Is OpenBSD worth using?

Is OpenBSD worth using?

Attached: openbsd_logo.jpg (442x293, 41K)

Other urls found in this thread:

gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.en.html
mega.nz/#!xBpHBSAb!ENyoYPopqGVlx320X-a4ecpRjJBtPvd9jmRT9h57eao
twitter.com/AnonBabble

it's worth porting to normal system

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?

>I hope you realize that this literally only applies to a base system install with absolutely no packages added
They are not retarded, the ports tree programs are tested as well.
>A few years ago, OpenBSD was actually in danger of shutting down because they couldn't keep the fucking lights on
Those were development costs, not regarded to the OS's general sustainability.

>They are not retarded
(You)

Install GNU.

>OpenBSD is a meme

Attached: e09.png (645x729, 69K)

It was I while ago that I tried it, but it was so useless as a desktop OS that I won't be trying it again in this lifetime.

>ZFS
>modern

Attached: 1517159889020.gif (377x372, 3.46M)

I used it as desktop OS for a while. I went through the hassle of installing Plasma 5 on there and everything, but in the end it just didn't feel worth it. I went back to Debian where everything just werks out of the box.

This is obvious bait but I'll bite anyway.
OpenBSD is worth using as long as your hardware is supported and you use -current in order to have up to date binaries or if you plan on using -stable you gotta use H:M binary repo to have up to date packages without building from ports.Also if you rely on bluetooth there is no bluetooth stack.

nice pasta

zfs and btrfs are literal memes

I was gonna try my hand at building a hardware firewall for my home lab, and was told BSD had the best networking stack. Is this a meme?

No, freeBSD is great

Attached: 1520018283288.png (533x719, 310K)

if you need to ask, it's not.

OSX is based on FreeBSD. At least in userland.
If you're going to use FreeBSD why not use the best implementation available?

Not while Gentoo/OpenBSD exists.

Attached: Gentoo_OpenBSD_logo.png (1280x1024, 816K)

The only real non-meme criticisms I've heard are:

1. Bad filesystem
2. Lack of hardware support (not a problem on thinkpads etc)

Is there a push to replace or update the filesystem with TRIM support + data safety (eg hashing etc)? The hardware support doesn't really matter, but file safety definitely does for my use case (desktop + fileserver).

Yes. You'll actually learn how to use Unix, which will help you out no matter what OS you end up using. It's a system that's very easy to use out of the box, from the default install. Good documentation too, though FreeBSD's handbook is better.

You can do this using a normal person's Linux like Ubuntu or Fedora. If you want to amp up your "learning" you could step it up and use Arch or even better Gentoo.

Not at all. PfSense is built off of BSD because it's just that good with networking.

Yes

>Only two remote holes in the default install!
>hurr this only applies to the base system
Well no fucking shit, that's why they said "in the default install"
>How could anyone see this as a system they could rely on, when it could be in danger of ending at any time?
So I should deny myself from the best because it may cease to exist at some point in the future? Fuck that, I'll continue using the best and if it does end, I'll just switch to NetBSD or FreeBSD.

None of those are even remotely sane Unix systems. Not only is the GNU userland itself disgusting, but the distro decisions behind Debian, Ubuntu, and Fedora are a catastrophe.
If you need proprietary software for GNU/Linux, sure, use GNU/Linux, but while you're learning, you may as well use a good operating system like a BSD.
GNU/Linux is only used because it has proprietary software made for it.

>at least in userland
OS X uses bash by default and mostly GNU userland tools. XNU takes a lot from the FreeBSD kernel

gno

>OS X uses bash by default and mostly GNU userland tools.
And applel is trying to cut those down as much as they can. One GPLv3 software a day keeps the megacorps in fear.

>One GPLv3 a day keeps the software worthless
FTFY

10 rupees have been deposited to your sucksmore.org account

Attached: 1512190043014.png (1069x1081, 812K)

>zfs and btrfs are literal memes
this, but 1000x so for btrfs.

