Is freeBSD a meme or actually good?

>Distro just seems like the wrong word to use
laptop.ninja/the-5-best-bsd-distributions/
Talk about redundant

>The best Berkeley Software Distribution distributions
It's not that distribution's the wrong word to use; it's just that you're trying too hard to separate yourself from Lincucks when you're really more pedantic and autistic.

Someone explained that to you in another thread, yet you came here trolling instead. Get a life.

So what you're saying is that the entire project was called a distribution since before Linux, therefore every derivative distribution of the original can't be considered a distribution?

Nobody explained it to me properly because they were too emotionally charged to explain it logically, instead allowing themselves to go autistic online as you are right now. Please explain to me more clearly and concisely, why you would rather see an operating system distribution be called a project instead.

And they're not made from scratch, they're all forks of common ancestors from decades ago. FreeBSD and NetBSD both forked from 386BSD around the same time, OpenBSD forked from NetBSD in '96, and DragonFlyBSD forked from FreeBSD later on.

I'm saying that since Linux distros became a thing the meaning of distribution has changed and implies a far more common codebase than what the various BSDs share.

Why do you keep making the same comments even though you got many answers like this one?

You can try whatever BSD that you want, FreeBSD and OpenBSD are good choices for starters.

>And they're not made from scratch, they're all forks of common ancestors from decades ago
OK... The same can be said about GNU's programs and Linux's kernel sources, which has then split between Debian and Red Hat, etc.

>I'm saying that since Linux distros became a thing the meaning of distribution has changed and implies a far more common codebase than what the various BSDs share
But you yourself had just said in the same post that every BSD derivative also has a common code base in 386BSD. So how has the meaning of the term distribution changed?

>Why do you keep asking questions when you got an answer
Retarded answers from retarded people don't count. You sure sound like such a person. Plus, that answer also applies directly to the various Linux distributions as well as the various BSDs, which makes it easy for even the dumbest person like you to conclude that a distribution and project is the same. Maybe if you would think more logically, you could make a better answer to explain what's actually your meaningless opinion.

distros don't fork, they distribute

based retard

>OK... The same can be said about GNU's programs and Linux's kernel sources, which has then split between Debian and Red Hat, etc.
No, they all use a common kernel and userland.
>But you yourself had just said in the same post that every BSD derivative also has a common code base in 386BSD. So how has the meaning of the term distribution changed?
Because after a fork they're no longer sharing common code. Going from one distro to another you're always going to find GNU coreutils or Busybox or something similar. On the BSDs there's not a common source of this software, they all have their own versions.

>The same can be said
No, it can't be, because every part of those projects (except their package manager) is maintained by a separate entity.
>had common code base in 386BSD
That was decades ago, all the BSDs rewrote every single part of their OS over the years therefore they only share the philosophy and design, as for Linux, they still use common tools made by different projects including the fucking kernel and shell utilities.
>Retarded answers, retarded people
Your explanation is quite retarded, you don't explain clearly what is wrong with the answer that person provided.

>Distros don't fork they distribute
So you're saying that Debian and Redhat are all the same, when they're both forked from the original code of Thorvalds and Stallman? I love how retarded you made yourself look now, in an attempt to try and call me retarded.

The thing is I'm asking what makes BSD different than Linux with regards to its development process. And other than the fact that Linux seems to be entirely from scratch, while 386BSD is the main source of all BSDs (and a partial source for Mac OS X,) of it wasn't for that fundamental difference, BSD and Linux are no different from that standpoint, which would lead me to conclude that every BSD and Linux project is its own distribution.

This guy clearly explains it best. The fact that every BSD shares the same userland, while Linux is prettu much divided between Debian and Red Hat userlands, while you've got hipster userlands like Arch, Void and Gentoo.

By the way, I did explain what was wrong with that guy's answer; he wasn't answering in a logical way that would convince me of what you just showed me in your last two posts. Therefore, he was retarded for getting emotionally charged about it.

