth population interacts with linux kernels directly on their device daily.

>Literally 98% of consumers don't know what Linux is
wow you sure showed me

People realized there are other non-GNU systems besides Windows that make GNU users angry for no reason. Wait for the Solaris generals.

i kind of did.

what you meant to say was GNU/Linux dipshit.

drm-next my boy, which pretty much means your rx480 will remain broken because amd support is trash on linux
oh i can tell, yes, because the linux kernel developers are babies who don't want to expose more parts of the kernel
alright then, so irrelevant huh? do tell me why is it so irrelevant?

>muh Open Indiana

illumos is the upstream, not open indiana

who Joyent here?

ARE YOU LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE NEAR ME?

If you've spent any time trying to do any OpenGL work, you'll know the answers to these questions - and it's the same answer to all of them. The nvidia driver is the only one out there that actually has full OpenGL support. The Mesa guys will happily tell you how it supports the full 2.1 spec as well - and then mumble something about a software renderer - yes that's right, as long as you don't need any hardware acceleration, Mesa is the tool for you - or maybe we should reevaluate who the tool is...

The sad truth is that none of the open source drivers actually offer the hooks necessary to enable full OpenGL support, even when the hardware itself is capable. Publishing documentation and having paid fulltime developers in house has not fixed this problem for either ATI or Intel. (Full disclosure, the closed-source ATI drivers have support for some of these features but no freetard is interested in them anymore). Why? Because there's no infrastructure - the Linux DRI/DRM layer is broken and efforts to fix it continue at a glacial pace.

How did nvidia avoid this? They bypassed it completely - the nvidia driver may look like a regular Xorg video driver but it's actually very invasive and replaces the bottom third of the X server (Most bits of X are driven through overridable function tables - glorious eh?). They had no choice: You can have the world's most awesome hardware and developers but if you have to be compatible with DRI/DRM - you're screwed and none of that will help you.

It's a crude approximation but the most crucial difference between the nvidia architecture and DRI/DRM is that nvidia actually have a memory manager - and a unified one at that. Without a memory manager it's impossible to allocate offscreen buffers (hence, no pbuffers or fbos) and without a unified memory manager it's impossible to reconcile 2D and 3D operations (hence no redirected Direct Rendering). The Accelerated Indirect GLX feature that the freetards were busy raving about is an endless source of confusion - and ultimately a hack to workaround their lack of a memory manager.
Indirect rendering is when a GL application delegates 3d operations to the X server instead of talking directly to the 3D driver. This makes operations slower, but not necessarily unusably slow - as long as the X server itself is capable of talking to the 3D driver and making hardware accelerated calls. Now, in DRI/DRM land, the X server originally *could not* talk to the 3D driver because only one direct client could run at a time - so the server itself was excluded because most people wanted their 3D apps to do the talking. However, they realised that if they forced all 3D apps to use indirect rendering, they could avoid the need for a memory manager because the X server itself acts as a single point of control over all 2D and 3D rendering - so they went and fixed things so that the Server could be a 3D client and accelerate indirect rendering, and thus AIGLX the born as a feature to be shouted about from the rooftops. Never mind that 3D apps would then have to use indirect rendering and be slowed down. Never mind that nvidia's driver offered Accelerated Indirect Rendering from day one back in 2000. Never mind that nvidia don't need to use it because they can do redirected direct rendering properly.

So, why do you think nvidia doesn't give two shits about the all the petitions and ranting and pleading and threats to go use someone elses hardware? Guess what - they write linux drivers because paying customers want them - and these places do serious rendering and need these full OpenGL features - otherwise nvidia wouldn't have added them in the first place! They aren't going to give you the time of day when you come to them with your shitty little open source driver that doesn't support features invented over 10 years ago (pbuffers at SGI - 1997) And muh rx480 works great with mesa 17, and goes to show that you have no idea of the curreent state of ATI driver development or features.

i swear to god GNUtards are like the AIDS skrillex/Carl of the software world

You're fucking OPEN SOURCE
POSIX PRIVILEGE SHITLORD