>he likes I license I don't so he's a shill
ebin

I like how this meme has Microjew holding the puppet strings of a single BSD user when in reality they're doing it with GNU/Linux itself

Attached: linux-on-windows-10.jpg (900x506, 81K)

So I want to learn OpenBSD, would you guys recommend that I first make a home router with it? or is it better to install it on one of my laptops and use it a desktop first?

Attached: 1512215072681.jpg (1024x768, 214K)

Jesus

if you have like an old pentium 4 and you want to turn it into a basic file server it's pretty cool
otherwise it's worse than linux in basically every way.

kek, no

I think it's a cool project but OpenBSD is kinda a meme OS. I get that it has a unified vision but the package is just too spartan.
It's distinctly user-unfriendly. I get that I need to RTFM but does it need to mock me when I mistype my paasword? There is only one correct way to use the OS.
I like that this kind of hardcore OS exists but I wouldn't use it as my main, or even install it outside a VM desu.

Attached: death.jpg (1772x1508, 400K)

This
BSD is superb when it comes to server work

XNU is more Mach than BSD. Mac OS X is in no way a BSD, even if it uses some BSD code.

It's best to use it as a desktop first. That way you'll actually be using your computer instead of setting it up once and not touching it again because it just works.
>user-unfriendly
Have you tried using a modern GNU/systemd system?

>base system install with absolutely no packages added
except for Xenocara (their X server fork), a bunch of gui programs, httpd, smtpd and a host of other networking servers, and a bunch of other tools

>except for Xenocara (their X server fork), a bunch of gui programs, httpd, smtpd and a host of other networking servers, and a bunch of other tools
Those are all included in the base system. He's talking about anything you need to install after installing the OS.

>Is OpenBSD worth using?
Look at the chart nig

Attached: 1521952783010.png (500x2000, 352K)

>woosh
no shit sherlock, the point is that the argument is retarded because OpenBSD includes a lot more in its base system than most other OSes.

>>woosh
No, I got your point. It was just dumb.

don't force yourself. but if you like unix then yeah openbsd is great.

I believe that technically speaking it's pretty darn good, but for the average user it feels difficult and annoying to use. For some intermediate users it may be missing software you're used to, and you'll either have to find alternatives or in some cases just be worse off. I do hope it gets more talented developers so it can continue to improve. It will probably play an important role in the future.

are you serious? how have I never heard of this?

>He's talking about anything you need to install after installing the OS.

it's not play store. ports are there because they are used. there are very few redundant services. and all these phantom vulnerable don't exist. you do not understand security if you think people are spending time on some random port that isn't even network connected. your simplistic analysis is false and doesn't represent the real security economy.

What the fuck are you on about? All I'm saying is that anything outside of the base system isn't included in the only two remote holes slogan

>>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?

how many companies, technologies, projects risen and fell since 1996? i a fuck lot. they've done a great job.

more a general reponse. my apologies.

>i a fuck lot

>Why not have the standards organizations make one C implementation and force everyone to use it?
don't know if you know this (doesn't make you a fag) but OpenBSD has their own libc

Because it's deprecated and only lasted a few months.

>no u
it's relevant because you can literally run a full server on the base system without installing anything else, despite what the original pasta was retardedly trying to imply. The dumbasses here are the ones desperately trying to make it sound like this somehow makes the system just as vulnerable/insecure as any other OS. Nevermind the fact that the ports are also pretty rigorously vetted, complied with hardening features, and patched to be pledge'd and w^x compliant, even if the external code itself isn't audited.

Attached: file.jpg (221x250, 5K)

>All I'm saying is that I'm severely autistic about a meaningless marketing tagline

Attached: file.png (485x443, 32K)

>I have no argument, I'd better call him an autist

No, as a avid hater of GPL software license and huge fan of BSD software license, who would love a true BSD licensed OS to work with, take it from me, and just fucking run and don’t look back. BSD is good for hardened servers that need lots of uptime and need to work super fucking stable and aren’t there for end users to fuck with or for you to even try enjoying a nice GUI. You cannot make a comparable desktop experience in BSD that rivals Linux. OpenBSD and FreeBSD are basically Gentoo tier but less supported. And TrueOS is the major attempt at making FreeBSD not suck and it still sucks.

