Why there is a fuckton of BSDs instead of just one like linux

reading their respective wikis it seems like there were two concurrently developed efforts to create a unix clone happening at the same time, netbsd and freebsd, with which openbsd and dragonflybsd are respectively based on. netbsd goal was to be as portable as possible, which likely lead to wide attack surface. raadt likely thought at the time that this wasn't what netbsd really needed and decided to fork into what he called openbsd with the goal of explicitly being secure. these two goals conflicted with each other so couldn't really coexist. freebsd was being developed as a unix free of at&t licensing costs, with the goal of being a free unix. after their 1993 lawsuit with at&t and their unixfree 1994 release it was likely decided due to some sort of licensing stress relapse to create the freeebsd license where absolutely nothing could stop you from using said software for whatever the fuck you want. dragonflybsd was spawned from freebsd because of an internal disagreement as to where the operating system should go, being focused on performance. however the two operating systems still share code with one another

this is different from linux because bsd had two kernels competing from the beginning while linux was the only kernel in a time when gnu was reaching maturity. now the only desire to create an alternative kernel is simply so fsf can reclaim ego so its not really going anywhere and obviously isn't progressing alongside linux so isn't big enough to be considered a competitor

netBSD may be good, I tried out OpenBSD, was comfy

>, but the least usable too as a desktop

It's literally the opposite of that, devs use OpenBSD as their daily driver, so they always want to make sure it runs as smoothly as possible in their consumer hardware.

Just from today

marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=155343827506953&w=2

Attached: 56604545.png (1078x862, 155K)

OpenBSD is 100% useful on the desktop, and works on a large number of laptops just great, too. It's really dependent on if the developers use the hardware. Just buy a post-1997 Thinkpad and you're good is the rule. One of my favourite machines for writing is a Thinkpad X23 because I like the keyboard the best. It only has 384MB RAM but a full X desktop with the default fvwm leaves me with 200MB free RAM, with a couple Seamonkey windows open on the machine it still has almost 40MB free.

Currently I'm replicating my whole Linux experience or replacing it with BSD equivalents on an X220 (toad instead of the stupid auto mounting monstrosities you can choose from in Linux) and the only thing I'm missing is Mathematica, which I can get around by running a Linux VM and X but I just haven't gotten everything quite so yet.

NetBSD is great too but I view it as more of the "everything plus your toaster" lite Unix, and FreeBSD only exists for ZFS imho.

Literally everything works except for Bluetooth, which was axed from OpenBSD for being unsafe shit, and the fingerprint sensor meme.

Attached: 65564554.png (821x970, 183K)

fprintd is in 6.4

Read the comic.

Attached: standards.png (500x283, 24K)

You're just reading too much into the names.

There's only a single BSD. It inspired several other OS that took on its name like FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD. There were several others that chose novel names, like Darwin, Bitrig and FreeNAS

Similarly there's only a single Unix. It inspired several other OS(/kernels) that took on its name, like Linux, Minix, Xenix, Cosix, Irix and Aix. There were several others that chose novel names, like BSD, Plan9 and Solaris.

>Linux is a kernel
No shit. There's one linux kernel, there are multiple bsd kernels. You can compile the linux kernel to be whatever you need it to be

>there's only a single BSD
that's where you're wrong kiddo, even before the Free BSD variants made their way around there were quite a number of different BSDs, look at a Unix family tree to see where the major forks occurred even in BSD.

>covers everyones use cases
comic doesn't really fit here does it

linux itself is a unix clone in the same vein as *bsd just with a different license

that sound good, i dont care for bluetooth, i have an x220 and a x230 that i'm modding with x220 keeb and fhd mod, i had problem trying to install openbsd on the x220 that i think are caused by coreboot, basically the installer dont see the disks at all. is this the case even on corebooted x230? then i used in both the atheros ar9380 for wifi, is now supported by openbsd? i rembember being intentionally disablet in ath driver becouse bugs at the time, but idk if i recall correctly

Not sure what you mean. Are you saying Berkeley had two independent software distributions?

Forks that go under a different name is not the same as BSD. No one would argue that FreeBSD and Darwin is the same project.

Berkeley did in fact distribute multiple versions of BSD (as patches to AT&T Unix and on its own) such as when TCP/IP was under development. IIRC 2.9BSD was the main "internet" focused distro while the majority of installed bases were on 4.x BSD, then changes were re-rolled in.

You should really find a good Unix family tree such as the ones in the Design and Implementation of the ___BSD Operating System books.

the current BSDs are all forks of the original berkeley bsd. so by your logic they're all different, and honestly darwin is a frankenkernel that isn't even a bsd anymore. it's bsd+mach+whatever the fuck else

X220, everything works great except middle button scroll which I don't know how to get going, but I haven't hit up the mailing list yet. I know it's possible because I saw a guy do it a while back, but I don't want to bother the devs until I've smashed my brains out on a brick wall or another.

linux is a kernel.

*works out of box I mean, including sleep and hibernate, thinklight, etc

Is that like how there are multiple Linux kernels, like Linux 3.16, Linux 4.4 and Linux 5.0, all still getting updates?

Yes, I most definitely consider FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD to be different projects.

>le kernel maymay

i know, but mine has been corebooted and as i've seen on some post around the internetz seems to cause problems with openbsd.

