OpenBSD 6.2 is out, why not give it a spin. :3c

OpenBSD 6.2 is out, why not give it a spin. :3c

Other urls found in this thread:

man.openbsd.org/syspatch
wiki.freebsd.org/Myths
encyclopediadramatica.rs/BSD
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_system_software#System
encyclopediadramatica.rs/Lunix
gnu.org/prep/standards/
freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ext2fs
man.openbsd.org/man8/mount_ext2fs.8
openbsd.org/goals.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Already upgraded from 6.1, haven't done much yet, but I'm happy the compiler is finally good.
>:3c
No.

I'm more of a linux guy myself, sorry. Don't think that the BSD license is helping free software at all and will never license anything I do with it

ahahaa

Does OpenBSD require you to download and apply patches manually to update?

Is OpenBSD the most distro?

On some architectures, yes. On AMD64 and i386 you can get automatic binary fixes with the syspatch command.
man.openbsd.org/syspatch

might as well drop openssh if you're gonna be that much of a cultist

>he fell for the meme

*BSD is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

"software that respects your freedom"

GNU/Linux*

I mean, BSD software respects your freedoms, especially since you can ask for the source code to your entire OS at once. Not even Debian GNU/Linux permits this.

>you can ask for the source code to your entire OS
Google translate don't help.

now that skylake support is finally in i will definitely try, fedora really annoys the shit out of me

>For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
and again someone who doesn't know shit about shit. google uses bsd for their dns and other infrastructure components, netflix uses freebsd for streaming and contributes to the development since a couple of years now. most modern high performance routers are bsd based and outperform the tcp stack of linux. freebsd is still being used on sony playstation since playstation 2, of course we have apple and facebook for their whatsapp servers.

bsd is not dead and even with it's small footprint, it's is in some parts cleaner than any linux and better documented.

if bsd is dead what is haiku, plan9 and inferno?

>better documented
Elaborate. There are several cert and books for this undocumented thing. Also you replied to an ancient pasta. Practically true, because Linux is the de facto free software for the most and the development is much faster

>most modern high performance routers are bsd based and outperform the tcp stack of linux.
This is a lie. First of all, Linux and Linux variants are by far more used on routers, from DD-WRT capable access points to core routers and IXPs. Secondly, the TCP stack in FreeBSD is not exceptional to Linux in anyway. I would like to see any actual numbers backing this up. In my experience, there are far more support for various TCP algorithms and other networking stuff in Linux as RFC drafts tend to be implemented in Linux as proof-of-concepts before they become full RFCs. Just look at BBR, for example. Is there even a BBR implementation in any of the BSDs?

Secondly, SCTP support in FreeBSD is just laughable.

>freebsd is still being used on sony playstation since playstation 2
PS4 is FreeBSD.
PS3 was OpenBSD.

I know, laughable are GNU / GPL freetards.

the documentation in general in freebsd is more complete because it's an operating system, not a kernel separated from its user space. it's a different work mentality and the man pages for the same tools used among different distributions stays the same, which in a lot of cases is not the same for linux distributions (example: suse netstat vs centos netstat, both use different parameters for different purposes)

>FreeBSD isn't a combination of FreeBSD userland and kFreeBSD
>GNU/Linux isn't an entire OS, it's obviously GNU+Linux
>implying I can't run Gentoo GNU/kFreeBSD as my OS
>implying FreeBSD doesn't come in a gorillean different distros, PC-BSD being one of the more popular ones

>replying to a classic pasta

wiki.freebsd.org/Myths

>PS3 was OpenBSD.
Based on wiki, it's a freebsd. It's pointless because you can't use anything from PS3 or PS4 on any BSD.

99% of the linux users don't have problems with this, especially when everything comes with coreutils. OpenBSD also rewrite the documentation here and there and that can be annoying.

>Based on wiki, it's a freebsd.
Maybe it was, I just thought I've read somewhere that it was OpenBSD. But anyway, may main point is the above.

you can't run gentoo/kfreebsd because it's fucking dead

encyclopediadramatica.rs/BSD

Okay, it used to be a thing, same with Debian/kFreeBSD. Anyway, my point is that FreeBSD offers the same amount of kernel/usersland separation as GNU/Linux. There are plenty light-weight Linux distros that use FreeBSD userland and macOS/OpenDarwin use a bunch of FreeBSD coreutils.

>give it a spin
It's not a fidget spinner. So what is the best gayme available on this shit?

