Is this the closest to real UNIX?

Is this the closest to real UNIX?

Attached: 1280px-OpenBSD_Logo_-_Cartoon_Puffy_with_textual_logo_below.svg.png (1280x833, 192K)

Other urls found in this thread:

tribblix.org/
everything2.com/title/BSD is dying
csoonline.com/article/3250653/open-source-tools/is-the-bsd-os-dying-some-security-researchers-think-so.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>to real UNIX
what does that even mean

what do you mean by "real UNIX"?

If you're to dumb to understand the question, then waddle back to where you came from.

OpenBSD is a meme.
>Filesystem
default FS doesn't even support SSD TRIM, and I don't think OpenBSD supports anything modern like ZFS or BTRFS.
>Security
"Only two remote holes in the default install!!!!!!!"
Yay!
I hope you realize that this literally only applies to a base system install with absolutely no packages added. In other words, not exactly representative or meaningful towards... anything really
>Sustainability
A few years ago, OpenBSD was actually in danger of shutting down because they couldn't keep the fucking lights on. How could anyone see this as a system they could rely on, when it could be in danger of ending at any time?
>Standards-compliance
"B-But OpenBSD is written in strictly standards-compliant C! Clearly that's better than muh GNU virus!"
So you're not allowed to create extensions to the standard? You should only implement the standard and nothing more? Keep in mind that this is nothing like EEE, as the GNU extensions are Free Software, with freely available source code, as opposed to proprietary shite. People should be allowed to innovate and improve things.
If you're gonna be anal about standards-compliance, then why let people make their own implementations anyway? Why not have the standards organizations make one C implementation and force everyone to use it?

yes it's 4.4BSD

to go any closer would require a trip to the 1970s

Any BSD is gonna be pretty close, since the original BSD was literally a set of patches on top of att's actual unix. Though if you want a more authentic retro unix these days, check out Tribblix:

tribblix.org/

checked

>FS
it doesn't support fag features but is unbelieveably stable for a non-journaled FS. have never once suffered any kind of data loss

>security
the base system enforces various memory/rw protections that packages can't circumvent. so when firefox crashes, it's the OS telling the application to stop being shitty

>sustain
M$, apple, or any company that uses OBSD would've probs stepped in if popescu didn't

>standards
extensions are fake and gay. look at what happened to xmpp. basically OBSD should be the standard for all computing, if we're going to be real for a minute

>implements a ton of features in make so you HAVE to use gnu make
yeah that's not EEE at all

if you mean technology like from 70s then yes

>fag features
>stop being shitty
>extensions are fake and gay
Current state of zealots.
Then use 4.4BSD.

okay then I hope nobody plugs an unknown USB drive into your computer any time soon

I'll be in comfyland cursing my GNU deps

>Any BSD is gonna be pretty close, since the original BSD was literally a set of patches on top of att's actual unix.
Was. See USL v. BSDi. Only 70 files were UNIX at the time, and that was like 20 years ago. Nothing is left anymore.

The "true" UNIX tree goes through USL and SVR4, so into Solaris, illumos and SCO UnixWare/OpenServer (NOT Xinuos OpenServer 10, which is just basically FreeBSD).

>caring about being close to "real unix"
Forever stuck in the 70s.

>to dumb

Attached: 084.png (600x512, 298K)

the typical "i have no idea about technology"-faggot

kys thanks

>666
>the mark of the devil
nice try trickster, we know you're up to no good here.

Attached: file.jpg (501x461, 29K)

/thread

let me check:
>no OS-level virtualization
>primitive filesystem that doesn't work well on modern hardware
>no per process(-group) namespacing
>minimal use of synthetic files
>Berkeley sockets network API
>follows every single posix iidiocy
>snail-slow IPC
>terribly solved system updates and package management
yep, looks like system from 70s

this

BSD are irrelevant.

this
It is official; Netcraft now confirms: *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 close 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.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

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 cockeyed miracle could save *BSD from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

Why not use Plan9, the spiritual successor to UNIX?

stop samefagging retard. go back to writing on your butthurt blog that nobody cares about.

