/BSD/ take the wheel

>thought

>TrueOS (ex PCBSD)

You mean Project Trident (ex TrueOS) (ex PCBSD)

TrueOS is no longer BSD with a desktop out of the box, it has changed objectives.

though, autocorrect.

linux is from finland, that's even more cucked

I live through capitalism and I hate it because it costs too fucking much to treat cancer in capitalism.

Attached: 1491603959189.jpg (800x820, 257K)

>linux is from finland, that's even more cucked
That simply defies the laws of physics.

Perhaps a name change to OpenCSD is in order, then?

Attached: 1263872894823.jpg (500x500, 48K)

it's time

plan 9's day has finally come

at least they can treat it properly. if that happens in a commie shithole consider yourself dead.

Because BSD was a smaller more niche project it was totally subverted long before Linux. Read the fucking BSD CoC. I dare you.

BSD is a dead end joke and contributions are lower and lower quality every couple months. Linux maybe has a year or two left before the progressive politics start poisoning things and reducing feature functionality or compromising fundamental policy.

nice fud, kike

Plan9 is ded. I think you mean its successor - Inferno.

OpenBSD has no code of conduct.

FreeBSD != BSD.

I want to try out openbsd

How do I install grub or manage EFI stuff?
Is there btrfs?
What abot zram?
What about luks encryption?
AMDGPU?

Attached: 14924569367110.jpg (1280x960, 133K)

>I want to try out openbsd
Then say good bye to any and all features. Their mantra that they rely on to produce a secure OS is you don't get any bugs if you don't write any code at all.

See: osv.io/

Sounds like the GNOME developer would love it.

Read the FAQ, it answers all your questions.
openbsd.org/faq/

Muh cloud

>How do I install grub or manage EFI stuff?
OpenBSD supports supports both UEFI/GPT booting

>Is there btrfs?
>What abot zram?
>What about luks encryption?
No, OpenBSD is not Linux

>AMDGPU?
Not yet

Also read the FAQ

Fuck off with your FUD. OpenBSD motto is ""Free, Functional, and Secure"

It's not FUD if it's true you deluded faggot.
>No, OpenBSD is not Linux
Fuck features am I right? You don't want any bugs after all.
>Not yet
As I said, delusional.

>muh storage filesystem
OS should not be responsible for issues with the hardware's bits being flipped. The storage medium is the one responsible. The fact that some os's choose to doesn't mean openbsd should pick up bloat by doing so.

>2 holes is nothing to brag about
There is a lot of shit in the default install. As an example, how many systems include a capable web server out of the box? There is a lot of surface area actually. Don't pretend otherwise.
>Openbsd doesn't have NFSv4
There may be very good reasons they won't even consider support. Also, a lack of a security protocol is not inherently a security issue. You look at the system as it is without the protocol as if the protocol doesn't exist and ask if the system is secure to assess that question without bias. Encryption is not some magic fairy dust that just makes things secure. Sometimes adding a new protocol that sounds to secure creates more security problems than it solves due to increased attack vectors and surface area.
This is directly from Theo
>NFSv4 is not on our roadmap. It is a ridiculous bloated protocolwhich they keep adding crap to. In about a decade the people whoactually start auditing it are going to see all the mistakes that it
hides.
>SELinux, AppArmor
Look at jails, pledge, unveil, and priv sep
OpenSSH is very secure but doesn't use those bloated methods.

>A few years ago, OpenBSD was actually in danger of shutting down
Far from true now. Donations are on the rise. Corporate sponsorships as well. Don't take my word for it. Look yourself:
openbsdfoundation.org/activities.html
>Rant about c standards compliance being bad
That's just personal taste. What actually matters is how high quality the openbsd codebase is and that they continually audit every piece of their source tree (everything in default install).

>openbsd innovations openbsd.org/innovations.html

BTW I have you to thank why I use openbsd now. Thanks.

Attached: theo.jpg (900x1200, 228K)

>Fuck features am I right?
You asked for Linux-specific features, faggot. Of course OpenBSD has full-disk encryption, but it's not LUKS (LINUX Unified Key Setup), you massive moron.

>The fact that some os's choose to doesn't mean openbsd should pick up bloat by doing so.
>wanting to preserve your hardware counts as "bloat" now

Attached: 1513185630970.png (499x338, 38K)

>buy shit buggy hardware that unironically relies on OS workarounds to work properly
>blame the OS for it

Attached: wtf.jpg (738x550, 142K)

Please, I'm not the retard who'd consider switching OS because of one Jow Forums raid, have fun dealing with these losers though.

Sigh, I knew I was replying to a Troll.

Yes, I sure love watching my hardware go to shit in the name of minimalism.

>"I know this one!"
>"Umm umm what is raid 2?"

Attached: j.jpg (300x168, 13K)

Do you actually use SSD with OpenBSD? Serious question here.

Yes, they might die sooner but SSDs are cheap and have more writes than they used to.

Yeah. Why? If you get a good quality SSD, TRIM doesn't make a difference. I have been using the same one for over 8 years and no problems so far.

Yeah well that's just not acceptable for me, to each their own.

Attached: 1505795075345.jpg (562x530, 69K)

>8 years
>Same SSD
>Not good enough

Your anecdotes mean very little here.

Note that I already know that there are better raid levels.

I've had hdds that die in much less than 8 years.