>i get my info from a satirical websitr that hasn't been funny since 2009
wow, people on Sup Forums are smart, no wonder every thread is the exact same shit

>routers
>DD-WRT
high performance, did you even read? i'm not talking about your average consumer grade garbage

> In my experience, there are far more support for various TCP algorithms and other networking stuff in Linux as RFC drafts tend to be implemented in Linux as proof-of-concepts before they become full RFCs
you are right in that regard but most userspace software comes from the "unix" area. look at OpenSSH, OpenBGPD, BIND, Openntpd, snmpd, dhcpcd, etc.

at least one these fundamental IP services runs on all modern linux systems and at least 2 on a router. all developed by BSD folks with perfect integration to their operating system as well as portability. linux is a playground because it's the center of attention and provides infrastructure to play with, while bsd follows a different philosophy that isn't compatible with linux

>freebsd is still being used on sony playstation since playstation 2
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_system_software#System

>>i get my info from a satirical websitr that hasn't been funny since 2009
People post shit from cat-v, which hasn't been funny since 2001.

encyclopediadramatica.rs/Lunix

Seems like they get to the point.

i have a lot of problems with this when it comes to portability of my scripts which sometimes have to be shell wrappers. linux userspace documentation is god awful and inconsistent as fuck, without clear standards or guidelines and this is where you see a huge difference between all the bsd systems and the linux ones. the linux project itself doesn't even have to give a flying fuck about it because userspace is not part of linux, which is why it looks the way it does

i know it's pasta but it's better than to leave it as "fact" in the thread for others to jump the same biased bullshit conclusion some 12 year old ubuntu-edge-lord came to

Seeing all these assblasted linux crybabies just reaffirms I made the right decision by switching to FreeBSD.
Now we can sit back and wait for the devastating rape of a systemd zero day and laugh our asses off.
Just imagine unironically thinking pic related is a respectable and mentally stable person.
LMAO RMS fanboys must be as fat, ugly, unbathed and mentally ill as the man himself.

I'm already using the best BSD

While you're entirely right in all four of your points, GNU isn't an entire OS and Linux isn't an entire OS.
But yes, GNU/BSD does exist, and hopefully, some day, BSD/Linux and GNU/Hurd will exist.

you are using an overpriced fisher price toy with an aluminum case

>userspace documentation is god awful
Like netstat? :^)
>without clear standards or guidelines
gnu.org/prep/standards/
Do you need someone to hold your hand too?

>high performance, did you even read? i'm not talking about your average consumer grade garbage
Which is why I said "everything FROM DD-WRT access points TO core routers and IXPs", IXPs being Internet Exchange Points. Nice job quoting half my sentence out of context and thinking you have a point.

>you are right in that regard but most userspace software comes from the "unix" area. look at OpenSSH, OpenBGPD, BIND, Openntpd, snmpd, dhcpcd, etc.
Yes, there are many neat applications that come from OpenBSD indead. That's not really the same as what you said though.

>at least one these fundamental IP services
Which one are you referring to, dhcpcd? Actually no, most Linux distros come with dhclient which is made by ISC, not by OpenBSD. If you referred to OpenSSH, then yes.

>linux is a playground because it's the center of attention and provides infrastructure to play with, while bsd follows a different philosophy that isn't compatible with linux
You're forgetting the crux of the issue here. Linux gets attention because at the core of network development sits Google. Dave Miller, Eric Dumazet, Yuchung Cheng, Erik Kline and plenty more network stack maintainers are all Google employees or former Google employees.

Linux receives attention because one of the biggest players in computer networking is investing massive amounts of research and development into it. AFAIK, while FreeBSD is used by Netflix and Apple, they don't nearly receive that level of attention from their corporate backers, and certainly not on performance critical parts. Netflix relationship with FreeBSD is as far as I know more comparable to Nvidia's relationship to Linux: you only get contributions that will help Netflix use their own proprietary stuff.

Not to say that Google doesn't have shitloads of proprietary stuff either, but they also contribute back to a larger extent.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_system_software#System
Yes, I appear to have been mistaken here.

And? At least I'm content about what I use instead of trying to justify myself by shitting on everyone else's stuff, especially if it's more expensive. Stay mad poorfag.

>and hopefully, some day, BSD/Linux
This literally exists already though. BusyBox and TinyBox are such examples. An all BSD userland combined with the Linux kernel.

>GNU/Hurd will exist.
GNU/Hurd is actively developed and version 1.0 is to be released closer to December. It's been an ongoing project with real support for at least 4 years.

>DD-WRT
That's smells like botnet.

:3

>BusyBox and TinyBox are such examples
They are shitty examples, because they have nothing to do with BSD. Bionic is a better example, if you are into lobotomy.

That stopped being BSD eons ago

The XNU is on the github and you can redpill yourself about this "freebsdish" bullshit.

>They are shitty examples, because they have nothing to do with BSD.
They are BSD userlands even though they aren't FreeBSD or OpenBSD. But I agree that they aren't the best examples.

>busybox
>tinybox
Those aren't derived from BSD though. They're not GNU userlands, but neither are they BSD.

