Why does anything to do with Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD have to be so crusty? Specifically the websites, mailing lists

they don't have the money to pay designers, and developers generally don't care about how their products look or about UX

The developers of OpenBSD are probably too busy to pay attention to the website. That doesn't mean that it should just be neglected.

To be neglected implies it requires some sort of maintenance that they're ignoring when in reality it's working fine.

That's the mentality that has lead Linux to fail to dominate the desktop. "just works" is different to "works well". GNOME "just works" and yet has had horrific memory leaks and design issues.

The website doesn't have memory leaks, or any similar problems though. You just don't like it.

You're right, I don't like it. I'm making a point that just because something works, it isn't complete and shouldn't be ignored. In software, nothing is ever complete.

>anything to do with Linux
>what are the websites of Ubuntu, Red Hat, SUSE, Fedora, ...

BSD users mentally ill fags

Attached: we.jpg (1024x576, 109K)

They do pay attention to the website. The FAQ section is regularly updated, man pages on the web recently got an overhaul (again). They just don't see a need too overdesign it.
If it works and works well, it's fucking good enough.

Linux isn't actually that bad. Most distros have modern sites and therefore have a modern brand image. Coincidentally, Linux is more widely used and developed for.

Except OpenBSD's website design

Again, the "good enough" mentality is a bad one to have in my opinion. See .

OpenBSD values website loading speed and size. If you think you have a sensible redesign, send a patch to misc@.

>GNOME "just works" and yet has had horrific memory leaks and design issues
That's not good enough, that's laziness and/or ineptitude. If it was good enough there would at least not be memory leaks.

>That's not good enough
I'm willing to bet the developers behind GNOME would argue otherwise. After all, it's functional right? Why bother changing it?

This.

Web documents are supposed to be just that - documents with useful information. Everything else is just cheap gimmickry for the sole purpose of appealing to the plebs a.k.a. advertising. Why the fuck should a serious project like GNU or *BSD care about general pleb populasion?

>I would love to contribute to some kernels but I fucking hate email, and I don't think I'm alone on this.
Bye Felicia

I would, but I would probably get shouted at. Which is fair enough. The website is the least important part of the project, but the most important part of the project's image.

Because it has legitimate software bugs. Meanwhile the problem with OpenBSD's site, again, is that you merely dislike it.

Yes, I dislike it because it looks like it was designed in 1999. I think it depreciates the value of the project. OpenBSD is one of the most secure operating systems I'm aware of, but the website doesn't advertise that as much as it should.

>OpenBSD is one of the most secure operating systems I'm aware of, but the website doesn't advertise that as much as it should
The first thing I see when I visit the website is "Only two remote holes in the default install, in a heck of a long time!"

I said
>as much as it should
That phrase doesn't give any context. How am I supposed to know that it's more secure than, say, Linux? What if Linux only had 1 remote hole in a heck of a long time?
If OpenBSD is truly one of the most secure desktop operating systems, it should be screaming it.

Telling us doesn’t do anything, go tell the devs.

Right beneath that phrase is a paragraph with links to their pages about their security and cryptography.

Like I said, I would be shouted at. This thread has made it quite obvious that nobody really appreciates design or product image. I really think that this is why regular users are being scared away from, or not even considering Linux/BSDs as their operating system.

fpbp

The amount of different distributions doesn't help either. As a community, we'd be getting a lot more done if there were 4-5 projects instead of hundreds.

Idk man websites like cat-v,9front ,openbsd look great to me.

>nobody wants to make the website look the way I want it to so nobody appreciates design
You're quite the insufferable cunt. I appreciate both design and product image, specifically the project's current ones.

It doesn't need advertising.

Your taste of design is stuck in the 90s, that's why you can appreciate it.

So you agree... ok then

I disagree. The current developers on OpenBSD won't be around forever. Where are the new ones going to come from?

I'm well aware of this

>somebody wants to modernise the image of open source project out of the 90s, what an insufferable cunt
We both have our preferences and reasoning. Let's not insult each other.

I think you're misunderstood OP. Linux, and to a greater extent BSD, is not a designer's project, it's a programmer's one, an engineer's one. If there's one thing programmers and engineers hate most, it's marketing. Or maybe webdevs. We come to these projects to escape these people and work on something we truely love. in a nutshell, we generally hate and avoid people like you OP.

I'm a developer myself but I like to think I pay attention to these details. It is an engineer's project, but it's being built for end-users, no?

If I remember correctly OpenBSD devs use "does it run well on Lynx?" as a criteria for their website.

Attached: 1519351759500.png (765x768, 408K)

marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=137609553004700&w=2

don't be an asshole and say shit like "Why does anything to do with Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD have to be so crusty?" just because its crusty to you doesn't mean its crusty to other people. I, like many already voiced here, like the design. its simple and straight to the point. its clean.

It's constructive criticism, and I didn't attack anybody for making an observation.

Emily Rudd, before someone needs to ask.

Rather than shitposting on Jow Forums about it why not contribute to the project and suggest a better design?

It looks good and you're a faggot.

This is their logo. Do you think they give a fuck about branding?

Attached: OpenBSD-Logo.jpg (1280x960, 70K)

I'd like the website to look like cat-v. Still not flashy, but really good looking.
But why the hell are mailing lists still used? It's the most unholy communication method.

Not for your target evidently. Why can't you accept that you are not their target?

Nothing wrong with, Puffy.