Berkeley BSD hasn't had updates in a long time, maybe 25 years. All the current BSDs are forks which have grown distant, except maybe NetBSD which is still pretty old school. But they have brought features such as package management and so on in, and ports too. There is a lot of cross pollination between the BSDs still though.

..developed because unix was nonfree, minix was locked to educational usage, gnu/hurd was in development hell and neither freebsd or netbsd were released despite being in development. what exactly makes linux separate from *bsd in a thread like this, when linux itself could be considered one of the many in the "fuckload of BSDs" since all bsd is is a clone of unix?

I don't know much about that, maybe ask on the openbsd-misc list, they will shoo you away or direct you to the appropriate documentation.

BSD isn't a clone of Unix and Linux has never tried to be Unix, it's Unix-like to the point of source compatibility but so was (in many cases) BeOS.

Like this?

Attached: 4546667tt.jpg (3366x5984, 2.99M)

can't you just coreboot into GRUB and load OpenBSD from there ?

Yes. Original BSD is dead, just like Unix. The various forks and clean-room implementations live on.

It's unfair to say "These projects have the same suffix in their name, so therefore they should be collaborating more. Linux doesn't have to collaborate with anyone because it chose a name that ended with -ux instead of -ix"

its not loading it the problem, its installing it. i might try to install it on x230 before corebooting that too and switch the drive into the x220 and see if once installed it can load it tho.

no shit they're different projects but they're also different kernels

I've been moving an SSD with OpenBSD around between a few machines just fine, just make sure to install all the non-free firmware (there is a command for this, no I can't remember it, and apropos won't do it because I'm on my Pi now) so that all your shit like wifi works between machines. Not sure how different the wifi is between the 220 and 230 but it's just better to have all the firmware just in case, imho.

i have in both AR9380 wifi cards

Yes?

image is way too big for this poor computer, the browser crashed lol

check the hcl on the openbsd site, they list all the drivers and such there

I think it's fw_update

It's not that Linux and the BSD people shouldn't collaborate, they often do. But the licensing differences are one barrier, another is the systems are so different that sometimes code can't be easily shared from say, OpenBSD to Linux.

Yup I remember now, specifically:
fw_update -a
That'll fetch all available firmware for everything on the platform so you can just jam the same drive in whatever machine. You might have to simply copy your files in /etc which bring up the wifi for different device names for it to work. I've done this a few times, it seems to nicely ignore files for which there is no interface so no problems yet.

seems to be supported now, anyways, tomorrw i give it a shot, its 5am here, thanks user

hang in there buddy

from what i read in the wiki pages i disagree. at&t was in an antitrust with computer markets so couldn't sell unix and therefore distributed the sourcecode freely. gnu (gnu, not unix!) project was started because at&t split to form bell labs to sell unix legally so the development of a free alternative began. linux (linus unix) was created because minix (mini unix) was locked to educational usage only and linus wanted a free alternative, which gnu only needed a kernel. bsd (also known as berkeleys unix) is heavily based on research unix, freebsd started with the goal of being unix without at&t licensed code. all following *bsd are based on what was then 386bsd or freebsd

so with all this in mind how are they not clones? to say they weren't heavily inspired and in some cases downright based on unix is misleading. the only one that actually tries to distance itself from unix is gnu but thats in name only for the sole purpose of asserting independence, as the resulting operating system was designed to function identically to unix (which is the definition of a clone in computer terms).

meant for

Hmm weird. My x200's are librebooted and have no issues with loading the openbsd installer, installing it to and ssd, or booting the ssd. Has been a pretty smooth experience for me so far. I can't get freebsd working though no matter what grub cmd options I try.

Unix is dead.
Linux was a good step forward using Unix ideas, but still relies on antiquated ideas.
We need a new operating system with modern ideas implemented at the start

BSDs aren't modular, so they have to waste effort developing in parallel instead of just configuring distros like gnu/linux

>and honestly darwin is a frankenkernel that isn't even a bsd anymore. it's bsd+mach+whatever the fuck else
XNU's the kernel, Darwin's the OS

What about Plan 9/9front?

Fucking UNIX braindeath still. It's the same shit, just done even worse this time around.

For every difficult problem there's one obvious, simple and elegant solution.
THAT WON'T WORK.

>modern ideas
Such as? Genuinely curious to hear your ideas.

is not it possible to fork linux and do it the way you want as well? why it only happened with bsd. how can linus keep linux togheter?

>marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=155343827506953&w=2
i have used many bsds. open bsd is the only one that worked on my hardware.
i think this confusion on what bsd is better for desktop comes because each bsd has diferent hardware support so people who try openbsd on a hardware they dont support thinks openbsd is worse for desktop and people who try freebsd on a hardware they dont support think freebsd is bad for desktop and so on

so if we make a bsd that is modular it gets to be all developed togheter like linux?]
would have any diference between linux and bsd if bsd was modular?

Is netbsd the tinest and most minimalist?

Dragonfly is a lot newer and based on Amiga principles so is fairly small. NetBSD is about portability not size; it's small but not as a direct goal.

Which BSD has the smallest installation?

NetBSD and DragonFly both have a ~1gb iso image.

Freebsd is the best bsd

Because bsd devs all fall into one of three categories
1. Autistic man child
2. NSA agent
3. Elevator programmer

>1. Autistic man child
based

>Autistic man child
So Jow Forums

*hug*

STOP RAPING HIM

STOP RAPING HIM

Mmmm, long fat pipe

*hug*
*kiss*
Use freebsd :3