>They are BSD userlands
Not even similar. Also busybox is GPL'd.

>FreeBSD license
>not considered a BSD userland
You people have strange conceptions about what's BSD and not

>but muh UNIX by legacy, if it isn't a 4.3BSD Tahoe derivative it isn't BSD/UNIX

Good job you autist. It's already installed. Great to no that you have no idea where your favourite software comes from.

It's already installed. It's not a package. It's in base.

Nope. Too much effort. If it had native ext4 support so I don't have to wipe my /home partition, then I'd think about it. Until then, fuck no. I'm not adding yet another partition in yet another filesystem.

what a transparent trolling attempt

Oh shit it is. Lmao i'm retarded.

The system update are fixed or still being a steaming security hole or get through a retarded update process? Seriously how can they call shitselves "secure" without an automated system updating method? Oh... i forgot, they don't need users, but the so called "hackers".

>Great to no
>to no

ports is love, ports is life

that was a freebsd problem

>wah, an OS that isn't Linux doesn't support Linux's filesystem!

Even windows have ext2 drivers, so what's FreeBSD's excuse?

>gnu.org/prep/standards/
the last thing i wanted to look at good man pages i tried looking at the one from mock, which is incomplete as fuck and nobody bitches about it because there is no QA on documentation.

there is a difference between having a guideline and having people actually care enough to implement it properly and review it. that's one of the things that makes bsd much better and cleaner over linux.

>Yes, there are many neat applications that come from OpenBSD indead. That's not really the same as what you said though.
that literally makes the internet what it is. without the berkley and MIT software, the internet would look a lot different.

>IXPs being Internet Exchange Points. Nice job quoting half my sentence out of context and thinking you have a point.
here is where licenses come into play. nobody like cisco would want people to snoop around their core router OS, which is why shit like that isn't linux based. the enforced disclosure just by licensing, like, as we all know from the gpl, prevents them to a) add or link proprietary blobs against the source, b) commercially distribute software without acknowledging copyright holders, c) not contributing changes back c) not providing the source with the binary. the algorithms alone would reveal so much on the hardware design, it would be certain death.

>at least one these fundamental IP services
ssh obviously. isc dhcpd is garbage and everyone knows it, riddled with trivial bugs over the years.

>You're forgetting the crux of the issue here. Linux gets attention because at the core of network development sits Google. Dave Miller, Eric Dumazet, Yuchung Cheng, Erik Kline and plenty more network stack maintainers are all Google employees or former Google employees.
that i believe is the plus point on the gpl side. if you are enthusiastic about your research other people catch on and can support it. bsd lacks the force to encourage developers which gpl does imo

License autism. Openbsd supports ext2 as i know but dropped because can't write ntfs and slow as a stop sign.

freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ext2fs
man.openbsd.org/man8/mount_ext2fs.8

It has shit support for my hardware.
FreeBSD has better.

>having people actually care enough to implement it properly
Larping so hard.

Isn't that a problem with having closed-source hardware, rather than with the OS?

>that literally makes the internet what it is. without the berkley and MIT software, the internet would look a lot different.
Berkeley is literally not OpenBSD, most of these coreutils predates OpenBSD by a couple of decades. Maybe not in actual implementation, but at least in design.

>nobody like cisco would want people to snoop around their core router OS
Cisco haven't made any core routers in almost two decades nor do they currently, they make routers and switches for corporations. I'm not aware of any European or American IXP running anything but Linux, maybe you can enlighten me on that?

Also, the GPL slippery slope argument is irrelevant here. This is not software that is being distributed, this is firmware that runs on actual physical hardware that is shipped, so there's no viral GPL going on here. Also, Cisco use Linux plentiful, especially on consumer-grade stuff. All netgear routers, for example, run Linux/WRT.

>ssh obviously. isc dhcpd is garbage and everyone knows it, riddled with trivial bugs over the years.
Nice sour grapes argument. I admit that OpenSSH is nice

Well, to be fair, the ext2 drivers for Windows can't write to ext4 [because journalling] either without fucking everything up. But at least they can read it though.

Neat

sure kid, enjoy your hs html classes while i actually try to work on infrastructure based on shitty documentation because assholes didn't think it's necessary to write down after implementing something.

i wouldn't expect you to understand

People still use OpenBSD even after the ipsec backdoor was found? LOL

OpenBSD is a product of sin, through and through. You may ask: What kind of sin?

Pride. OpenBSD users do not understand that God didn't put us on this earth to dig holes in the middle of the desert for nobody and nothing, he put us on this earth to create useful meaningful things.
The attitude of an OpenBSD user is literally: "we dont want new users".
"we dont want to please users"

If you think that these are made up sentences then you'd be wrong, these are taken straight from #openbsd on irc, on a random day of the week 1min into a conversation.