Wouldn't an SSD be fine, unless you're running a highly used server. www compuram de/blog/en/the-life-span-of-a-ssd-how-long-does-it-last-and-what-can-be-done-to-take-care/ claims that modern drives under reasonable assumptions shouldn't have any issues.

So?

That and most modern SSDs have internal wear leveling so it is even less of an issue.

Like I said before, this objectively doesn't make a difference if you don't buy shitty hardware. This isn't anecdotal, and if you care so much about reliability, then the first thing you should do is stop buying low quality disks.

But, let's be honest, you don't REALLY care about reliability. You're just a troll looking for reasons to complain about a piece of software you're not familiar with. So fuck off, willya.

Just install Windows

>this objectively doesn't make a difference if you don't buy shitty hardware
But I already bought my hardware, I'm not gonna buy a new one just to work around my OS's deficiencies, that is probably the most ass-backwards thing to do.
>you don't REALLY care about reliability
I value my hard earned paycheck, is this somehow a bad thing now? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Did you have to get this offended? Aren't you adult enough to simply admit that your favorite OS isn't perfect?

>OS should not be responsible for issues with the hardware's bits being flipped. The storage medium is the one responsible.
What an absurd point to make. Bit flips are a real problem that can happen to otherwise working hardware, of course the filesystem, that is the OS, needs to protect the user from it. The fact that many file systems do not is a problem.

I mean are you going to argue that the network stack shouldn't calculate checksums because the hardware is to blame for faults?

See That is, unless your going to make the case that the os should do all memory error correction. In which, say goodbye to ecc ram for servers.

>network stack shouldn't calculate checksums
You know a lot of that is done in hardware now right? It depends but it often is. Or is that just an inconvenient truth?

>"I value my hard earned paycheck"
>wastes paycheck on crappy hardware
?????
See

>OS should not be responsible for issues with the hardware's bits being flipped. The storage medium is the one responsible.
The dumbest shit I've read all day.

Attached: u wot m80.jpg (638x638, 28K)

Should the OS also handle bad sectors and move onto reserved good sectors? Much easier than error correction to implement. Perhaps it should move the needle of the disk as well? I suppose we don't need error correcting ram either. Glad you came around and enlightened everyone how much you know about hardware. Do you have any idea what raid is? This technology has existed for a long time now before you zoomers came along.

Attached: kingterry.jpg (1933x1795, 1.92M)

pastafag here
>OS should not be responsible for issues with the hardware's bits being flipped.
It doesn't matter who's fault it is. Issues with storage mediums is a fact of life, on the same level as water being wet and fire being hot. Let's break this down:
OS doesn't offer protections + drive is flawless = physically impossible at this point
OS doesn't offer protections + drive could malfunction = corrupted data
OS does offer protections + drive could malfunction = data saved.
There is really only one good option here.
>Also, a lack of a security protocol is not inherently a security issue.
Let's apply that to other things, shall we?
"A lack of https (only using http) is not inherently a security issue"
"A lack of sftp (only using ftp) is not inherently a security issue"
"A lack of GPG (only sending emails in the clear) is not inherently a security issue"
See how retarded you sound?

>>muh OS most do checking
>Classic example of Black and White thinking
Or a third option use tech that has existed for many years now. I am talking about raid, zoomer. It has error correction. Bonus points, it protects you if an entire disk dies.
>>Also, a lack of a security protocol is not inherently a security issue.
Nice quote-mining. The protocol is insecure, messy, and hasn't been properly audited. Hence, it the opposite of secure since the user thinks that they are secure but they're not.

>"A lack of https (only using http) is not inherently a security issue"
>"A lack of sftp (only using ftp) is not inherently a security issue"
>"A lack of GPG (only sending emails in the clear) is not inherently a security issue"
You don't know how logic works you do?
Let me teach you
>A rectangle is not inherently a square
Disprove this statement. It doesn't say that a rectangle cannot be a square only that a rectangle isn't by definition a square. This same logic flows for the statement
>a lack of a security protocol is not inherently a security issue
Learn to not think like a monkey

Attached: 16e.jpg (903x960, 52K)

I am talking about robust filesystems, boomer. they have error correction, and RAID, and volume management, AND snapshotting
It's not even that new of a concept. Sun/Oracle introduced this kinda stuff around 2005
>The protocol is insecure
if you're talking about NFSv3, you'd be right!

Rectangles actually can't be squares. Squares have even-length sides.
Learn to think at an above-kindergarten level, brainlet.

>>The protocol is insecure
>if you're talking about NFSv3, you'd be right!
Make the case to Theo then. He WILL add NFSv4 if it is shown in an audit to be secure. He said he looked at it and it wasn't so it will be hard to sell.
All square are rectangles. Not all rectangles are squares.
>a plane figure with four straight sides and four right angles, especially one with unequal adjacent sides, in contrast to a square.
Note that especially does not equal always.

>All square are rectangles
wrong again. rectangles have two sides longer than the others.

>Being this much of a brainlet
>Universities that disagree
mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.09.07/h/odette1.html
math.okstate.edu/geoset/Projects/Ideas/SquareRect.htm

And another one
math.stackexchange.com/questions/2070677/are-squares-really-rectangles

Unironically, go back to elementary school.

Source required
Also see:

Source = Look at the fucking shape

>Also, a lack of a security protocol is not inherently a security issue

what did he mean by this

Attached: 1526257172777.jpg (1080x793, 119K)

kek

How about Linux-libre? Torvals had no problems with proprietary blobs in kernel.

That's cucking it even more