BSD And Other Things

/bsd/ - *BSD General Thread
Discuss FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, DragonFlyBSD, OPNsense, etc.

IRC: #baot on irc.rizon.net

Docs: freebsd.org/handbook | openbsd.org/faq | netbsd.org/docs

Potential Linux switchers welcome.
Ask questions, get answers.

Other urls found in this thread:

cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2017-8890
tedunangst.com/flak/post/ZFS-on-OpenBSD
onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2006/04/27/openbsd-3_9.html
myredditnudes.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Will give it a try sometime this summer. P.s. I like the openbsd logo

Such a obscure OS that only neckbeards use. Prove me wrong faggot.

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.

I was thinking of installing gentoo on my main, but have been hesitating and weighing up some BSD as well.

Sell me on BSD

Plus the company I work for, and I'm a normie on a macbook because fuck your feelings.

It's easy to maintain because of the -to me- very readable manpages, and it really just werks. OpenBSD runs quite well out of the box, ports contain a lot and packages as far as I've encountered always work. No manual compiling for menial shit is so nice. Also pf is amazing, not sure if FreeBSD has it.
> Bad part: no games. Good part: no games.

...

...

>use Shitnux
>get hacked by a packet
>not even to any specific application, just a packet
cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2017-8890
>use Windows
>get WannaCry
Is OpenBSD the only safe operating system?

get back to me when OpenBSD has Jails and (atleast)OpenZFS

the only two features that make Unix/BSD's viable

i maintain my own linux distro and i was looking into OpenBSD for my business because its philosophy with security/auditing and the license and regards to freedom are very similiar to GNU/GPL

this is why i have issues with FreeBSD even though its more modern with support and compatibility

>Jails and (atleast)OpenZFS
It has official support for virtual machines now.

>cuck license

Sounds good. How does it behave in a VM? I think I wanna give it a try.

>shitposting

openbsd runs well enough on virtualbox but you won't be able to go above 1024x768 for the resolution for some reason

xrandr will set the resolution. but it's a little annoying that it doesn't change automatically when you resize the window

huh? xrandr tells me i can only go up to 1024x768 and trying to set it anyway doesn't work

hm, i was thinking vmware. dunno about vbox then.

Wew, a denial of service attack.Wew.

I would simply like to interject for one second. What you're alluding to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I have of late taken to calling it, GNU + Linux. Linux is not an operating system on its own, but really another free piece of a fully operational GNU system fashioned into something proper by the GNU core libraries, terminal facilities and essential system components completing a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Quite a few computer holders run a subspecies of the GNU system everyday, but do not know it. Through a unseen series of events, the version of GNU that is being widely utilized today is often called "Linux", and a substantial number of its holders do not know that it is practically the GNU system, created by GNU developers.

There truly is a Linux, and this population do have it installed, but it is simply a part of the system they use. Linux is the core: the program in the system that gives out the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The core is an essential part of an operating system, but relies on the rest of the system; it will work only in the shadow of a whole operating system. Linux is most commonly utilized in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is practically GNU with Linux added on, or GNU/Linux. All the "Linux" distros are really distros of GNU/Linux.

It's just Linux.

...

Does ZFS work on OpenBSD?

No

tedunangst.com/flak/post/ZFS-on-OpenBSD

>Half asleep and installing OpenBSD for first time.
>Do this and get this message [See Image]
>Stare for like 5 minutes.
So far I'm liking how well they know their operating system and user base.

>2017
>OpenBSD still doesn't provide official binary security updates through a package manager

DROPPED

what is syspatch and openup

are you fucking retarded?

>syspatch
Came out 40 days ago, I missed that. The other one I was aware of but it's untrusted 3rd party

I would simply like to interject for one second. What you're alluding to as Linux, is in fact, systemd/Linux, or as I have of late taken to calling it, systemd + Linux. Linux is not an operating system on its own, but really another free piece of a fully operational systemd system fashioned into something proper by the systemd core libraries, terminal facilities and essential system components completing a full OS as defined by main systemd developer.

Hi,

I'm a potential Linux switcher and I have some questions which I couldn't simply find out by researching.

1) My ThinkPad T460P needs non-free firmware for the WiFi to work, how can I find out if this firmware exists for BSD
2) Which BSD can I choose with a functioning package manager without requiring me to compile everything from scratch?

oops, I forgot, it's the "Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8260"

Why is that nvidia_load="YES" in /boot/loader.conf does not work but adding nvidia to kld_list in /etc/rc.conf works?

1) openbsd's iwm driver supports the 8260. fw_update will install the firmware automatically (post-install, so you'll need ethernet to run the installer)
2) openbsd

Tried nvidia-modeset_load in loader.conf instead?