Attached: ppuf800X725.gif (800x725, 293K)

Many devs, especially low level programmers, have a shitty taste when it comes to design, aesthetic etc. I'm a developer myself and also not good in designing, but I have taste and know when a design is good or not. And I would never accept such a website for my project lol.

Even if they wanna go full minimal and bloatfree, they could have done something like this:
* bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/
* bestmotherfucking.website/

And come on, it wouldn't cost much to let someone design something so basic.

The purpose of a website is to be informative and to provide links to other informative content. If the site is doing that then it is perfectly fine and does belong in the 21st century. Don't fix what ain't broken.

>Gitlab
FDO and GNOME have both switched to this but not every project should. Keep in mind that some projects need to intentionally make the process for submitting code and bugfixes difficult, in order to keep signal-to-noise ratio down.

>The purpose of a website is to be informative and to provide links to other informative content. If the site is doing that then it is perfectly fine and does belong in the 21st century. Don't fix what ain't broken.
I can't read it on my phone without zooming and scrolling, so it does NOT belong in the 21st century. Now go to sleep, boomer.

It looks like nobody cares, or doesn't have the motivation do make a consistent design.

>each Linux distro has yet another "look" it's going for
>they mostly look like badly designed 90's stuff

It's the same with webpages, nobody would get hurt if they made some basic, clean and modern design overhauls. Instead you get mailing lists bloated with 10 layers of quotations which nobody can fucking read.

Never used *BSD but you can make Linux distros look really good. Even if there are shitty 90s designs, it's your choice to not pick it.

>I can't read it on my phone without using a feature on my phone that literally allows me to read it
Fucking retard

You can, but after some time investment. Out of the box, everything is very basic. I know, it's the paradigm of Linux to let the user configure almost everything, but upgrading the default to the look of the current decade wouldn't hurt.

How are your grandchildren doing?

It's wasn't a time investing with xfce. Just moved the bar to the top and clicked on another theme.

If you want trendy bullshit there are plenty of distros that try to provide that. Not everything needs to chase whatever the current shitty UI design fad is

They died from hipster-web-design-induced AIDS, a fate OP will suffer as well.

Because it weeds out the idiots like yourself.

Its not "just works", but "you dont need it" mentality and a millions of distros.

And attracts people with no sense for aesthetics, colors, typography, design and user experience. Nice plan!

People with ”sense for aesthetics, colors, typography, design and user experience‘ usually not good at programming, so whatever.

>he thinks a successful team can only consist of autist programmers

Attached: 31849944.jpg (640x640, 63K)

Just look at that smug motherfucker, how can Lincucks even compete!?

> Only two remote holes in the default install

AHAHAHAHAHA

nice marketing

Attached: pep.jpg (300x240, 12K)

You're a faggot and we design things so we can filter as much people as you as possible.
Go back to macOS or Windows.

Anyone that easily swayed will be a retard with no value to add to the project.

>successful team
>programming only exists for helping corporations to make more money
Brainwashed

(1/3)
OpenBSD is a meme
>Filesystem
SSD TRIM is vital to supporting SSDs, as without it, they degrade quickly due to unnecessary reads and writes. Sadly, OpenBSD has decided not to support this.
OpenBSD also does not offer a modern filesystem option. You simply get the very old BSD "Fast File System" or FFS.
Why is this important? Because when most people think of a secure system, they think of being resistant to evil hackers breaking into it. But that's only one part of security. InfoSec can be generally split up into three components: Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability.
In this triad, availability seems to be the one that's lacking here. 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!!"
What are you even saying? That bitrot all of a sudden doesn't exist anymore? That backups are the one and only thing you should do and should not be supplemented by a more stable filesystem?
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?
"ZFS is one big thing! Very not-Unix! Just combine tools, bro"
OpenBSD doesn't have logical volume management either. Even if it did, FFS doesn't have the checksumming, bitrot protection, etc. Even if it did, OpenBSD softraid doesn't support as many RAID levels as other operating systems' solutions. It's just a worse deal all around.

Attached: 1541636184082.gif (800x689, 69K)

Your time in school seems to be a long time ago, boomer. You apparently have forgotten how to read properly, that's not what I said.

(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: 1541636246629.png (600x600, 20K)

fpbp

(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: 1541636642009.png (1000x1000, 168K)

That doesn’t matter. OpenBSD devs are not a “successful team” if the money is the criterion of success. Therefore, their team might only consist of autistic programmers.

All they need to do is learn the basic basics of material design. And it doesn't need any heavy frameworks, just basic html+css with proper colors, margins, and some dropshadows (for cards)

I love the OpenBSD shills. I myself am also a proud OpenBSD user, serving my own smtpd and some rss web feed services.

>They're not trying to sell you anything
>You need their shit
Both good signs.

>material design
no

I didn't talk about money at all. You are the retard that thinks about money when someone says the word successful.

Look at it's so nice. Though it's not exactly Google's Material, but it's similar.

eh

You recieved your answer, OP
Either do it yourself or show yourself to the door

i rather think its refreshing in a sea of modern websites, in fact so much so i hate your thread. i love basic html websites

I see nothing wrong with that site other than the image being centered instead of aligned to left.
These sites are hosted on low budget. Adding a fuck ton of pretty pictures would increase bandwidth 10x. Adding js/css would worsen end user experience and loading times.

Looks good to me.

Ahh.. they don't make websites like that anymore.

Attached: 1525388794348.png (380x349, 77K)