>This guy clearly explains it best. The fact that every BSD shares the same userland, while Linux is prettu much divided between Debian and Red Hat userlands, while you've got hipster userlands like Arch, Void and Gentoo.
Do you even know what a userland is? All the distros that you mentioned use the same GNU userland.

So what you're saying is that there's fundamentally NO difference between the way BSD and Linux are in terms of how they're distributed or forked. Therefore, I WAS right all along, that each BSD "project" is its own distro, as each Linux derivative is.

You're not making a strong case for why you'd rather call each BSD derivative a project instead of a distribution.

My logic is that it's a distribution because it's being distributed to the public. That's all there is.

>So what you're saying is that there's fundamentally NO difference between the way BSD and Linux are in terms of how they're distributed or forked.
Except for the fact that Linux distros are all different configurations of the same software and each BSD is its own software.
>My logic is that it's a distribution because it's being distributed to the public. That's all there is.
By that logic all publicly available software are distributions. Micropolis is a distro, mpv is a distro, Photoshop is a distro, etc.

What did the guy said that made him retarded?
All what a distro does is getting the source code directly from other projects, patch the source if they intent to do stupid shit and then they configure it according to their preferences according to their package policy and *distribute* it using their own package management system. That's it. That's what a Linux distro does. They don't "fork" code, they just distribute code directly from other projects.
BSDs create their own code and their own userland, each one of them is a project that creates everything (from the kernel to the userland) in-house, while Linux distros just *distribute* code from other projects instead of making it themselves. Is that clear yet?

The troll successfully derailed a potentially good thread. Don't feed trolls. Don't reply to them.

My suggestion is to just try it out and have fun!

>each BSD is its own software
You just said that each BSD is forked from the other and the software then becomes different. How is that, when the same can be said for Linux forks?

>What did the guy said that made him retarded?
The exact things that you guys are saying; you're not explaining it properly for anyone to understand why your opinions are actually fact, since everything you're saying relates 100% to Linux distributions so far.

>BSDs create their own code and their own userland, each one of them is a project that creates everything (from the kernel to the userland) in-house, while Linux distros just *distribute* code from other projects instead of making it themselves. Is that clear yet?
So what you're saying is that BSD doesn't fork its code from other BSD systems, but would reprogram each component from scratch? Of course it's not clear yet because you're giving conflicting information as to how Linux vs. BSD are forked, when they do the same thing. Whether it's Debian or Red Hat, there are changes done to the Linux kernel source as well, just as there are to BSD's.

At first I was, but now I'm genuinely curious about what makes you think Linux forking is any different from BSD forking.

I have. I feel like that Windows user who was told by the Arch user to use Arch over other forms of Linux.

>How is that, when the same can be said for Linux forks?
Linux distros aren't forks though.

The above posters explained it in a way that even a brainlet can understand it. You are clearly playing dumb here, I hope the moderators take care of your trolling soon.

How not? They're forks in that they take the original base source code from the Linux kernel and then modify them with whatever's necessary for the userland they're supposed to target (i.e.: Debian vs. Red Hat).

>Announcing your reporting me for asking questions
How retarded are you?

Yes, I personally use OpenBSD since I feel like it's more suited for laptops, but if you want to use FreeBSD that's fine too.

They're not forks, they're patches of successive releases.

I didn't claim that I reported though, I just said that I hoped a moderator would see the shitstorms that you create in every *BSD thread and take care of you.

So how is Debian a patch of Red Hat (since Debian came after Red Hat)? They're not. They're forks of Linux.

Don't blame me for your taking offense to something you're autistically passionate about. I merely asked you guys to be more clear and to stop spouting opinions passed as facts.

What the actual fuck, stop replying to this troll.

>So how is Debian a patch of Red Hat
It's not.

But you just said that there are no Linux forks, that each distribution is a successive patch of Linux.

itt: Jow Forums learns the reason why there's an OpenBSD containment general.

This.

The rest of you are only making yourselves look just as retarded as Lincucks and iToddlers.

