BSD thread

Lets discuss the superior UNIX ITT. Benefits of using BSD: - less GNU - minimal, more permissive license eliminates licensing issues - FreeBSD is faster than Linux [1] - FreeBSD can still play Linux games with the compatibility layer [1] - OpenBSD is more secure than Linux [2] - ports tree brings in all kinds of third party software (similar to Arch's AUR) Are you using BSD /tech/? How's it working for you? [1] http://phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_games_bsd [2] https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/osor/news/ep-study-%E2%80%9Ceu-should-finance-key-open-source-tools%E2%80%9D

Here's a GNU/Linux user who'd like to migrate to OpenBSD or FreeBSD. The only concern stopping me is actual hardware support. Does anyone here run *BSD on a 2015 Dell Latitude E5550? Can't find anything for this particular model, and don't want to scrap my system for nothing.

Just to motivate this discussion (no flame, please): The BSD systems are developed inside one of the best university of the world, with all kind of hard computing, math and crypto science. Gnu+Linux systems is developed by Linus (a academic when they start the development) and a MIT guy. That's not really a argument, since you can have a better system even if it's developed by only one person, but think yourself how this add much credibility to BSD. That's not just yet another unix. Actually: >"If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, >Linux would probably never had happened." - Torvalds[1] >Are you using BSD /tech/? Yes. OpenBSD -current >How's it working for you? Perfectly. To be fair: package resolution is primitive yet on openbsd, and no framebuffer support is annoying since I used w3m. [1] http://gondwanaland.com/meta/history/interview.html

>>7141 Try it in live mode FreeBSD, for example. And, yes, NetBSD will run on it. The following is the most modern machine I had running OpenBSD without problems: $ uname -a OpenBSD mutus.my.domain 5.7 GENERIC.MP#857 i386 $ dmidecode Base Board Information Manufacturer: ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. Product Name: P8H61-M LX2 R2.0 Processor Information Socket Designation: LGA1155 Type: Central Processor Version: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-3470 CPU @ 3.20GHz Manufacturer: Intel >intel yeah. If you're looking for a machine to play with *bsd buy Athlon 64 or: http://wiki.thincan.org/DBE63

I use OSX.

>>7145 I have not checked if the coreboot on DBE63 have support for SeaBIOS (needed to run BSD). Sorry. Rectifying: Athlon-64 or SPARC64 (servers of openbsd run on SPARCstation 20, for example).

I'm worried about the lack of available software for BSD. I used Debian for a while and sacked some user accessibility for software/documentation with Arch. The AUR is a dream. How comparable is pkgng?

>>7149 I, personally, have no problem. Almost all packages on debian, each I use, are on repo. The only software that I used and don't have in repository is rtorrent. Since it's no more supported I switched to aria2 and transmission.

>darkengine gets banned from #openbsd

yeah i mean BSD is definitely a viable OS for many use cases >>7151 thee hee hee

Using OpenBSD on servers where security is crucial. But while i love how it's set up and the userland tools, I somehow don't think it would fare as well as Linux in a desktop scenario. Oh and muh games too.

>>7151 Thanks. I kekked. Those mac applications sure have a nice aesthetic to them.

>Comparing ports to Arch's AUR and not Gentoo's portage

Currently reading Absolute OpenBSD second edition, hope to do some server side stuff with it the next time I get the chance to set up a firewall or server for professional use

>>7179 Important remark that wasn't mentioned: You can distribute and sell software under GPL license. But only with source code supplied. No one really wins ins this situation. I do want to add, though: BSD = laissez-faire Free GPL = interventionalist Free Both are free, but with a differing underlying ideologies. BSD says do what you want, GPL says do what you want, but don't exploit others. If GPL was strict about this idea, they would disallow commercialization (which would clearly allow distributions where you pay the costs to produce and ship physical copies). In the end, it's a messy fight between evangelists.

