OpenBSD

(2/3)
>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.
OpenBSD also does not have NFSv4 support even 18 years after its standardization. This is an issue security-wise because version 4 is the only one to offer authentication with Kerberos plus encryption with the krb5p option.
A common retort to this argument is that the NFSv4 protocol is "bloated", and that's why OpenBSD doesn't support it. Going off this, the OpenBSD project seems to think that authentication and encryption are bloat. Take a moment to consider that. It's certainly a very strange stance indeed, for such a "security-focused" operating system.
Let's of course not forget that OpenBSD lacks a Mandatory Access Control solution such as SELinux, AppArmor, or TrustedBSD, which provide benefits that are relevant to companies, organizations, and governments looking to better secure their systems and classified data.

Attached: no-sign-hi.png (600x600, 20K)

(3/3)
>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?
"but it's open source! Someone could just fork it"
Oh yeah because surely they'll be able to maintain the entire OS
Actually now that I think about it, that really depends on the person/organization that does it. And they might actually have some sense and be able to fix some of the issues listed here.
It's official. OpenBSD would be better off if it shut down and was restarted.
>C 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 C 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?
>Miscellaneous
OpenBSD's pf has inferior performance, as it only utilizes one core of one processor. GNU/Linux's netfilter firewall does not have this problem. Neither does pfsense.
OpenBSD does not support any 802.11 Wi-Fi standard newer than 'n'. It also lacks Bluetooth.
WINE doesn't exist on OpenBSD.

Attached: NOpenBSD.png (1000x1000, 168K)

>inb4 "OpenBSD is not responsible for hardware bits being flipped."
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.

Wish OpenBSD ran on my machine. It would be so comfy.

why doesn't it run ?

Gives some cryptic error about "bridge mem address conflict" and then stucks there when starting the install. I asked in openbsd IRC but no one was able to help.

not him but my laptop has broadcom wifi which openbsd doesn't support

>> 67833451
>> 67833473
>> 67833507
>> 67833539
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: think strlcpy/strlcat, arc4random/arc4random_buf/arc4random_uniform, srand_deterministic. Meanwhile GNU land gives you shit like strfry() and continues to drag their feet on arc4random (in 2018!). 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.

Tried with man.openbsd.org/bwfm.4?

oh shit, i didn't know about that

>first appeared in OpenBSD 6.3.
nice, i last tried out OpenBSD 6.1. I guess I know what I'm doing over the weekend now

every
single
time

No video drivers.

The dealbreaker is that BSD is garbage as a desktop OS.
Fuck BSD.

When will mods ban this gay ass spam

They won't do anything because i'm right

Using it on an X200 and it's great. What's so bad about it?

nice to see the thinkpad meme is stronk
>nothing is bad about it, every os has its weaknesses and strong points, if it works great for you than other type of os youve tested well you well as just stick to it

>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 ithides.
>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: poster4.jpg (549x808, 409K)

>OpenBSD's base system is nicely full featured
I heard it doesn't even have LAMP preinstalled or I guess you'd call it BAMP

>OS should not be responsible for issues with the hardware's bits being flipped. The storage medium is the one responsible.
see:

So, some shitty piece of JavaScript is gobbling all the RAM in my chromium, and now the the swap. My Ubuntu box is 200% unresponsive While I sit and decide to reboot or wait for the OOM killer to kick in, how would an OpenBSD desktop handle this situation?

it would kill chromium probably

>LAMP

OpenBSD has the powerful BCHS Stack (pronounced beaches. Or just Bee See Aich Ess)

learnbchs.org/

Attached: this_kills_the_hipsters.png (1597x382, 1.12M)

The default login.conf limits individual programs to 1.5G of RAM. Chrome wouldn't be able to allocate more than that unless you allow it to.

>has its own httpd server
>used to have sqlite in base
>comes with perl

A six-month release cycle is just plain too short. Especially because in practice they don't really bother with security support for ports or packages, or for the nominally-supported previous release.

this is the most based thing i have ever seen

It's a brief response not even remotely pointing fingers.

Does OpenBSD support proton? I want to play Battlefield 5.

