Is there anything that BSD does better than Linux?

Is there anything that BSD does better than Linux?

Other urls found in this thread:

blog.tintagel.pl/2015/01/03/code-rot-openbsd.html
openbsd.org/security.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

No.
/thread

/threading yourself

BSD doesn't write shitty, bloated code unlike ganoo

Network security

Linux is not ganoo

It's excesively free.

openbsd has the best out of the box security of any OS
freebsd has supposedly better server performance, which is why netflix uses freebsd

poor penguino

If you consider macOS as part of the BSD family, then BSD has a lot of professional software that I wish Linux had.

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.

>better
better than alternatives with cuckable licenses

BSD is a complete operating system. You will see how that completion works as you become acquainted with using the shell and shell scripts on the BSD system.
GNU/Linux is a modular mess of disparate garbage sewn haphazardly together.
Go install TrueOS/FreeBSD on a laptop or virtual machine and learn some things.

Glorious documentation that is straightforward and helpful rather then "just google it" that is the linux solution

Better file systems: ZFS, HAMMER
Better documentation: specially OpenBSD
Better, cleaner and more structured code: GNU software LMAO
Better service management: Lunix fanboys wish systemd were 5% as good as Solaris SMF
Better security: Where would be lunix users be without OpenSSH, LibreSSL, OCF, etc?
Better license: Enjoy giving the rights of your software to a communist jew and his gargantuan license so he can redistribute it to the good people on his restrictive terms!

And much more

No. BSD sucks.

>ZFS, HAMMER
How are these better than ext4, xfs, and btrfs?
>Better documentation: specially OpenBSD
The man pages seem pretty clear to me. not sure what you're getting at.
>Better, cleaner and more structured code: GNU software LMAO
Again, this has never been an issue for me, and most other people to be honest.
>Better service management: Lunix fanboys wish systemd were 5% as good as Solaris SMF
Ok first off, I thought we were talking about BSD?
Second, yeah you're probably right. I have no idea how Solaris SMF worked, but anything's gotta be better than systemd.
Mind providing some explanation as to how this compares with OpenRC and runit, or classic sysvinit, which are the main systemd alternatives?
>Better security: Where would be lunix users be without OpenSSH, LibreSSL, OCF, etc?
Another good point. That said, this is not really a reason for me or anyone to use BSD. These are not BSD-specific software.

so, I just installed freebsd in my thinkpad t430 with xorg and gnome. but the drivers are not working correctly. and the graphics is very slow, with low frame rate. someone help?

>not using memearrow

it does autism better

⇰better?

I suggest installing TrueOS instead, you're a beginner. It's like the Mint of BSD.
I did that back when TrueOS was still PC-BSD, so don't be ashamed.

I tried TrueOS but the interface looks like shit.
That's why I installed gnome.

>GNU/Linux

it is better at being even more useless.

>Linux can't have other utilities other than GNU ones
>Feels the need to pre-pend a contributor name over others that have contributed to the project just as much if not more because of a neckbearded fag whose project served a purpose and has to remind everyone of it to this day
Seriously, fuck all this gahnoo slash Linux shit.
Either we mention every god damn contributor or we don't. Don't fucking nitpick.

Doesn't *BSD rely on some GNU utilities? grep and such? I don't quite understand the argument that it is somehow a pure and complete suckless operating system.

It doesn't by default, but you'll end up needing to install some like gmake since they're not entirely compatible with their BSD equivalents

Its code is pretty readable. Like says, Linux is more of ad hoc mess.

Upgrading between major releases for sure: upgraded my box from 9.0 to 11.1 with no issues at all.
Every time I tried to pull the same trick on Linux I ended up reinstalling.

It also has ZFS which is obviously a great advantage too compared to the standard Linux filesystems.

Unlike Linux, which is just a kernel, BSD is actually a complete Unix-like operating system.

Install OpenBSD, the developers tend to use ThinkPads, so support is first class. My X270 with an i7-7500U runs OpenBSD, accelerated video just works.

For example, in the latest release (6.2) the inteldrm(4) driver now supports kylake, Kaby Lake, and Cherryview devices and Intel 8265 and 3168 support was added to the iwm(4) driver.

Both of those are hardware found in the latest ThinkPads.

PF. I have run some pretty complex firewalls using both Linux and OpenBSD and there's no comparison between them. IPtables is good stable software but PF is so powerful and easy to use.

Should I use FreeBSD or OpenBSD first? Or does it matter? About to run one in a VBox.

I find FreeBSD a lot more annoying to configure, but it depends on what you're doing with it.

Try OpenBSD for an example of a well configured system. You can transfer that knowledge to FreeBSD.

maybe you could try xfce, or failing that, Windows.

I have no idea but I don't think BSD is any better or worse than linux. It's just a pretty cool alternative imo.

Getting to watch a big closed source corporation fork your open source code and make closed source programs with it.

