OpenBSD

Pasta or not everything in there is right.

OpenBSD is a meme OS with a meme community.

Attached: 1474861885831.png (420x420, 12K)

and what would you prefer, autist, NetBSD?

>> 67787453
>> 67787466
>> 67787473
Meme as dumb as ever.

- SSDs handle wear leveling in firmware now.
- OpenBSD's base system is nicely full featured. You can do a lot without installing anything external. The only package on my router is Tor and the only one on my webserver is CGit.
- Along with the base system OpenBSD has security features like ASLR, strict malloc, retguard, stack canaries, and more, that benefit ALL packages. I'd rather run packaged software on OpenBSD than Linux.
- You make a big deal about NFSv4 but you don't actually use it, because it sucks.
- Every RHEL machine I've ever seen in industry has SELinux turned off. Your fancy MAC won't do you any good if it's too complicated for even sysadmins to use.
- The call for donations worked. These days OpenBSD has no trouble keeping the lights on:
openbsdfoundation.org/campaign2014.html
openbsdfoundation.org/campaign2015.html
openbsdfoundation.org/campaign2016.html
openbsdfoundation.org/campaign2017.html
openbsdfoundation.org/campaign2018.html
- OpenBSD isn't strict ISO C, they happily extend the standard where it makes sense. Meanwhile in GNU land gives you shit like strfry() and not anything useful like arc4random(). 2018, and you still can't generate actual random numbers with glibc! What a fucking joke.

Only decent point is lack of a good filesystem, but FFS with software RAID will be enough to prevent bitrot. Nothing wrong with running DragonFly/HAMMER2 on your backup server if you feel that way.

>OS should not be responsible for issues with the hardware's bits being flipped.
I've already broken this down, but here we go:

Since the apparent takeover of the Linux project by trannies, there has been a lot of talk about moving to other operating systems, with one of the main choices being OpenBSD. One of the criticisms of this OS is that its filesystem does nothing to protect against bitrot and data corruption in general. OpenBSD fans have responded to this by claiming that storage device makers are to be blamed for failures. Others have suggested that it is a result of 'bullshit writes' from large and bloated programs such as browsers.
To be fair, I agree that modern browsers are shit, but I've been noticing this as a trend from OpenBSDfags on here. Shifting the blame from the OS to someone else. It's hard drive manufacturers, and if it's not them, it's browser devs.
Pointing fingers doesn't solve problems. Actions do.
What can hard drive manufacturers do to make their hardware failure-proof? Is that even possible with today's technology? No manufacturer has done it in the history of these computer components. What evidence makes you think they can do it now?
What can browser developers do to fix their software? If they do not make their browsers as bloated as they are, 90% of the web will stop working, and that would prevent many people from doing what they want/need to do, since everything is done on the web. Perhaps there is room for a discussion on how the bloat got this bad and how to reverse it, but as it stands, the WWW won't be changing any time soon, and because of that, browsers can't change any time soon.
So it is clear that regardless of who should be 'rightfully' responsible for the issue of bits being flipped, there is only one party that can do anything about it, and that is the OS developers.

Linux of course, preferably Arch or Fedora, any of them goes.

Attached: 1491454907436.jpg (514x432, 56K)

>Perhaps there is room for a discussion on how the bloat got this bad and how to reverse it, but as it stands, the WWW won't be changing any time soon, and because of that, browsers can't change any time soon.

Attached: wojik.jpg (1435x1404, 215K)

>when you're such a dumb shitposter you have to delete your shitpost to add a meme arrow

Cannot consider this due to fish lips

Attached: 1508714389514.png (2481x2139, 378K)

Unusable as a general use OS due to terribly old packages.
Even DragonFLY is bad for that, since it uses FreeBSD's packages, which are also terribly old.

May be good for servers/routers but that's pretty much it

Hey man I just installed openBSD 6.3 this morning, installation was comfy.
Fvwm is looks comfy too. Don't know how to configure that shit yet.
Firefox binary package is old as fuck. (((52.7.3)))
Every package in the ports is old and dated back to march for 6.3 release, so much for muh security I believe.
Hey Jow Forums what's the reason for this? Why would I want to run -current to get the latest fuckin browser and some utilities.
Hell Debian does better than that

if you find outdated software, autism, pain to configure and lousy hw support as an advantage, bsd is your choice :)

use openindiana

who would win
>openbsd
>a cpu with two cores

If you're using lots of packages, just use -current. You can always get the latest Firefox and Chrome on -current, but browsers always wind up being a few months out of date on -stable.

