So I'm gonna check out FreeBSD, while its downloading, thought i'd get Sup Forums's opinion on it.
From the little I read I gather its sorta like Debian or Arch (maybe Gentoo, I've never used Gentoo), in that you download a base system, and everything else is extra that needs to be made. (ya I know apt and pacman, I guess use binaries)
Is it less Bot_Net() than Linux?, that's probably a dumb way to word my question, but I mean like the base is old af right?, stuff like systemD gets a lot of flak for getting its fingers in everything, possibly making a huge target potential malice.
>thought i'd get Sup Forums's opinion on it wat da ya expect from de/g/enerates opinion?
Carson Powell
>Is it less Bot_Net() than Linux?, that's probably a dumb way to word my question, but I mean like the base is old af right? well it is old but people are working on it you know
still though, a lot less servers running BSD stuff means its less likely to be botnetted
also i'm pretty sure in debian literally every part of the operating system is a package, this is probably why updates can sometimes uninstall your entire OS by accident
If you want to go tinfoil mode, use OpenBSD. It's actually pretty cool. Otherwise Linux is always good.
Joshua Jackson
Use Slackware instead.
Is not broken like FresBIE and you get all the advantages.
Levi Walker
dubs for that link, thanks
Anthony Powell
FreeBSD was good when it was in the 4.X range. They messed it up when adding SMP. Dillon's DragonBSD takes 4.X and does SMP right.
Ayden White
they make great tacos
Gavin Clark
whoops
Ryder Perry
where'd you get that picture?
Ethan Howard
see
Noah Carter
>THE YEAR OF OUR LORD TWENTY ONE SEVEN ANNO DOMINI >No ASLR
Kayden Jones
>What's more, it's largely obsoleted by AES-NI in modern CPUs I should have stopped reading right there. AES-NI is the real security risk. FreeBSD is written and configured with hardware backdoors in mind. This guy is acting like the CPU is not potentially hostile.
FreeBSD 11.0 is awesome and there hasn't been any reported remote exploits.
>FreeBSD includes Sendmail in the base system and enables it by default. Right there in the installer you can disable sendmail
>security.bsd.hardlink_check_gid=1 This only ever matters if someone exploited the system already and slows down operation
>security.bsd.unprivileged_read_msgbuf=0 Now its configurable installed
John Thompson
On Lenovo X200, FreeBSD runs with a few issues (suspend).
Carson Jenkins
Linux has this problem too, doesn't it?
Angel Jenkins
Yeah, it's ACPI's fault. Designed by Microsoft and Intel to make it impossible to compete with Windows.
Angel Adams
Don't bother, terrible multithreading and filesystem performance (except XFS)
Kayden Walker
FreeBSD doesn't support XFS, only for reading.
Lucas Taylor
He likely meant ZFS.
Joseph Perez
ZFS*
Eli Phillips
A decent OS, desu. Bad driver support, but WAY less of a botnet. Also, ignore the OpenBSD shills - FreeBSD has built-in auditing, which does help by a shitton.
ZFS is awesome. UFS is fine. The license is awesome, and not the commie autistic screeching of guhnoo. It has pretty sane defaults.
Andrew Anderson
The debian problem comes when you try and uninstall a package that came preinstalled with something so it's linked to X and tries to remove everything it's linked to. It's a simple command to unlink it.
However you should use Guix anyway and never touch apt-get ever again.
Get the book Absolute FreeBSD (libgen.io) or you'll have no idea what you're doing.
You should also use SmartOS if you're building a server, then you get real KVM not Bhyve junk, and fully featured ZFS not the shit half-assed implementation with FreeBSD. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to use FreeBSD as a server when SmartOS exists and even has better 'jails' (zones) than FreeBSD. Hell SmartOS even has a more up to date pf than FreeBSD.