Attached: file.jpg (296x304, 14K)

Attached: wew.png (583x128, 36K)

Attached: hate symbol.jpg (500x500, 144K)

nope

Attached: Screenshot_20180320_181029.png (578x184, 32K)

>everything2.com/title/BSD is dying
wow, 16 year old pasta, how relevant.

here, have a newer one at least:
csoonline.com/article/3250653/open-source-tools/is-the-bsd-os-dying-some-security-researchers-think-so.html
and oh, what is that?
>OpenBSD the "clear winner"
gee, what a surprise (not)

>Bloated Shit Distro
Even its logo is a bloaty puffyfish hahahaha

notice how ever since the coc shit happened the freebsd guy doesn't come here with muh MAC anymore

Real Unix = certified by the Open Group.

Attached: macOS Sierra UNIX.png (811x1036, 89K)

>anyone disagreeing with me must be samefagging, r-right?

Attached: Screenshot_2018-03-20-18-16-43.png (1080x1920, 357K)

Wouldn't that be Solaris?

Solaris is abandonware.
The most popular real UNIX is macOS by Apple.

You mean on the "things sensible people wouldn't use as a desktop os" list?

>the "clear winner" among the BSDs
The tallest midget

OpenBSD and Solaris, yeah.

>GNU is not EEE
Uhhh. When you need to install GCC and glibc and the entire GNU userland to install a single GNU program, something is wrong.

Who knows.

But you did realize that the thing that is useful today is to be close to real Linux, right? Linux is more widespread and popular than Unix ever was.

Sorta, but not really. It has matured into a unique platform. It's good and you should try it out sometime.

But for the most part, UNIX is just a buzz word. Actual System V UNIX was horrible, which is why it died. Not as horrible as Mac OS 9 or DOS based Windows, but still pretty bad. If you want the real proprietary UNIX experience, the newest you can get is SGI IRIX, a finicky bag of dildos that's hard to install and use despite the full GUI, and that has been abandoned since like 2006 when SGI stopped making the custom MIPS hardware it runs on. There's also IBM AIX and various incarnations of Solaris but I don't know much about those or how UNIX-like they still are.

>FagOS is UNIX!
>muh piece of paper says so!
>t. iToddler
It's UNIX-like, but still not UNIX. It's not fully POSIX compliant, which is a requirement for the certs. Applel just throws money at the Open Group for their meaningless papers. Like I said above, UNIX is nothing more than a buzz word. This still applies to your shit OS made from the sloppy seconds of NeXTSTEP, BSD, and Mac OS 9.

But do go ahead and make a program using poll () and run it on your fruity toys. Enjoy your crashes and errors along with those root bugs.

If you mean 90's Unix, then yes OpenBSD still has many traditional tools, but it is significantly different from SVR4. One of the Solaris variants is a more apt example of Unix.

t. worked on more than ten variants of Unix in the 90s.

solaris' killall is werks as the original killall worked?

killall is not a traditional unix tool. In the past one would concoct a pipeline to do such a thing.

KISS my ass

>to dumb
The irony.
But no seriously, what is "real UNIX" brah? Be specific.

Attached: 1520203039498.jpg (500x341, 105K)

pkill -9

>Ph*neposter
even worse

Not trolling, I just installed this in a VM. I've changed the colour in xterm and installed qutebrowser but how do I get rid of the analogue clock in the corner of fvwm?

It looks like shit and putting `x.clock: off` in .Xdefaults didn't work.

Attached: 1507466563121.jpg (4076x1376, 1.32M)

you switch to a decent wm

>tools and fs not case sensitive
>unix

I like the wm, I'm fine with xterm, I've got feh for my wallpaper but I can't find any documentation on this damn clock widget...