I did just inform myself about openBSD and it looks fine. It seems to follow a more extreme version of the Debian philosophy in being stable over having bleeding edge software. I generally like that on my Desktop (I use Debian)

For some packages although, I prefer having newer versions. This would be stuff like a web browser. For firefox for example, I couldn't find any way to let the newest firefox run on openBSD and I didn't find any build instructions as well. I don't mind building my own if needed as long as there are instructions.

That said, my C knowledge is quite low, can I assume Linux build instructions apply for openBSD as well?

This is glorious.

Whoever gave him an account obviously didn't know shit.
With jails and rctl on FreeBSD, you can forkbomb as much as you want, you still can't bring the host system down.

No love for netbsd?

You're thinking of vmm and vmc?

It has support for running OpenBSD in vmm, but last I checked no other OS (neither Linux, nor Windows) runs in it yet. That might've changed, though.

Made me chuckle, then despair a little at the complete lack of choice that Linux offers nowadays.

OpenBSD are pretty based about making hardware work without non-free cancer and blobs.

if you want recent firefox, install an openbsd snapshot instead of release. right now firefox-53.0.2 and chromium-58.0.3029 are in snaps, both are the latest versions. you don't have to compile anything.

linux runs in vmm, in snaps anyway.

yes, that's true. but there are exceptions for some stuff that absolutely has to have firmware to work. iwm is one of those drivers. blame intel.

closed drivers of course are completely off the table. closed firmwares are annoying but in freedom terms no worse than the rom chips that are in literally everything.

I run NetBSD on my SHARP X68000, but most of the people on Sup Forums nowadays aren't old enough to have nostalgia for gear like that.

>That said, my C knowledge is quite low, can I assume Linux build instructions apply for openBSD as well?
Assuming it was written as POSIX C, since both the BSDs and Linux are nominally POSIX-compatible - however, there's been a recent trend in Linux development to abandon every concept of cross-platform comparability, so it really depends on the specific software in question.

No. "portability, standardization, correctness, proactive security and integrated cryptography" are what they work on.

vmm will never run windows. it's elf-only.

can't have security with closed source drivers. that's why openbsd will never have any.

Thanks to both. I'm going through my list of needed software and epecially with the snapshots, I don't think I will need to compile anything for now.

the amount of packages for a system with such a small user-base is really fascinating. Even stuff like intellij and go are in the packages...

Fuck off dickhead, OpenBSD are probably the biggest sticklers for enforcing free software out of all Unix and Linux projects, besides RMS who they think is Hitler with his license.

onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2006/04/27/openbsd-3_9.html

It is also fake.

Dear Theo!

I HAVE THE FREEDOM TO USE USERNAME "YES" YOU FUCKING LEAF!

>fw_update will install the firmware automatically
It's supposed to in the past.

As someone who has managed very complex firewalls for a long time, I say that PF on OpenBSD is peerless.

Is there any point in running NetBSD as a desktop/laptop OS? Or OpenBSD for that matter.

If you want to learn them, sure. It feels like running Linux back before Ubuntu came out. No non-free (linux/wine) binaries on OBSD though.

I did it, I'm one of you now. Let's see how far I can go

I need Spotify and Netflix. I don't need any games. Can I get these to run on BSD? Also, which live medium should I try out for hardware compability, before installing BSD? GhostBSD?

>Netflix
AFAIK this won't run on Firefox because of the DRM stuff and Chrome isn't available.
>Spotify
Spotify is a self-contained nodejs (javascript) app, you can probably hack your way around to make it work

Not yet. There's a Linux compat version of Firefox 45, maybe if they update that Netflix will work. I tried portable FF on WINE the other day without much success on videos, but I didn't try very hard.

FWIW the Chromium port has a "todo" about the widevine DRM, maybe one day.

Is pfSense comparable to OPNsense?

Are you saying that NetBSD allows for non-free binaries? Does that make NetBSD unsafe for server use? I'm also thinking of NetBSD as a daily driver on my ThinkPad, but you have me curious about OpenBSD.

It works well, actually! I've ran it in vmware before without hassle. It play along really nice with kms as well, it doesn't seem to care whether it's in a vm or just some really generic IBM-compatible PC.

Syspatch is exactly that, friend.

Why doesn't BSD use the Linux kernel?

NetBSD has linux compat as well as WINE. OBSD supports neither any longer. You don't need compat with free software, just recompile.

FreeBSD has an older version of PF but still very good. FreeBSD also comes with the older IPFW which is a FreeBSD peculiarity, and IPF which was OpenBSD used ot ship before PF.

I want to share a 1TB external HDD between GNU/Linux and FreeBSD.
Which filesystem do you recommend I use?
I was thinking either ufs or ext2.
ext2 is the only Linux filesystem that kFreeBSD has full rw support for.
I know that Linux can be compiled with rw support for ufs, but I read somewhere that the write support is a bit iffy.

I think Nuvola supports spotify. Google play music works fine for me, but not the movies (yet)

Good have fun.