Yes. Every kernel that comes out gets patched by respective distro maintainers for use in their own distros. Had they been forks they would have taken a certain Linux version adapted it to their liking from that point on, independently of the actual Linux kernel

I see... So what you're saying is that even though each BSD uses the same kernel, as Each Linux distro does, BSD reprograms (i.e.: patches) the kernel, just as Linux does? Or are you saying that BSD would take only one version and not bother making security updates, instead basing everything on that one kernel even if it's insecure?

I'm the maintainer of /obsd/
1- it's not a containment general
2- we had a trolling problem too (judging by the writing style it's probably the same individual)
3- the OpenBSD general is extremely friendly, every non-troll post is generally very noob friendly and commenters will usually persist on making sure that the problem is solved, even though it's not specified as a friendly general.
4- this is a FreeBSD post, so it has nothing to do with /obsd/ anyways.

>this is a FreeBSD post, so it has nothing to do with /obsd/ anyways.
But aren't both of them forked from 386BSD? And by the way you're all describing it to have the same userland, doesn't that make FreeBSD and OpenBSD the same?

What BSD should I install on my thinkpad x200 tablet

>we had a trolling problem too
The problem being that you guys get trolled too easily, like the Haiku General maintainer and just about everyone else on Jow Forums. Grow a pair and just silently report people who you can tell are trolling, without making such a big fuss. I mean you really have to be ashamed of yourself in this regard.

Take a look at OpenBSD or FreeBSD.
OpenBSD already has a general on Jow Forums so you can visit that here:

>Inviting the troll to the general

>I mean you really have to be ashamed of yourself in this regard.

Many people who frequented /obsd/ responded to trolls in the beginning, thinking they were genuine questions. I noticed that and issued a warning to not respond to threads in the last general post.

It's not like people would listen anyways, though. It's Jow Forums you're talking about. You're definitely bound to get more intelligent people participating if a more controlled environment than this.

Other than that, what do you feel is the better BSD derivative and why, exactly, do you think it stands out above the rest?

>What do you feel is the better BSD derivative
Honestly? It really depends on the use case:
1- Security and simplicity? OpenBSD
2- Portability? NetBSD
3- Performance and scalability? DragonFlyBSD, FreeBSD
There are more niche BSDs too.
>why, exactly, do you think it stands out above the rest
I don't believe that, it really depends on the use case as I mentioned before
You can see my reasoning for using OpenBSD in the general thread though.

And what BSDs would you think are best for conventional laptop use, versus for web server use?

>conventional laptop use
I use OpenBSD as the main OS on my laptop, works fine for me.
>web server use
Depends on what you want, if you are really concerned about security or like the tools that come with OpenBSD then go for OpenBSD.
If you care about performance and are expecting some heavy workload I'd recommend FreeBSD (it's what Netflix uses, the largest media provider in the world) or DragonFlyBSD.

lmfao. Based retard baiting the autists

I can tell you're more security oriented. But owing to the fact that OpenBSD is more commonly used for web servers (i.e.: shell hosting, web hosting, etc.,) wouldn't that make OpenBSD more prone to attackers probing for vulnerabilities? And would other BSDs like FreeBSD still have the same security software (or possibly better) available to it as well?

Why don't you use FreeBSD, or NetBSD? What BSDs have you used for each use case and why?

>wouldn't that make OpenBSD more prone to attackers probing for vulnerabilities
Every semi-popular OS will get probed at some point, security by obscurity never works. Which is why the OpenBSD team actively looks to make the code more efficient and clean by reducing the lines of code in the project with smaller, efficient code.
They also actively work on implementing cutting edge hardening techniques like pledge(2), unveil(2) and W^X. Meaning that even if a bug gets discovered in OpenBSD or one of the software running on it, it won't be easy to exploit (sometimes impossible to exploit).
>would other BSDs like FreeBSD still have the same security software (or possibly better) available to it as well?
Every BSD cares about security, no BSD will simply say "we don't care about security", but most of them don't have the same amount of hardening techniques and code-simplicity that OpenBSD has, that doesn't mean that they are bad or insecure, they are just not as good as OpenBSD from this side.
I just used OpenBSD from day 1, I used FreeBSD on a virtual machine before but I liked OpenBSD's simplicity and straight-forwardness more.