If only there was a more succinct way to describe it.

Linucs btfo

I'm terribly sorry for interjecting another moment, but what I just told you is GNU/Linux is, in fact, just Linux, or as I've just now taken to calling it, Just Linux. Linux apparently does happen to be a whole operating system unto itself and comprises a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Most computer users who run the entire Linux operating system every day already realize it. Through a peculiar turn of events, I was misled into calling the system "GNU/Linux", and until now, I was unaware that it is basically the Linux system, developed by the Linux project.

There really isn't a GNU/Linux, and I really wasn't using it; it is an extraneous misrepresentation of the system that's being used. Linux is the operating system: the entire system made useful by its included corelibs, shell utilities, and other vital system components. The kernel is already an integral part of the Linux operating system, never confined useless by itself; it functions coherently within the context of the complete Linux operating system. Linux is never used in combination with GNU accessories: the whole system is basically Linux without any GNU added, or Just Linux. All the so-called "GNU/Linux" distributions are really distributions of Linux.

The sweet taste of Richard Stalman's tears as one uses an OS that he cannot interject on.

>>>/reddit/

>t. butthurt GNUfag

What is battery life like on bsd??
The only thing that annoys me about ganoo/linux is battery life is really short for laptops.

...

Where is this. I have to go there just for the logo

Google it

"boot at all on an SGI Tezro"

your move, linux

>doesn't know anything about the things mentioned in user's post
>feels compelled to comment anyway
>uses his ignorance as justification to continue holding silly opinions
the absolute state of Sup Forums

also
>this is not really a reason for me or anyone to use BSD
you realize none of that fancy shit you claim to like would've existed without those projects right? and that projects need supporters to continue surviving right? Nevermind the fact that if competent software comes from competent devs, then it'd be silly to not use more of such software from those devs whenever possible, as opposed to settling for shit from poo in the loo devs that are known to produce nonsense (e.g. gnu).

Can you expand on this?

>google
that's botnet

TrueOS is more like fedora: bleeding edge with occasional bugs.

GhostBSD is the real mint: stable and comfy with an actually usable mate desktop.

FreeBSD has a lot more noob friendly resources, so unless you're already acquainted with more unix-y systems like slackware or gentoo, OpenBSD is gonna have a bit of a steeper learning curve. OpenBSD's documentation is solid, but almost useless if you have no clue what you're doing.

I bet you haven't looked at the code for either project and are just going off of Sup Forums memes. If you look at the GNU project code for things like the coreutils you will find that they have pretty good code as they enforce their own coding standards and use a template system for code re-usability and uniformity. Obviously gcc and glibc have some odd stuff here and there due to their scope but otherwise GNU code really isn't that bad.

The only thing FreeBSD has better performance wise is their network stack which is a bit better than the GNU/Linux stack, which is why Netflix uses a mix of FreeBSD and GNU/Linux servers. Also while OpenBSD does have excellent security their usability is terrible, a good example of this is the fact that they only recently gained basic virtualization capabilities.

GNU/Linux's greatest strength is it's modularity, which lets distros bring in each of the best software projects to fit the role and lets the user switch to a different one if they have different needs.

Sure, that's the other side of the coin.
They have different strengths that are both good.

>Better file systems: ZFS, HAMMER
While currently ZFS and HAMMER are better then btrfs, ZFS is license-encumbered and not very flexible and HAMMER while having an acceptable license lacks a lot of functionality as its only form of redundancy is mirroring and cow as opposed to ZFS and btrfs which both support raid 5 and 6 style redundancy. Once btrfs is ready it will be better than ZFS and HAMMER and it's GPL.
>Better documentation: specially OpenBSD
While OpenBSD and the other BSDs do have good first party documentation GNU/Linux documentation is trivial to find online for most every esoteric problem you can think of and most distros have at least decent wikis (and arch has an excellent wiki which can be applied to other distros).
>Better, cleaner and more structured code: GNU software LMAO
GNU software is pretty clean as they follow their own coding style that emacs will auto-format.
>Better service management: Lunix fanboys wish systemd were 5% as good as Solaris SMF
Solaris SMF has nothing to do with BSD and all the major BSDs still use shell script based inits unlike GNU/Linux which has mostly switched to systemd which has many of the nice features that SMF provides like service supervision.
>Better security: Where would be lunix users be without OpenSSH, LibreSSL, OCF, etc?
Obviously OpenBSD is extremely secure and contributes a lot to security tools but the fact is that properly secured GNU/Linux is pretty damn secure and much more functional than OpenBSD
>Better license: Enjoy giving the rights of your software to a communist jew and his gargantuan license so he can redistribute it to the good people on his restrictive terms!
You clearly have no idea how copyright and licensing works. A license says what other people can do with your software not what you can do with it. You can re-license your GPL software to proprietary software whenever you want, the GPL just prevents others from doing that.

