ITT: contrarianware
ITT: contrarianware
Justin Fisher
Other urls found in this thread:
twitter.com
tribblix.org
petertribble.co.uk
arcanoae.com
arcanoae.com
sortix.org
blackberry.qnx.com
membarrier.wordpress.com
debu.gs
mail-index.netbsd.org
twitter.com
Christian Moore
show me where puffy hurt you
Parker Howard
by contrarians or for contrarians?
Acme.
Connor Phillips
windows 10 ltsb.
literally windows 10 spyware with muh privacy placebo.
Ethan Butler
NetBSD would've been a better pick
Parker Nelson
OpenBSD is a meme
>Filesystem
default FS doesn't even support SSD TRIM, and OpenBSD doesn't support anything modern like ZFS or BTRFS.
In the CIA triad of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability, availability seems to be the one that's lacking. Who cares how hack-resistant your system is if the data you're protecting is corrupted?
That's not even getting into the volume management stuff that's missing, and the snapshots, and the everything.
"b-b-but MUH BACKUPS!!"
You do realize that if the filesystem is not secure and does not protect against bitrot and corruption, your precious backups are going to be fucked, because you'll be backing up corrupted data. Who even knows how far you'll have to roll back in order to get to a clean state?
>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?
Hunter Turner
TRIM when?
ZFS when?
Multicore firewall when?
NFSv4 when?
Let's go into those:
TRIM is vital to properly supporting SSDs. Without it, deleting a few pages from the storage would require the deletion of the entire block before putting it all back, creating unnecessary reads and writes and ultimately causing a faster degradation of the SSD.
ZFS, and other filesystems like it, provide numerous features both for better management of your data with subvolumes, as well as better security. The security features include snapshotting, checksumming of all data and metadata, bitrot protection, excellent implementation of software RAID, and so on. Backups should of course always be made, but they can be complimented with a better FS. I can just imagine it now: An OpenBSD admin routinely backing up his system, unaware that data is being silently corrupted. By the time it's a problem, it's too late. Imagine how far back he'd have to roll back to get to a stable state? If only he had a filesystem that wasn't written in the 80s, and actually did something to protect his data. OpenBSD has best security? I think not.
PF, at least on OpenBSD, does not support more than one core of one processor. Linux's netfilter on the other hand, does. Not much else to say.
It's been 18 years since NFSv4 was originally standardized, and OpenBSD has still not gotten around to implementing it. This is quite a deficiency, as NFSv4 now allows you to authenticate connections with Kerberos, and even encrypt the data transfers. Once again, you would think such a security-focused OS would care about such benefits, but alas, no.
Michael Campbell
baste
Grayson Rivera
Ayden Hernandez
Cameron Walker
Jesus.
OpenIndiana is obscure enough.
Jace Powell
Sortix
sortix.org
No desktop environment with a graphical user interface.
The system is not to be considered secure in a multi-user configuration.
No support for networking (except Unix sockets).
No support for USB or CDROMs.
No support for symmetric multiprocessing.
No support for power saving on idle.
The system has a single console.
The manual pages only partially document Sortix specifics.
No third party text editors.
No dynamic linking.
No graphics drivers (graphics only if bootloader support).
No sound drivers.
Samuel Edwards
That ought to be Jow Forums's operating system.
Jordan Martinez
hey a unix made from scratch is pretty cool. c++ in the kernel is kinda lame though.
Adrian Kelly
Aiden Roberts
It is an operating system (not just kernel but userland as well) developed by a single dude. It's damn remarkable they succeeded in having it self-hosted.
Matthew Clark
FreeDOS, the based version of DOS.
Wyatt Smith
Does the single console have scrollback?
Jack Cooper
inferno is pretty contrarian even by 9fans standards. could never figure out a native build from windows either.
that one always felt off and and buggy
Jaxon Lee
whoever posts this exact same copypasta in every BSD thread needs to commit harakiri
THE SAME FUCKING COPYPASTA EVERY TIME
Chase Morgan
Provide a rebuttal to auto-answer this post then.
Henry Anderson
the rebuttal is that OpenBSD is for security freaks or servers that host confidential data. not for normal users. FreeBSD, Dragonfly BSD, and TrueOS all provide a much nicer experience for average users, and don't come with any of the drawbacks listed in the copypasta post.
Jack Smith
>OpenBSD is for security freaks
Which explains why it lacks certain security features?
>or servers that host confidential data
Which explains why it lacks a modern filesystem?
>FreeBSD, Dragonfly BSD, and TrueOS all provide a much nicer experience
I would also possibly add NetBSD (I think it now has ZFS and some of the other missing shit), and GNU/Linux
Camden Thompson
>>THE SAME FUCKING COPYPASTA EVERY TIME
yes, that's usually how that goes
Zachary Smith
why do all these freebsd fags on here act like zfs is so fucking important for anything but data centers
enjoy your corruption because you don't have ecc ram i guess
Julian Allen
>He thinks ZFS is FreeBSD-specific
Jack Davis
this site
Adrian Morris
I should be amazed then. I mean, it is just him working on something complex like that from scratch
Easton Clark
Terry made a compiler
Aiden Hernandez
>How could anyone see this as a system they could rely on, when it could be in danger of ending at any time?
OpenBSD is a research and development OS which is maintained by code contributors. It is not intended or marketed to "be relied on" as a commercial distribution.
>People should be allowed to innovate and improve things.
That's exactly what OpenBSD is, a bunch of hackers developing OpenBSD. OpenBSD pushes major security improvements into the commercial market.
Jose Rogers
no but all its fanatics seem to use it
Evan Miller
>It is not intended or marketed to "be relied on"
Which is why everyone hypes it up for being so "reliable" and "secure"?
John Green
You're just shitposting now, user.
Thomas Cox
Also remarkable. Is he still alive?
Owen Jenkins
Inferno is pretty cool - at least less contrarian than some other stuff in the thread. Check out debu.gs
Parker Martin
i finally understand the appeal of contrarianware. that looks amazing
Luis Butler
When wasn't I?
Julian Moore
oh it's cool, sure but i find it worse than plan 9 in a lot of ways. there's a reason 9front exists while there's no infernofront
Owen Jackson
Memes aside, OpenBSD is still the best overall non-GNU freelibreeeee-attempting OS, right?
Should I try to write drivers for it or will the big cheeses get mad about it for autistic reasons like GNUs do whenever you do literally anything?
Dominic Taylor
what about harvey OS?
is any plan9 derived OS actually usable? like can i install something that can drive a laptop's wireless NIC?
Landon Martinez
Grayson Campbell
This really is the ultimate test, though GNUtists, BSDtists, and various other tists constantly bitch about "how can we have a libre driver for every shitware piece of fucking wifi adapter write it yourself or use real hardware", no OS that can't at least provide some low level of generic support for common wifi devices has any future.
Hunter Torres
LINUX BTFO
Chase Collins
>enjoy your corruption because you don't have ecc ram i guess
Are you retarded? ZFS, despite all the stuff it does for data integrity (checksums, etc.), cannot guarantee it if you don't have ECC RAM.
But that doesn't mean that other file systems are better. Quite the opposite.
Thomas Lewis
That is exactly what he said.
I'm sorry about your retardation, user.
Benjamin Miller
No. He said "enjoy your corruption because you dont have ecc". That is true for literally any file system, so the point is completely irrelevant to ZFS.
Jeremiah Gomez
Netbsd is at least useful in a few edge cases
Jayden Hughes
SMP is now working in the aarch64 kernel
mail-index.netbsd.org
Owen Long
Sure now that you've completely changed what you're saying compared to your last post, now you're right.