There should be a good graphical desktop installed by default and installing from ports for example should be easy with a single command. It just starts here.
We are all users of something, of a table, of a pc, of an OS, of a toilet. If everybody had the attitude that they dont need to please their users then we's still be sitting around fires in a cave in the stoneage.

Here are the goals of OpenBSD: openbsd.org/goals.html
Yes, it's not a server text-only OS like they pretend it is.
No actually, they say that their goal is to be the "best development platform for developers".
How the heck does that not translate to the best, most comfortable, fastest graphical desktop?
That is because their minds are taken by sin, they are prideful beyond anything you could ever witness on Linux. I mean Linux is bad but there is some semblance of user focus, even if it's pathetic.
But OpenBSD is sitting directly in hell, lecturing us all about how we should take a seat. How about no thanks.


> yes, the OpenBSD logo is literally of a puffer fish, puffing itself up and the logo of FreeBSD is of the devil. All coincidence of course.

they're not official and they're shit

I really enjoyed your examples of "shitty documentation". Maybe stop being an idiot poser.

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.

>Berkeley is literally not OpenBSD, most of these coreutils predates OpenBSD by a couple of decades. Maybe not in actual implementation, but at least in design.
i did not say openbsd and the statement is not about the coreutils/userspace itself, it's about stuff that runs in the userspace. and yes most of the services predate most bsd and all linux systems but the open source versions are still developed and maintained by the bsd communities in their complete environment, while the others profit of it as a by product due to the kis philosophy and therefor also portability.

>I'm not aware of any European or American IXP running anything but Linux, maybe you can enlighten me on that?
might be the case but the software that it runs was and still is mostly maintained by the bsd community.

>All netgear routers, for example, run Linux/WRT.
netgear isn't cisco anymore, that got sold years ago to belkin.

not sour grapes argument, it's just fucking obvious that ssh was ment. i have seen multiple billion dollar companies run bsd services on linux systems or even bsd systems in their core infrastructure like openbsd bgp routers, bind is probably the all time classic that you'll find on any *nix like system. post pxe environments use tftpd which is also a service developed by the openbsd project and with it dhcpcd.

My apologies mr stallman, I'm still transitioning to call gnu/linux by its proper name

Nobody uses bind anymore, a huge security vulnerability was discovered 8 or 9 years ago. Most people are using Bind9, which is developed and maintained by ISC.

you get the point. the foundation of the internet to the day is that most internet protocol services come from the bsd area/community.
my bad i thought that bind9 was a fork but it actually got rewritten.

> How the heck does that not translate to the best, most comfortable, fastest graphical desktop?
Pretty sure this is pasta but
>what is cwm

Your point is actually irrelevant. Yes, many core utils are maintained by various BSD devs, but many aren't as well. All of the POSIX-era utils are remnants from old Unices, so that doesn't make BSD any more special than, say Windows, which also have adopted the Berkeley socket concept as well.

IXP routers run very specialised versions of Linux, highly optimised for low latency and best performance... and no, they don't run your typical userland daemons and services.

either way thanks for the talk, one of the lesser shit threads on here

Installed it on my x230 today. Everything seems fine.

>Your point is actually irrelevant.
it actually is if you look just from the size and philosophy of the project and contribution to science/technology globally. openbsd is a complete operating system, providing the user with a system where every gear fits another perfectly. in this type of limited but stable environment you can focus on different aspects on computation and with bsd the intend was always to keep it simple, portable and secure as possible. the ecosystem openbsd has is an entirely different concept but can still introduce different perspectives of modern computation like W^R or other mitigation techniques that have been developed there or elsewhere outside of the linux scope to be either reimplemented in linux ks or us, ported or not.

>IXP routers run very specialised versions of Linux, highly optimised for low latency and best performance... and no, they don't run your typical userland daemons and services.
i have not visited an exchange point myself so i can't really say much, also can't find any data on it on the internet. would be generally interesting to know more about that. if you have anything, i'd appreciate it

and to add to the first argument; the bsd project still contributes a lot to stable high performing internet services that can run in almost everywhere.

>why not give it a spin. :3c

I am doing that right now.

I've installed freebsd a few years ago and realized BSD doesn't make sense as a desktop OS because once you install the linux ports it creates secuirty holes and negates its purpose

Yes.

same applies to linux by definition then

OpenBSD developer just tweeted a post from this thread kek

not really because something like ubuntu isn't security centric like BSD is.

freebsd is not security centric

Link please.

well OpenBSD is. FreeBSD has great documentation but it really has no reason to exist.

You shouldn't advertise your own twitter account on Sup Forums, blakkheim.

*falls asleep learning BSD*

aha well memed friend :D

Join #baot on irc.rizon.net for BSD chat heh

Typical BSD user