I think Linux has better UFS support than the other way around. UFS has been around for a very long time and was standard on Solaris as well.

Also, what about zfs?
My problem with zfs would be that it's not included with the kernel and the update cycles of the zfs module and the kernel don't usually match.
But would it be worth the trouble?
Is it stable enough?
Is there a reason to use zfs on my external drive for anime instead of ufs?

As defined by *poettering

Not sure about Linux ZFS but I thought it was a FUSE userspace FS, so the kernel doesn't matter too much. ZFS is really good, you can even have different mountpoints and just import the pool.

No sorry I was wrong, Linux UFS support is RO. Funny that, considering it's a totally free and widely extant FS.

hello blakkheim theleft purist supra

It has write support, but the distro maintainers still don't enable it in the kernel config, this is from the default config for Arch
CONFIG_UFS_FS=m
# CONFIG_UFS_FS_WRITE is not set

So you're telling me I can nest a Windows machine using Virtualbox in a Linux machine while hosting it on FreeBSD using vmm? Does everything pass through?

Let's cut the shit. The average BSD (bullshit-distribution) turd:

-Thinks the pure age of the system makes it better than Linux and its features (kill yourself)
-Uses software based on licenses forming some little gay pseudo internet movement
-Thinks that by more companies stealing it, they have "won" (super kill yourself)
-Is not a corporate shill but just a massive smelly hipster who only pretends to use BSD to be different to the linux crowd and thinks any OS with a "crowd" of users is automatically bad (kill yourself with 2 guns at once)
-Has been jerking off on IRC FOR OVER 25 YEARS. (KILL YOURSELF.)
-Is unapproachable with quantum bullshit about ports wherein you can't bring it up or else it's "a security risk" but it's fine when they bring it up when you mention BSD has no software (kill you are self)
-Only exists due to pity money and welfare. (kill u self)
-Genuinely unironically thinks that "all you need" is a 386 because all they do is jerk off in the terminal all day, henceforth referred to as "real computer science" (fall down a few flights of stairs)
-Don't post online except to not use the internet and think it should stay in 1995 and be for "research"
-All hate each other, hate you, because they are total fucking losers that can't and won't ever have a job or any form of income

"I am beddar than u!!!!! I am e-better than yuo!!!! I better am you!!!! I am BSD-Shit better than u!!!! re-cocks cocks cocks cosks!"

BSD shits, please "rent" a gun from a range, please know that you need 9mm or larger or else you will just be in a coma and suck up more welfare money.

Or, as in the case of my use case:
> no GPL license which makes it suitable for use within our company
> Works well
> Stable
> Great manuals
> Pisses off people like you who just come here to troll and try to derail our thread :)

OT: did anyone try the vmm yet? Is it as nice as the news seems to indicate?

What do you guys think about HardenedBSD?
>having all the good features of FreeBSD
>with some mitigations

Can someone explain to me the BSD license meme?

BSD style licenses basically say you can use my code for whatever, just give me credit. The GNU zealots don't like that.

Isn't that basically what LGPL does?

>The GNU zealots don't like that.
Not true. FSF explicitly states BSD style is Free. Even Eben Moglen has said enforcing copyleft is not always worth it, and he wrote the GPL.

I know the FSF counts it, I'm talking about the mouthbreathers on this board.

we found the Arch meme user :')

what do you use yourself user?

>hates IRC
>hates obscure software
>hates technical details and user unfriendliness
...Actually, yeah, that does describe modern Arch and its users quite well.

>FSF aren't "GNU Zealots"

They're a superset of the zealots I'm talking about

FreeBSD as a desktop is too vulnerable to too many attacks, as a server (datacentre) it's perfect. If you want security just use OpenBSD, the team behind hardenedBSD is small and their primary purpose is to work on security mechanisms for FreeBSD and not make an entire distribution based on FreeBSD. Think of HardenedBSD as a BETA version of a future FreeBSD release (security wise)

I see everyone recommending OpenBSD due to security and whatnot. How does something independed like DragonflyBSD compare? Security-wise, compatibility-wise, etc. Is it worth trying out or is it only for specific needs/usecases?

>FreeBSD as a desktop is too vulnerable to too many attacks
like what? any source to supplement your claims?

OpenBSD has nothing for multi user systems, there is no RBAC / MAC or anything to protect certain parts.

HardenedBSD is a separate OS, they are not making it for FreeBSD because FreeBSD doesn't want to upstream it that's the whole reason they started HBSD

it's called "unix filesystem permissions" and "privilege separation" and "privilege dropping" and "minimal audited codebase"

Arch user detected

Stop shilling this crap, BSD won't take over Linux

kek

>MAC

yeah, worked great for windows and linux. only people who messes with that shit are overpayed federal employees. you do realize MAC is mandatory (policy) for fed systems which is the only reason nsa created it (not to be super nice and help secure the internet)