HyperbolaBSD Thread

>What? HyperbolaBSD is a fork of OpenBSD, but GNU'd. GNU/BSD basically, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus BSD. >Why? Linux has been in poor shape for some time now. Lack of hardening, rust, CoC, bloat, pick your poison. Here's a relevant article: https://itsfoss.com/hyperbola-linux-bsd/ Also OpenBSD has had trouble over the years because of it's licence, somebody could take OpenBSD code, modify it and then release it under GPL, and because of the GPL it could not be added back into OpenBSD. So by doing this the Hyperbola devs are screwing over OpenBSD somewhat, but it should be a much better operating system for it with better software support. >When is the release? I am not entirely sure, it was scheduled for Q3 2021, but that is passed last time I checked the kernel was almost complete. If you have any information about how development is going, or if there is a revised release date please post about it. https://www.hyperbola.info/ https://www.openbsd.org/

this actually isn't the first time something like this has been attempted; previously, the project was called LibertyBSD, and had the same goal of making OpenBSD's kernel GPL-compatible the fact that this by default means the OpenBSD devs can't contribute to HyperbolaBSD means that the project is probably going to suffer the same fate since this is essentially a fuarrrking Linux distro attempting to maintain a fork of the OpenBSD kernel. in a way I appreciate the sentiment, because Linux is kind of a pile of soykaf that has for years now been suffering from corporations subverting it and taking it over. at this point it's simply too big and as too many cooks in the kitchen for it to be a community-driven project like OpenBSD I'm going to be sticking with OpenBSD because I can't imagine that a Linux distro attempting to switch to using the OpenBSD kernel would result in HyperbolaBSD feeling like a BSD. Linux is pretty much the designated soykafting street of Unix-like OSes; every essential part of the OS has several different options all either in competition or forcibly breaking with tradition for really no good reason (systemd, iptools, just to name a couple), programs all put their files in random ass places, it's really just a hodgepodge of different software. the BSDs on the other hand are meant to be complete systems and consequently feel a lot better organized, simple, documented, and put together in a way where things actually make sense and work. the only case in which I could see myself wanting to use HyperbolaBSD would be if they somehow managed to get decent support for games, because at this point that's the only major thing keeping me from fully switching to OpenBSD and FreeBSD. >much better operating system for it with better software support I don't see why either of these would be the case frankly but I also am not sure how the HyperbolaBSD devs plan to port everything over the OpenBSD kernel or why this would end up being much different from just using OpenBSD. it feels like the main reason to use HyperbolaBSD would be if you're just a hardcore GNU person, and while I agree to some extent that the GPL provides stronger freedom protections than BSD licenses, I think the tradeoff of it is that it creates a bad development culture because it basically encourages a form of software imperialism. the same software imperialism that has resulted in GNU/Linux soykafting all over POSIX standards and sidelining every other Unix-like OS while replacing these standards with overly complex GNU soykaf >pic related

>>53600 Are they still actively working on HyperbolaBSD? Last time I checked they were renaming some variables in the kernel. There doesn't seem to be much activity in the git repo either. To be honest if they were going to waste their time on replacing variables for 3 years, they should have contributed to the Hurd instead, since even the Hurd seems to be more active these days. >So by doing this the Hyperbola devs are screwing over OpenBSD somewhat Nah, OpenBSD devs are screwing themselves solely by using the license they do. This is what the license was done for in the first place - to take code and relicense it without the obligation to share it back.

>>53604 Is argv0 in that plan9 code supposed to be argv[0]?

>>53600 >I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus BSD. GNU users can't stop taking something that is not theirs and put their name on it. Yet you complain about CoC.

>>53610 argv0 is a global variable that gets set to argv[0] by the flag-parsing macros (cat sets it manually since it doesn't use them); it is used by a few system functions (like sysfatal) to report the program name when set. http://man.cat-v.org/9front/2/arg

Based, this is the best BSD project and probably one I would actually use

>>53680 >I would actually use Only if they finish it at all. Look at the git repo, they haven't touched it for like a year.

>>53613 I have the right to talk as much soykaf as I want about Clash of Clans thank you very much.

I hope devs are reading this so I can tell them to hurry up

>>55302 >I hope devs are reading this so I can tell them to hurry up People who actually get soykaf done don't waste time on imageboards.

>>53604 >better "OpenBSD" they can give feedback to >can't switch because MuH ViDyA gAeMs Definitely gonna grow-up to be great, someday.

