Why do you still use linux when there's bsd?

No matter how hard bsd gets shilled, it will never be good for anything.

>calling nsa/systemd "linux"

Because I enjoy using a functional operating system.

Because almost all *BSD projects don't respect my freedoms, outside of LibertyBSD.
Also, it's "GNU/Linux".

>implying op was only referring to nsa/linux distributions with the gnu userland
>implying lolbertybsd isn't dead
>implying (((stallman))) respects your freedoms

It runs a majority of the worlds firewalls, even hardware firewalls have bsd underneath.

bsd is not usable as a desktop environment. it is the most secure OS on the market right now which is why most firewall/security servers and devices run bsd by default. it cannot be touched in that regard.

*hugs*

*hugs back in pufferfish*

Why not? I use OpenBSD as the main (and only) OS on my laptop and it works fine. It comes with three window managers by default, and you can install whatever desktop environments that you want from the package manager (GNOME, Xfce, lxqt, MATE, and others)
The hugs thing is related to FreeBSD, not OpenBSD.

>I use w10 for desktop.
install gentoo (it's easier)

free softwrae is the only chance my freedom has at being preserved

>The hugs thing is related to FreeBSD, not OpenBSD
That's the joke

OpenBSD is FLOSS.

>implying gnu/rms cares about your freedom
You drank the Kool-aid, did you?

that doesnt make it inherently better than gnu/linux

I didn't say that it was better because it's FLOSS. I just pointed it out.

>claims to be truly independent
>half of it is gnu trash out of the box
>have shims for dbus and other gnu shitware
>freebsd went full sjw retard
>bsds don't offer xfs
>bsds don't offer nvidia drivers
>bsds don't offer wlan drivers
>driver support varies wildly between distros because they all use a special snowflake kernel
Say what you want about proprietary Unices like Solaris and IRIX, at least they had hardware that they were guaranteed to work with. At least all Linux distros share one kernel, making hardware support easy. But no, BSD runs like dogshit on everything, if it even runs at all.

Attached: fac612be32e1de2df5413f26dc3d0610.jpg (720x303, 27K)

OpenBSD doesn't try to enforce its licensing on completely foraneous software.
GNU does.

which is exactly how bsd licenses allow the developer to be left without credit or remuneration.

>freebsd went full sjw retard
Linux did too
>bsds don't offer xfs
Linux doesn't offer UFS
>bsds don't offer nvidia drivers
Nvidia should, or an open spec. You're not working for Nvidia for free, are you?
>bsds don't offer wlan drivers
>driver support varies wildly between distros because they all use a special snowflake kernel
Ditto

I was referring to how GNU stole Clisp

>>claims to be truly independent.
It is.
>>half of it is gnu trash out of the box
Read the GPL section openbsd.org/policy.html
The even switched to Clang in favour of GCC recently.
>>have shims for dbus and other gnu shitware
None of the BSDs come with dbus preinstalled.
>>freebsd went full sjw retard
And...? Linux did too.
>>bsds don't offer xfs
They have their own filesystems, y'know? FreeBSD has ZFS and UFS, dragonfly has HAMMER, NetBSD and OpenBSD use their own filesystems too.
>>bsds don't offer nvidia drivers
FreeBSD has official Nvidia support, NetBSD has nouveau, OpenBSD doesn't support Nvidia for ethical reasons.
>>bsds don't offer wlan drivers
[[citation needed]]
man.openbsd.org/?query=wireless&apropos=1
>>driver support varies wildly between distros because they all use a special snowflake kernel
BSDs aren't "distros", each one of them is a separate project.
>Say what you want about proprietary Unices like Solaris and IRIX, at least they had hardware that they were guaranteed to work with.
And...? Are you implying that the BSDs don't have hardware support?
>At least all Linux distros share one kernel, making hardware support easy.
BSDs are separate projects that create everything by themselves, while Linux distributions are just a collection of software.
>But no, BSD runs like dogshit on everything, if it even runs at all.
[[citation needed]]

>Linux doesn't offer UFS
UFS is shit.
>Nvidia should, or an open spec
The Linux installer actually downloads source code and compiles it for you. Why can't some BSD tard take this code and modify it to work with BSD?