>wouldn't that make OpenBSD more prone to attackers probing for vulnerabilities
Every semi-popular OS will get probed at some point, security by obscurity never works. Which is why the OpenBSD team actively looks to make the code more efficient and clean by reducing the lines of code in the project with smaller, efficient code.
They also actively work on implementing cutting edge hardening techniques like pledge(2), unveil(2) and W^X. Meaning that even if a bug gets discovered in OpenBSD or one of the software running on it, it won't be easy to exploit (sometimes impossible to exploit).
>would other BSDs like FreeBSD still have the same security software (or possibly better) available to it as well?
Every BSD cares about security, no BSD will simply say "we don't care about security", but most of them don't have the same amount of hardening techniques and code-simplicity that OpenBSD has, that doesn't mean that they are bad or insecure, they are just not as good as OpenBSD from this side.
I just used OpenBSD from day 1, I used FreeBSD on a virtual machine before but I liked OpenBSD's simplicity and straight-forwardness more.

OP here, so should I try out OpenBSD on the laptop or FreeBSD? And if so what are the benefits of either or.

>most of them don't have the same amount of hardening techniques and code-simplicity that OpenBSD has
And none of them have the amount that hardened Linux has.

Oh really? Linux doesn't have any practical hardening other than the shitty KASLR which is nothing compared to OpenBSD's KARL.

Other than that, give me hard evidence, namefag.

>namefag
That's a tripfag, newfag.

They are mostly explained above.
If you are curious about OpenBSD, you can always visit its general thread, which has a comprehensive starting guide:

Bait.

Anyone interested in BSD already knows its true so there isn't really any point discussing it lol.

As I expected, typical bait with no evidence whatsoever, Linux users are getting increasingly pathetic.

10/10; you can have my (You)

Do not use *BSD user, BSD does not protect your freedom.

BSD style licenses are freer than GPL bullshit

OpenBSD has no sandboxing or MAC mechanisms
literally no way to protect your data from malicious code or catastrophic bugs

FreeBDSM is great. Feels good man.

haha (kys)

Attached: no need to be mad.png (500x415, 359K)

Somalia if freer than your country. Move there, nigger.

no u

>implying

So how can you claim you have experience in every BSD, when you've only tried 2?

See

The autism in this thread from bsdfags is too damn high

you still haven't answered how Linux forking is different from BSD forking, when both fork from a common source.

Ignore the post above mine it's just yet another attempt at derailing the thread

>Implying the thread iasn't been derailed
Come on now, newfag. You guys still have your own containment thread on the OpenBSD General. If you're so upset, why don't you just answer instead of complaining that your ego's hurt for not knowing what you're talking about?

See Someone's derailing your precious general. are you gonna stand for that? Or will you be the autism brigade and answer him with the facts that OpenBSD isn't compromised?

I spent like an hour feeding that troll, I'm not bothering anymore

That's not derailment, that's raising a valid point. OpenBSD does have a past with DARPA and while I doubt it's true there's always a chance those sly fucks slipped something in there

>it's true there's always a chance those sly fucks slipped something in there
So why the hell would you shill OpenBSD as being more secure than every other BSD, when they're all going to be compromised in the same manner, being forks of a deprecated BSD version?

I'm not shilling anything

You are, though; you're trying to shill BSD to OP as a beginner, especially as you come from the general.

>You are, though
no
>you're trying to shill BSD to OP as a beginner
no
>especially as you come from the general.
What?

>Trying to hide his trail in cross-thread posting

Attached: mfw.jpg (195x298, 35K)

no

I think you are.

I'm, not hiding anything. Just because I didn't outright say "I'm post number XXXXXXXXX from this thread" doesn't mean I'm not post XXXXXXXX from that thread. It just means I didn't state it.

Sure it doesn't. Here's your (You).

Here's (You)rs