>>55313 Did you even read any of my post or are you just retarded? Oh wait, you're clearly from /g/ so the answer is both. Go back where you came from.

Isn't the lack of GNU nonsense one of the main things that make BSD appealing?

>>55318 The nonsense comes from the BSD cult bro, better scare that cancer away

The appeal of OpenBSD is it's not developed by people with the sort of brain damage that causes them to write a 60 line implementation of true(1)

Why would anyone who actually needs their computer to work use a BSD? If Linux is a hobby OS that can get soyware I need to chat with friends (Discord), do Vidya, (Lutris/Native Game Torrents), use proprietard software on (OneDrive), then BSD is a useless OS whose repertoire of software is exclusively made up of FOSSware that while good, is not sufficient enough to fill the hole created by the lack of native games, though supposedly FreeBSD has some kind of "Linux to BSD" thing that works like Wine. There's also the fact that FreeBSD, the most popular BSD operating system contains more or less the same amount of binary blobs the linux kernel does, while OpenBSD basically requires you to get a thinkpad to be able to use it properly.

>>55353 Well if you're not a retarded consoomer /g/ refugee, you'll find that BSDs are not only more than usable on a computer but are in fact more usable if you know what you're doing. I use FreeBSD on my server and desktop and OpenBSD on my laptop. I plan on installing Gentoo into a dataset on my zpool and dual booting it because I play games sometimes, I use proprietary chat apps in the browser if I need them (which is better than having them installed on my computer anyways as far as I'm concerned), and as for other soykaf like OneDrive, I don't even know why you would need to use that soykaf in the first place. I use FOSS software for everything else I need. I was using Syncthing for file synchronization but am going to switch to git-annex, I use emacs+org-mode for notetaking/writing, I use emacs for writing software, I have firefox for when I need a fat modern browser. On my servers that run FreeBSD I have an OS with an advanced file system (ZFS) and advanced virtualization capabilities (bhyve + jails) and an advanced networking stack, all integrated seamlessly into the base OS and all extremely stable. With the base install of FreeBSD I can run essentially any software I need in an environment that is designed as a complete system in a sane fashion that works, is comprehensible and well-documented. For security-critical services I can run them in OpenBSD and have a secure-by-default OS that can do quite a bit without even needing to install ports (such as having an HTTP server, a load balancer, and an SMTP server all built in and developed with the rest of the OS). For anything that isn't part of the base systems, I have access to the ports tree and can easily customize the software I run or port software, again in a way that is sanely integrated into the OS. From a desktop use perspective, there's not a huge difference between Linux and BSDs except for the fact that the BSDs aren't a pile of garbage all slapped together without any guiding vision behind the development of the OS as a whole, which makes it possible for me to use and understand my OS from within the OS as it was intended to be done, using the man pages and the base tools. I don't have to slap on any third party software to make the OS usable or comprehensible and it doesn't by default come with software that was never developed alongside the base OS. I'm able to use my computer for typical things like browsing the internet, viewing media, writing, even doing multimedia work, and it all works and makes sense. For development it's even better because the BSDs adhere much closer than Linux to standard POSIX practices and there's far less bullshit for me to deal with that is specific to a Linux distro I'm using or whatever stupid nonsense has become the newest standard way of doing things in Linux (like moving away from ifconfig to ip on Linux). And I'm not even going to mention systemd. With OpenBSD specifically, yes, it supports less hardware. The team is smaller than FreeBSD and both are orders of magnitude smaller than the amount of development labor that goes into Linux and the surrounding Linux ecosystem. Either way, I don't find that to be much of a problem. I wouldn't use anything other than a Thinkpad X230 anyways because modern laptops aren't designed in a way that I like and aren't as repairable or moddable as old Thinkpads, nor can they run coreboot. And you know what? It is perfectly usable for me. I have no issues with it. With FreeBSD, I'm running it on my desktop with modern hardware with essentially no issues. My nvidia GPU even works on it since I can't afford right now to replace it with an AMD GPU. So to summarize, your definition of a computer working or being usable is entirely disconnected from my experiences using BSDs and is really only relevant to using soykafty proprietary software the usage of which should be minimized anyways. I don't even know why I'm making a serious response to this though because your standard of "usable computer" is being able to play muh vidya gaymes, so again, fuarrrk off back to /g/.

Here comes the proprietary user...