It's a manpower thing: all the devs eat their own dogfood and run -current, none of them want to bother with -stable except the ones who work for enterprises and thus have workloads that can be satisfied by the base system.

OpenBSD supports multiple cores, it's just the networking stack has a lock in it. Nothing stopping you from watching movies on one core and compiling or routing packets with the others.

Why aren't you using 9front user? It's the most redpilled OS there is. Not even TempleOS can match it.

>it's just the networking stack has a lock in it
No. There is a global kernel lock and only a handful of system calls are lock free (see: github.com/openbsd/src/blob/master/sys/kern/syscalls.master for the "NOLOCK" syscalls).

I like OpenBSD and its logo but why a pufferfish tho

Seems like you do a bit about BSD.
Let me ask,
Why's update method of -current kinda weird. When a new snapshot(what's the frequency of new snapshot tho) is released, why do we need to download and boot to the latest bsd.rd, and upgrade the whole 'sets' like 300-400 MB of updates regularly? It wastes unnecessary bandwidth for a few couple of changes in upstream that could've happened, no?

you do know a bit about openBSD*

>reject software
>GPL is not enough free for htem
they didn't reject anything. copyleft was never a part of any BSD

>they download nonfree firmware on your system
no different than firmware that is their permanently from the manufacturer. it's not code running on your computer. OpenBSD just puts it where it suppose to go.

What if I want the latest TexLive or libre office?

web.archive.org/web/20011205082502/http://www.openbsd.org:80/security.html

/dev/null?

Attached: (PNG Image, 216 × 233 pixels).png (216x233, 7K)

will i be missing software if i switch from my comfy arch on i3 to openbsd? i mostly use my browser and program nodejs in vscode

It triggers brainlets so there is that.

>use my browser
Those should work just fine
>vscode
that probably won't work out. get used to vi/vim or emacs.

Up until a few versions ago you had to manually run fw_update to get the firmware. Thing is, if you've got it connected you most likely want to use it so now it's just assumed you want the firmware. If you don't like it then simply don't use anything that requires nonfree firmware.

Jow Forums is too stupid to install so community does not need CoC to keep it comfy. So yeah comfy as fuck and free from REEEEEEEEEEE

you're still spreading this whiny horseshit pasta? how about you actually bother to go read what the openbsd devs themselves have written about their attempts to deal with that issue, instead of spreading a bunch of speculative nonsense that doesn't even match up with their entire ethos.

Drivers suck.

>MUH JOURNALING
>WHO CARES ABOUT PERFORMANCE, CODE BLOAT, OR SOFT UPDATES BEING SUPERIOR IN LITERALLY EVERY WAY

Attached: OH GOD IM FUCKING RETARDED.png (309x301, 48K)

>how about you actually bother to go read what the openbsd devs themselves have written about their attempts to deal with that issue
translation: daddy theo said a thing so you're wrong

retard
>dev who was planning to implement zfs says its a clusterfuck
tedunangst.com/flak/post/ZFS-on-OpenBSD

checked

checked

soft updates are a meme which is why no other OS uses them

Because brainlets like you don't want to wait for fsck to finish and don't care about performance costs

Why don't they just design their own modern wizbang file system?

what do you think dragonflyBSD is doing? openBSD is planning to adopt its HAMMER fs once it's done.

because it's a lot of work? openbsd is entirely volunteer based without corporate sponsors and creating an entirely new fs format is no small feat. openbsd is built as a research project not for servers or desktops, ufs works fine for this purpose. the devs have stated that if hammer2 ever gets finished they are interested in implementing it.

It'll never happen because openbsd doesn't have devs

How do they audit code?

Unless your running a server or need to have a laptop absolutely locked down there really isnt much advantages over Linux in terms of usability

>absolutely locked down
How is this accomplished?

How can I use a wireless network if my ssid has spaces in between charxters on openbsd.
I try hostname.if configs but it fails for this reason I guess.

Also found wireless application which could bypass this problem but I have to format it with backslashes in regular string qoutings. Ssid "15mb 16$ 03275551 issa net br"

I has devs but they are busy patching Intel fuckery.

it's secure by default

but you'd probably want to install with full disk encryption, takes some text commands

everything just fucking works, and it always does, and the documentation is actually usable

can't you quote the ssid?

god-tier documentation
not having to choose basic software because everything is supplied by the devs of the OS and is of solid quality
security if you do it right

and also everyone who uses it is either a basement dweller, a router, or one of the devs so you know the community is committed.