Attached: 1279042224710.jpg (576x416, 50K)

I wonder who is behind this post

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 18K)

you create your own .xinitrc and fvwm config

Openbsd sets my soul free!

yes

Attached: screenFetch-2018-03-20_17-41-35.png (1024x768, 119K)

cp /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc .xinitrc
Then find xclock in the last paragraph of that file and delete it. Also, .xinitrc is meant for your home directory.

Apple uses FreeBSD buckaroo

haha

kek

how does drawing images in the terminal work? is that an xterm builtin feature?

CDE? Man I haven't see that for a while. ('._.)

this

Attached: 546648877.png (1121x712, 66K)

Use OpenBSD or GET FUCKED! Your choice.

OpenBSD is really nice, It just doesn't support any of my hardware

You got it wrong bud, your hardware doesn't support OpenBSD.

>only applies to a base system install with absolutely no packages added
like what packages?

>anything modern like ZFS
freebsd doesn't even support zfs dumbfuck. if you weren't shit for brains you'd know freebsd let another company called oracle fuck them in the rear

Pretty much this. You can only blame an OS if the hardware is open-source, and nearly all hardware today is closed-source.

>blaming a bunch of operating system developers for systemic hardware design fallacies and implementations

I was defending OS developers in that post.

Why would that be a problem? In the standard installation users don't have mount permission and there is no auto mounting implemented.
Also
>physical acess is now a remote hole

Like anything not included in the stock install

such as?

why not netbsd?

Literally everything you can install as a package, port, or compile

>i cannot name one package and cve

OpenBSD takes that kind of thing into account which is why they never supported Firewire, which allows physical access to pretty much DMA all of memory and steal whatever secrets like keys in memory.

Although that now seems pretty trivial and futile after learning that Intel products allowed passwordless remote ring-3 access, and processes to freely read any memory. I guess that's why Theo said to avoid Intel products a decade ago.

> real UNIX
what about Solaris?, its based on system V

bump
i like netbsd because it supports more architectures and is more portable

yes, OpenBSD is the closest thing to a shitty 1975 UNIX that you can get without some retro-oriented gimmick OS.

Just checked my OBSD VM, still has some classic Unix stuff in base that I used to use:

>cu
>write
>talk
>finger
>biff
>shar
>rcs
>lpr
>dump
>acct

Looks like it still supports YP/NIS too!

Notice some stuff is gone though like uucp :'(

fuck you nigger

I'm a total noob to this, does OpenBSD come with a GUI or do I have to install one, and what do you guys recommend in the case of the latter?

Attached: 1514078751549.jpg (383x342, 23K)

Thank you!

Yes, it's as feature-rich and useful as the real UNIX from the 70s.

Anyway, what's up with OpenBSD shilling here recenty? Is Teo trying a get new cult members from among IT hipsters on this board?
The OS is practically dead, borderline unusable for anything serious, unsupported by hardware and software, hasn't been used in actual production for decades and its claims of being secure are mostly unverified memes.

isn't linux superior in this regard

Obviously, if you care about actually getting things done IN THE CURRENT YEAR there's no way you would choose OpenBSD over Linux.

You mean Solus

Did you get the CDE screen locker working?

>t. worked on more than ten variants of Unix in the 90s.
psst
talk to neozeed from virtuallyfun.com, I'm sure he'd love to hear your stories

impressive

I like how OpenBSD still uses xdm and it is custom.

obsd comes with a few wms pre installed most notably are fvwm and the incredible cwm.
I recommend cwm, you will have to learn it tho but it's really great.

Attached: Untitled.jpg (960x960, 84K)

Has anyone of you Sup Forumseniuses had luck controlling screen brightness using the fn keys on a laptop? Dell Inspiron in particular?

w3m-img
there's a bunch of terminals that support it

No, macos is

nice vm

>the closest to real UNIX?
"Real UNIX" has shifted from what it was. Linux is now the most used unix-like OS, so it is currently the closest to real UNIX.