>>55358 What the actual fuarrrk are you talking about? If I wanted an OS that was niche but nonfunctional I'd just use Haiku instead of ANYTHING else. However, I'm not going to because I don't tie my ego to how obscure my current operating system is. I use Linux because it works pretty damn well, and that's good enough for me. You use BSDs because you're constantly agonizing over whether your binaries in /opt or some other soykaf no one cares about. Also, I'd like to hear about whether or not you're employed because I work in Sysadmin and believe me, all our equipment runs on windows XP... because the proprietary company software was made 30 years ago and never replaced. Also, for a 'good' nice hobby OS take a look at Redox, or as I like to call it, 'BSD if it were Good'. Frankly, I don't give a soykaf what sysutils I'm using as long as they're FOSS, I also stopped caring about the systemd vs runit vs OpenRC war a long time ago. Which is why I think Redox will probably be a pretty good OS at some point because it'll actually have a DE as part of its 'maintained core', which is something that BSD lacks, a desktop environment that's actually made to work seamlessly with the rest of the OS utilities instead of one that feels like it's just another frontend to some CLI tools. I also don't have the time or interest to learn how to set up a BSD the way I like on my machine. I will commend FreeBSD though, for having fresh software packages (I have no idea what ports are, aren't they just what you call compiling some software yourself? Bloody useless.) unlike most eunuch OSes. But do tell me how exactly I'll be able to fully use BSD for work despite it being stuck in a niche of a niche as one of those dependencies for netflix's software stack maintained by a small circle of spergs.

so this combines the cruft of GNU with the hardware support of BSD… >Hyperbola GNU/Linux-libre operating system. The Hyperbola Project is a community driven effort to provide a fully free (as in freedom) operating system that is stable, secure, simple, lightweight that tries to Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS) under a Long Term Support (LTS) way. >Derived from Arch plus stability and security from Debian, Hyperbola provides packages from it that meet the GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines (GNU FSDG) and replacements for the packages that don't meet this requirement. Packages are provided for the i686 and x86_64 architectures.

>>55670 Except that's not true. BSD is compatible with a wide variety of modern software. Not excluding but including GCC 11, minecraft, steam, and more galore! If you or a family member are interested in hearing more, please drop us a line at www.ghostbsd.org>>55670

>>55353 BSD is extremely mature and supports almost the same range of hardware and software as linux, with most software outliers being things that BSD had before linux.

>>55353 SHUT THE fuarrrk UP!!! BSD IS FINE. BSD IS GOOD. SHUT THE fuarrrk UP!

>>55670 >cruft of GNU biased interpretation of an internet meme, many programs made from GNU are minimalist but keeping this fake news will kill them >with the hardware support of BSD They can now bring Linux (GPL) drivers to BSD which is a strong advantage, for example they get to bring new filesystems

>>55922 Have you read the source code? Lets just take a look at cat . Cat.c for OpenBSD is easily readable and just a couple hundred lines. FreeBSD has thousands and so does GNU. Why is that? Is it because GNU has the professional implementation of cat, or b/c its cruft? How about glibc ? Musl and ulibc exist simply because of the cruft. Google based a libc, bionic, for android on OpenBSD libc - was that to escape glibc's cruft?

>>55924 glibc is a very bad codebase. That doesn't say anything about "all gnu software" though. Then again, it's usually not a good sign, as you mentioned. There's a lot of stuff that they do that doesn't really have anything in common, developed by completely different people etc. gzip is a GNU project for example, and has shown the test of time as a good compression algorithm. Nothing is miles better at all three of compression size, decompression speed, and compression speed, for a generic use case.

>>55924 And busybox's cat is even smaller but is even more tangled than systemd (is replacing the init by now). GNU coreutils may have flaws but are feature complete and reliable while being focused on one task, is people that ask for the extra features. That one guy doesnt use them doesnt mean nobody does. The reasoning behind "BSD is better than GNU" is the cause the BSD ecosystem remains crippled and that corporations like CISCO and Apple are taking advantage. We dont use feature complete BSDs, we use crippleware. I am not saying GNU software doesnt suffer from "BLOAT" in some applications, but the features are used and for many people they are not bloat but a necessity. I do agree we should have more options to not put all our eggs in one basket. Fighting with people who use the features breaks the communication and they in return decide to kill anything following the unix philosophy out of despite. This stupid crusade has to end.

>>53681 Last commit to the kernel was 7 months ago, not too bad.