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

openbsd.org/papers/pruning.html

openbsd.org/security.html

openbsd.org/papers/ru13-deraadt/

Security, documentation, supports free speech and innovative network technology, no binary blobs,

Yeah this. I just made a small donation to Theo today, and I'm studying driver development right now. Comfy in bed with my ereader and my dog.

Theo is so autistic about security, he disabled hyperthreading until they can figure out how to mitigate spectre and meltdown better. Take that as a good or bad, it depends on your priorities.

It's not practical to maintain delta patches when you have new snapshots being built every 2-3 days.

Do you like to suck big tranny cocs?

What if you want to use a password manager like keepass or other programs that require you to use ports? I really don't want to compromise my security. Do I compile from source and port them over myself?

>no binary blobs
It still requires proprietary firmware for certain hardware

>certain hardware
Dumb question, but do you mean hardware as in different CPU architectures?

I mean like ethernet and wifi controllers

Thanks for posting my pasta user. Been busy af all today.

Userspace can be concurrent.
That is _literally_ the point behind the giant lock: to enable SMP in user space.
They are working on fine grained locking. But a giant lock is an innovation towards concurrency, not against it.

Compilation is always an option user.

I tried it didnt work and from search I found ita a common problem.

And if I don't update and stay on LTS for the time being?

>see software
>look at license
>Apache, GPL, BSD, IBM, or any other "free" license
I'm not going to use software that stipulates I stamp a big old "USES THIS LICENSES ANY DERIVATIVE WORK NEEDS TO USE IT TOO" on it, and spread it like it's some fucking STD and my goal in life is to pozz as many people as possible.

This is the most ass-backwards argument I've seen all day. It's like saying I shouldn't build my car with a steering wheel because it's not my fault the engine can't drive itself.

Who's goin' to patch the security holes that may/not be there yet undiscovered for you?

does netbsd do everything right?

>car analogy

Attached: wojak crayons.jpg (750x750, 61K)

do you think openBSD + emacs-only might be a good idea?

>emacs
gross

You mean the new security holes that incompetent tranny developers will inevitably introduce?

soooo, how about netbsd?

gcc is sill used on many platforms for OpenBSD. Still beyond me why the fuck everyone pushes clang and llvm as the compiler and the toolchain isn't that too complex with 2 compiler. It's not VS2016 with 600GiB libraries of .net. Probably big companies just want to decrease the importance of copyleft softwares in general for cheaper and even more shittier support than we have today.

Attached: 1470854769751-1.jpg (1920x1080, 616K)

>trannies
>writing anything in C
Good luck with that. Even then many will land a job with a webdev company before any contribution. Not being developed on github is a huge barrier.

Yeah, everybody runs *nix systems on routers and "servers".
>OpenBSD isn't strict ISO C, they happily extend the standard where it makes sense. Meanwhile in GNU land gives you shit like strfry()
It's ok when OpenBSD fuck up the standard, but fuck FSF for doing the same. What a larper shit.

Because GCC has a resteictive license?

Well it's ok when openBSD do it because for one, they know what they are doing

What is the point? It's a compiler, not the end product or Google released a compiler with the Nexus phones? I doubt that. More likely a witch hunt.

Installing openbsd is literally pushing enter around 10 times

They do nothing, this is why they disabled HT rather releasing a patch for the HW bugs. HW bugs are everywhere so i'm a bit amazed this shit still shilled here as a silverbullet for security.

>what's the point
Because if it's dragged down by the GPL they won't be completely free to do as they want with it, I guess

You must have a nice username and password. Also interesting package repo and architecture as the installer is too retarded to recognize it's own arch.

>Most of the corporations that fixed the HT thing completely have signed NDAs
openBSD doesn't, and thus intel nvidia etc don't give them anything.
If anything, it's a testament to how shitty linux devs are that after signing NDAs and whatnot, HT is still not completely safe there either

Nobody asked them to sign NDAs in the first place as they marked as irrelevant. Hell! Even FreeBSD out of the club despite the financial and HW support. Feel free to blame the linux devs for Intel's own shit.

I don't, but you can't blame openBSD devs for completely disabling HT instead of completely reverse engineering a family of intel CPUs, can you?

Huh? Of course the installer knows what arch it is. It fills in the paths to the sets automatically.