The antiBSD trolls come to every thread about BSD trying to convince people that BSD isn’t actually better than Linux in the hardened server niche. Ignore them. Only communists like the GPL, and communists aren’t even humanx

>aren’t there for end users to fuck with or for you to even try enjoying a nice GUI
You can install really bad stuff like KDE and GNOME, or better stuff like cwm and lumina. I don't know what you mean. Maybe for FreeBSD, yeah, it sucks as a desktop, but OpenBSD is a usable desktop.
Actually, the GPL is more socialist or fascist than communist. As public domain is communist, BSD is a license very close to communism by being so close to public domain.

>BSD and public domain let you do whatever the fuck you want, including close source your code
>hurr BSD/public domain is communism
I think you need a refresher on economics and how _free market_ capitalism works.

>free market
>Stallman and friends philosophy is a world where all software is “free” and no one is allowed to close their source and there is a socialist monopoly where no software can be packaged with or distributed on the dominant platform without being open source and free and all programmers are expected to contribute without compensation
>free market
Ok

No one is expected to work without compensation on GPL software, the compensation is the base and the additions that the community do to your code, and even then you can get paid for your work
The GPL doesn't actually work like that in reality, the vast majority of lines in most FOSS projects are written by paid programmers who aren't interested in the project outside their job

Putting btrfs as my root and home partition was the biggest mistake I ever made. Never again

what happen?

Attached: akarinpepe.png (657x589, 35K)

Do both.

t. someone who has never read a book

no u

Attached: 41MDRqLIVoL._SX328_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (330x499, 21K)

this. if a license forces you to do something (eq open sourcing your own software) then it's not free and by definition totalitarian communistic.
MIT/BSD are the only licenses that can be regarded free. and public domain is total freedom.

Attached: consent.png (500x500, 297K)

>the compensation is the base and the additions that the community do to your code
only an unwashed nerd living off welfare would call this "compensation"

>oh noes, people won't use a server OS on their desktop machines
the state of brainwashed gnutards

What's his problem Sup Forums? I think OpenBSD would really benefit from a code of conduct.

Attached: theo.png (1798x730, 150K)

gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.en.html

>"""freedom"""
and that's just as ridiculous as feminists who try to redefine what "equality" means in order to suit their warped worldview. It's literally talking about "systemic oppression" via proprietary software.

Attached: file.jpg (1024x384, 399K)

>analogies
>avoidance

yeah, the state of BSD/MIT licenses - total neo-communism

>freedom |ˈfrēdəm|
>noun
>the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint
"Power" is literally in the definition of "freedom;" if the GPL was a truly free license I'd have the power to not release the source.

>This oft overlooked distinction is crucial. Freedom is being able to make decisions that affect mainly you; power is being able to make decisions that affect others more than you. If we confuse power with freedom, we will fail to uphold real freedom
did you even read the article ?

>"Power" is literally in the definition of "freedom;" if the GPL was a truly free license I'd have the power to not release the source.
As an author it is your freedom to release or not to release the source code or even choose dual-licensing at your own will.
You are confusing what GPL protects - the users (including the other developers that might use your source code in their software).

Try it and see if you like it. We don't give a shit about GNU drones.
Post if you need help or have questions.

>this is freedom, not power

Attached: 1522081693916.jpg (766x905, 95K)

Free projects can EEE other free projects.

It's free work done upon your work that makes it more useful, thus you get directly benefited unless you don't use your work for anything at all

I did, with true freedom I'm able to have power over others.

I can't modify others' GPL software, distribute binaries, and refuse to release the source, can I?

I'm not saying saying they should do it or that I agree with them doing it, but with true freedom Microsoft is able to do this.

Where's that mbox? I want to read it.

>true freedom
that is a borderline sociopathic definition of the term. i'm personally glad i live in a universe of consequence

just look at them quads
archive mega.nz/#!xBpHBSAb!ENyoYPopqGVlx320X-a4ecpRjJBtPvd9jmRT9h57eao