Jow Forums has always wanted their own distro of linux for years

>Jow Forums has always wanted their own distro of linux for years
>but they can't even use openbsd in a daily setting

you guys are fucking stupid

Attached: 1200px-OpenBSD_Logo_-_Cartoon_Puffy_with_textual_logo_below.svg.png (1200x781, 180K)

1994 called they want their logo back

Attached: kcy8tzzhpe611.jpg (800x800, 113K)

1994 called, they want their joke back.

(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: puf800X689.gif (800x689, 69K)

(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)

Nope

(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)

Please stop posting this in every OpenBSD thread. I know it's the same person because literally no one else cares.

Jow Forums is already shit, stop making it worse.

It's not hard to into OpenBSD, Jow Forumsuys. You'll will just have to give up a lot of shitty video games.

>use web server os
Why no CentOS 7 ?
Are u retarded?