The BSDs typically have their own userland utilities but most of them still rely on GCC as LLVM isn't very mature.

Definitely, I can see how the more centralized design of BSDs can lead to some cleaner interfaces and code but the chaos of GNU/Linux can also lead to great code.

Overall Linux is a larger and much faster moving project with more resources. The BSDs have a tighter group that that can keep a closer eye on whats going on but also at the expense of slower development process. Linux is probably more prone to allowing shitty code through the checks but it probably has the most skilled developers on its side.

>Is there anything that BSD does better than Linux?
Meltdown.

>not being a corporate bitch, not signing NDA's, not linking binary blobs against the kernel.

>GNU software is pretty clean as they follow their own coding style

Yes, they follow their own style, that's the problem.

Obviously the GNU style is not to everyone's preference, especially since it is very lisp-like which turns off a lot of programmers with mostly C backgrounds, but it honestly isn't that bad and it's still consistent.

>lisp-like
Well Lisp is Stallman's favorite language, so it makes sense that the coding style would end up that way.

>The most powerful programming language is Lisp. If you don't know Lisp (or its variant, Scheme), you don't know what it means for a programming language to be powerful and elegant. Once you learn Lisp, you will see what is lacking in most other languages.
>Unlike most languages today, which are focused on defining specialized data types, Lisp provides a few data types which are general. Instead of defining specific types, you build structures from these types. Thus, rather than offering a way to define a list-of-this type and a list-of-that type, Lisp has one type of lists which can hold any sort of data.
>Where other languages allow you to define a function to search a list-of-this, and sometimes a way to define a generic list-search function that you can instantiate for list-of-this, Lisp makes it easy to write a function that will search any list — and provides a range of such functions.
>In addition, functions and expressions in Lisp are represented as data in a way that makes it easy to operate on them.
>When you start a Lisp system, it enters a read-eval-print loop. Most other languages have nothing comparable to `read', nothing comparable to `eval', and nothing comparable to `print'. What gaping deficiencies!
>While I love the power of Lisp, I am not a devotee of functional programming. I see nothing bad about side effects and I do not make efforts to avoid them unless there is a practical reason. There is code that is natural to write in a functional way, and code that is more natural with side effects, and I do not campaign about the question. I limit my campaigning to issues of freedom and justice, such as to eliminate nonfree software from the world.
>Lisp is no harder to understand than other languages. So if you have never learned to program, and you want to start, start with Lisp.

>multiple paragraphs to describe how lisp is more powerful than normal programming languages
>Lisp is no harder to understand that other languages

BSD has better underage girls in leather cosplaying as the devil thingy.

˃using memearrow

Being community thing, not called after single dude.

Probably is, but not anything that matters in a significant way that should make one should pick it over a generic Linux distro.

xfs originated from sgi in irix, retard

Consistent coding style != quality code

There's more to programming than how you decide to format the punctuation marks in your code you know...

blog.tintagel.pl/2015/01/03/code-rot-openbsd.html

openbsd.org/security.html

˃user ples teach me how to blacktext

>hmm, simple but powerful can't be a thing!!!!!!!!!

This.

but... OpenBSD codebase has very consistent coding style. There even is a manpage for that. There even is an formatter in base system.

Networking, and I'd guess init system because they havent been anally raped by poetterings shitty code

This. It's easier to do FreeBSD first then graduate and move on to OpenBSD, the opposite of this:

the GNU coding style burns my eyes. 2-space indentation, indenting the { after the ifs like
if (foo)
{
bar
}

and so on. I won't comment about code quality, but the style is horrible compared to the kernel (which is based on K&R by the way)

Well, if you really think you have to even look at at different code stylle..

Not really, with the exception of OpenBSD and security related stuff.

BSD uses ganoo shit..

Case-insensitivity

being old

Entirely BTFO!

gnu coreutils is like cat -v but for every program

It makes insecure autists feel more special because Linux is actually popular in the industry and pretty usable on the desktop nowadays, but BSD is still marginal and mostly useless.

OpenBSD being more secure is a meme no one has actually bothered to check - it's based entirely on claims made by the devs, since no one uses it in production.
If anything, the OpenBSD devs being jerks with others finally paid off and no one notified them about Meltdown/Spectre, leaving them far behind both Linux and Windows security-wise

I don't mind the style that much, it's consistent with itself (2 space indent after if/for/while, {} block is the single statement that follows the, code inside {} is again indented). What I mind is non-trivial execution tree, not avoiding 6+ levels of nesting, gotos and not just for error handling. Ok I mind the style, it's ugly, but whatever.
I have to admit the tools are freaking fast and it hurts me that BSD variants or Plan 9 are that slow. Sometimes it doesn't make sense, but for Awk or sed, the GNU ones are blazing and if you want to process few GB file, the speed matters there.