>bsds don't offer wlan drivers
>driver support varies wildly between distros because they all use a special snowflake kernel
>Ditto
No, not really. I have three laptops with WLAN cards that need proprietary drivers. Linux has worked with them for at least 5 years now.

got a link to a court case or something

I still do because of one shitty program but I’m going to virtualize it inside OpenBSD so I don’t have to fuck with Linux any more than necessary. Linux is dead.

It isn't, it contains binary blobs, downloads even more on startup, and offers nonfree programs for donwload on its repos.

Based.

No, it doesn't contain binary blobs, and it will only download firmware on startup if your hardware needs it to function properly. And you can still refuse to download them.

FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all include instructions for obtaining nonfree programs in their ports system. In addition, their kernels include nonfree firmware blobs.
Nonfree firmware programs used with Linux, the kernel, are called “blobs”, and that's how we use the term. In BSD parlance, the term “blob” means something else: a nonfree driver. OpenBSD and perhaps other BSD distributions (called “projects” by BSD developers) have the policy of not including those. That is the right policy, as regards drivers; but when the developers say these distributions “contain no blobs”, it causes a misunderstanding. They are not talking about firmware blobs.
None of those BSD distributions has policies against proprietary binary-only firmware that might be loaded even by free drivers.
Also, optionally free is not enough. gnu.org/distros/optionally-free-not-enough.html

You could have googled two words in the time it took you to write that comment. That desperate hunger for being spoonfed is what uniformly makes the Linux community a steaming pile of dogshit.
TLDR Clisp optionally was compatible with readline so Stallman forced Haible to give it to GNU in generous exchange for not pressing charges.

Because I see no need to switch? I use Debian on desktop and home server, I don't need any other OS, everything just works.

Linux isn't a toy OS

Wifi, drivers

>just werks
>not integrated into the kernel
>Slackware and Devuan exist

You realize there's a ton of distros that don't ship with systemd and even some that do, like Debian, you can purge it and run any init system possible, right?

>>not integrated into the kernel
I come from 2021 and I bring you bad news

is this the new kernel thread

Attached: Screenshot from 2019-06-15 13-52-04.pngkerne.png (1600x900, 296K)

Why not use Mac OS X with its Mach kernel (based and redpilled)

Attached: 1.png (620x465, 464K)

The kernel's XNU, Mach's only part of it

Linux has drivers

Orbis OS based on FreeBSD (based and redpilled)

Attached: 20160815-ps4-05.jpg (835x470, 55K)

I use FreeBSD. I don't understand how dumbfucks here claim that BSDs are not reliable for Desktop use. FreeBSD prefers lowlatency over throughput unlike Linux so its already better for Desktops by default. Linux lowlatency and real-time kernels still doesnt help that much. After 1-2 days of heavy usage GUI on Linux starts lag as shit. Add to that FreeBSD's OSS4 and OpenBSD's sndio are godgiven to any audiophile and not even compared in terms of audio quality to garbage ALSA.

Just for tests and shits install GNOME 3 both on FreeBSD and any Linux distro and see how fluid it performs on FreeBSD even under heavy usage.

Attached: freebsd3.png (580x358, 109K)

Yes, welcome to the NSA/Systemd general

Based.

sndio is so much better than pulseaudio, it's a shame that it's not receiving the support it should get

based

>>claims to be truly independent

>>half of it is gnu trash out of the box
This is just plain wrong. There is almost no GPL or GNU stuff in the base system of any BSD.
The main dependency they had was the GNU toolchain, but in past years they've replaced it with LLVM/Clang.

>>have shims for dbus and other gnu shitware
True, because they want to support GNOME.

>>freebsd went full sjw retard
This is true.

>>bsds don't offer xfs
FreeBSD has ZFS, which is clearly superior.
NetBSD has something that's slightly equivalent (UFS with journaling).
OpenBSD indeed has an old, non-journaled file system.

>>bsds don't offer nvidia drivers
True.

>>bsds don't offer wlan drivers
Wrong.
Although they tend not to support the latest standards like 802.11ac.

>>driver support varies wildly between distros because they all use a special snowflake kernel
True, but that's like saying macOS and Windows don't support the same things.

>virtualize it inside OpenBSD
Kek
Maybe wait a few years until they fix vmm then.
It's still struggling to virtualize OpenBSD properly...