Also, is there a spin with a GUI installer?

wine doesn't run in openbsd. You're going to need to look at a different BSD

i wish all programming languages had documentation as good and simple as C

perl kinda has similar docs at least

Dual boot
He's right, if you need Windows, use Windows

Oh nice. Ubuntu, like so uncies supports and respects ulimits, but it's so geared towards end user desktops that it defaults to unlimited.

Few other languages are as tight and clear. It was a design choice, and they stuck to it. IIRC they also expected other people to implement their own versions of it based on the docs alone.

That all adds up to good tight docs. I sometimes think it's the only non language that can do that. The closest I can think of are scheme (trivial toy lisp) and pascal (single pass language for education, shoehorned into real work, but then usually with ugly extensions)

If OpenBSD is so secure, how come it isn't a microkernel?

why would a monolithic kernel be less secure ?

Because drivers have root

Imagine using this piece of crap because some dumb tranny wrote a document you don't like.

I use it because it's better.

Attached: 1402841014840.jpg (387x397, 22K)

>I'm not even that pasta guy
I just want modern, cow filesystem with these features:
snapshots
btrfs/zfs style send and receive
checksums
raid would be nice.

make a port of hammer or btrfs
(openbsd folks don't want to create another spl, so there'll be no zfs on obsd)

So you think they [openBSD] (or any other BSD besides Dragonfly for that matter) will eventually adopt HAMMER?
Ive been using it for a while and I quite like it.

try wine, learn how to tweak it so that things work, or check the wine database to see if anyone else has tested the software you need, i've found it very useful lately.

>LAMP preinstalled

For what? So you don’t have to spend a few minutes downloading it via package manager?

Wine does not work at all with OpenBSD. The developers for wine have stated that OpenBSD will probably never support wine in any possible way.

Out of all of the filesystems Hammer2 is the most likely to be ported. Very exciting.

tedunangst.com/flak/post/ZFS-on-OpenBSD
it's old and mainly about zfs

My favourite fs is btrfs :^)

Btrfs was my favourite before I discovered hammer. When I use Linux I use btrfs.

I believe some of btrfs' features overlap with hammer but don't quote me on that.

I've probably spend about 10 minutest in dfbsd vm. I'm waiting for hammer2 on openbsd.
I'm not willing to switch os just for filesystem. :/

redpill me on hammer

>I'm not going to switch is for filesystem :/

Yeah that makes perfect sense.
(It might read like I'm being condescending but im not lol).
Honestly if OpenBSD adopts hammer2 I might even consider switching.

dragonflybsd.org/hammer/
gitweb.dragonflybsd.org/dragonfly.git/blob/05af5bd1aeaf8bf30d36fc65103097415b943700:/sys/vfs/hammer2/DESIGN

Do some reading on it and form an opinion yourself.
But if you want my opinion: it's great.

Deal breaker for me are:
1. supported filesystems are dogshit, get me ZFS niggers.
2. I wanna be able to run an encrypted RAID but in fucking 2018 this is still not possible.
3. vmm is shit.

You will never see ZFS on OpenBSD and vmm is great. Only your second point has even a little bit of merit.

zfs is dogshit
deal with it

It's the most cross platform file system in history besides fat32 (thanks to no gpl)

Why the fuck would you want a cow in your filesystem? Is this some kinda fetish?

Could someone please forward the eternal openbsd pasta to Theo?
I'd like to know what he thinks about this, the only reason the pasta is so hated is because it's absolutely right.

yeah, it works on....
solaris, nobody uses solaris
some claims windows and mac ports exist.... again noone uses it there....
freebsd, nobody likes freebsd
linux, it works... but oracle likes to hoard technology.....
It makes my feel superion,
I have a small penis, I need to compensate on the internet
also, snapshots are kinda nice
upvoted

>it's absolutely right
being this ignorant

shill

It's funny because it's true. OpenBSD is so shitty it makes TempleOS look like a production-ready OS. Have you tried using it?

I'm running OBSD right now, never used TemplOS though

Attached: 2018-09-29-165453_1366x768_scrot.png (1366x768, 112K)

>god it's so ugly
Install some real wm

is it weird if i think that OBSD's default FVWM looks neat

it's way better than the configuration that actually ships with FVWM2. shame its such a pain in the ass to configure.

It doesn't even support bluetooth bideogaym controllers

it looks kinda neat and cde-ish
but I can't stand it
openbsd default fonts are terrible.
freambuffer console font is utter garbage shit

some of those are non issues
>muh ssds
hdds exist. you want bit rot on ssds? read up on read disturb, trim won't save you.
>muh checksumming
can be done by hand , then automated
>muh softraid
use hardware raid controller if raid is that important to you, become openbsd developer if softraid is that important to you
>muh base system
you realize base system install can still do a shit ton of things? firewall, ssh, webserver and mailserver, text editor, gcc - all you need to get a startup running.
>muh old standards
enforced so people don't experiment with flavor of the day new shit
>muh lack of extensions
shit load of new features developed regularly. kernel randomization? pledges?
>muh wifi
you're welcome to add support for ac
>muh wine
good

openbsd is not a desktop os. those features are well behind linux. community is small, they focus on things they do well - security. if you want openbsd developmend to pick up, then why not start coding some shit, or at least donate to them. i did, because i use openbsd for my home servers. i got the os for free, the documentation is excellent and their cause is worthy.

>tried installing openbsd on my old thinkpad
>there's no package with freetype2 for i386, so I can't compile my wm and terminal (dwm and st)

openbsd DOES come with FT2 though. it's under /usr/X11R6.

i know this because i had to modify the dwm Makefile to tell it where to find the headers and library. if you're too much of a brainlet for that, then UNIX is not for you.

pkg_add st, and either pkg_add dwm or use the port. Compile-to-customize has to be the stupidest thing about suckless.

>pkg_adding suckless software
but you're gonna be stuck with the defaults for everything

So compile it. If you're stupid enough to use software like that you should at least have the brains to check "pkg-config --cflags freetype2".

dude i'm the guy who told him that freetype2 is in base already

please enable cwm

Thanks, there are relevant comments in config.mk, everything worked once I uncommented those. I thought I didn't have freetype2 installed (or at least development headers). Something felt very fishy.
Some suckless software doesn't even need configuration, I'm happy with defaults in dmenu (especially because dwm can force a font with arguments, and that's all I care about) and slock.

>tfw trackpoint is detected as a generic mouse
>tfw entire init system in openbsd is a dirty hack
>tfw system halts during heavy IO operations because I'm installing packages in the background
I hope NetBSD is better than this, at least it has a RISC-V port already.

Attached: shitBSD.png (1024x768, 399K)

>non-existent support for modern FS and shit virtualization support
>not valid complaints
This is how we know you are just a fag that uses his 5 years old thinkpad just to shitpost on Jow Forums.

ZFS specifically will never happen. Hammer2 is my personal hope. How is it shit virtualization? Could not careless.

Is openbsd even worth it?
Im using debian and suckless software (dwm, st, dmenu)

Absolutely not. It's a toy at best because of how much it misses.
I'd try NetBSD (or dragonflybsd if you don't mind having a single supported architecture) if I were you.

>OS doesn't support TRIM
>Use an HDD faggot
This seems like a serious problem that needs addressing.

>It's the most cross platform file system in history besides fat32
UDF

So is there any patch, hack, package, or workaround that implements TRIM on OpenBSD? If not, is it on the roadmap? Because this is a deal breaker for installing on my thinkpad.

>muh secure erase
I don't store data that's sensitive enough to require secure erase on the SSD. The fact that I have data for which I'd rather take the risk for the sake of speed doesn't suddenly mean any possible reason I might have for using OpenBSD is invalidated. For Pete's sake, the boot partition doesn't contain any sensitive data because it's just the fucking kernel and other boot time shit, there's zero reason not to have it on an SSD these days.

>just use an HDD lmao
On a 13" laptop that gets moved, jostled, and rotated all the time, I'd rather not. Plus, since it's a laptop, it gets powered off through hibernation regularly, and the speed really makes a big difference every time I power it back on and restore from disk. And while it's not relevant to me since I already have the ssd in my thinkpad, it's still a useful argument in favour of the use case in general to mention that on a laptop like that you generally don't need tons of storage space so you can get an extremely affordable SSD (I think I paid $30 for mine, you'd be hard-pressed to find a cheaper HDD regardless of capacity because the minimum cost of the enclosure, controller, spindle, etc. approach about that much).