>>7181 >Important remark that wasn't mentioned: You can distribute and sell software under GPL license. But only with source code supplied. No one really wins ins this situation. depending on your buisness-case having to publish your source code can be fine. It's a shame how fuarrrking many routers etc. run on soykaf, security-by-obscurity firmware to the detriment of the users

>>7179 Modifying open source binaries and closing them is worse theft than piracy. You are literally stealing from the same community members that spent their time on your product. You don't deserve freedom if you don't respect other people's freedom. And taking open source software and then closing it is definitely not respecting others freedom. And the GPL does not give you the freedom to do that,basically steal from the community. The GPL does not disallow you to do proprietary software. It just does not allow you to be an asshole and abuse open source software by making it closed or distributing it bundled with open source software. In other words what I like so much about the GPL is that it has that "Live free or die" attitude.

>>7208 Or to add more: I have written this as free software and have given it to you so you can do everything you want with it,but it would be *curteous* of you if you would not steal it by changing 1 line of code and thinking you now have the right to make it closed source just because you stole my and the community's work.

>>7208 >>7209 absolutely. personally, i'm ok with BSD and GNU licenses, it's just important that you know what you potentially allow people to do. De facto, people also take GNU stuff and make closed sauce products like car firmware from it. by the way what license is the linux kernel? also GNU?

answering my own question >Initially, Torvalds released Linux under a license which forbade any commercial use.[32] This was changed in version 0.12 to the GNU General Public License (GPL).[17] This license allows distribution and sale of possibly modified and unmodified versions of Linux but requires that all those copies be released under the same license and be accompanied by the complete corresponding source code. >Torvalds has described licensing Linux under the GPL as the "best thing I ever did."[32]

>>7211 Yes,I am also ok with both,but unless I will have a specific reason to not release something under the GPL,I will GPL or LGPL everything.

You guys can't do a discussion without GPL vs BSD license? Please, come back to the topic. The OP say nothing about license. I'll start doing a question (I honestly don't know in details): what was the real reason about @deraadt extruded from netbsd? Something related with Assange?

>>7213 yeah i think that's the way to go

I wish I could. But OpenBSD is not really known for it's speed, hence it is not usable on my toaster T60, while Linux is. I fuarrrked around with VMs and ran it on a little homeserver, worked flawlessly. I especially like how everything is in /usr/src, which makes it a great learning resource.

Grsecurity > openbsd

Huh, I don't know. I've used Ubuntu for three years, and the last year I dropped Unity so I move towards not using the mouse with i3. My computer is not very fast and won't be for a while. I'm moving from Ubuntu in a bit because it's adware and I was thinking of installing Debían. Is BSD for me?

>>7223 Yes. Not many people here seem to have used BSD. As a BSD user, i'll suggest you should try it.

>>7151

>>7151 >>7230 I don't understand. What happened?

>>7231 >darkengine was derezzed from #openbsd >kalyx and junk went to #openbsd and asked why darkengine was derezzed and that he was a new to bsd. >darkengine was super embarrassed. >they figured it out. >kalyx sent a support ticket to dark engines job that was a joke, >darkengine had to explain the whole joke to his boss.

>>7230 10/10 would laugh a third time.

>>7234 Hey, that seems like a mean thing to do! My friends would never do that, and I would get pretty mad if they did. Why are they such dicks?

>>7236 From what I understood their friendship is based on dank memes.

What do you guys think about this: https://wiki.installgentoo.com/index.php/BSD ?

>>7238 Idiot. People that write it don't know soykaf about what they are talking about.

>>7240 The "BSD is dying" thing is a copypasta as old as the hills. I can't say I'm surprised it's in the /g/ wiki; copypastas are all they know. The BSD thread was pretty active on /g/ last time I was on there 8 months ago, though.

>>7242 Huh,I now I have said some soykaf against BSD in this thread,but they did not even sauce that article. BSD,like Linux will never die.Someone will just fork it.

>>7151 What kind of IRC client is that?

>>7140 Newcomer here to OpenBSD I've only used GNU/Linux Ubuntu derivatives are there any quick tutorials out there on getting OpenBSD to the same level of functionality? I'm not very experienced with this stuff. thanks

>>7411 The documentation of OpenBSD is one of the best in unix-like systems. Read the FAQ on openbsd.org , you can install just following it. After you finish, reboot and login on Xenocara (the X11 version of OpenBSD): $ startx Open a xterm and type: $ vi ~/.profile And then write this line (to insert text on vi you need to press "i" first): alias PKG_PATH=http://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/snapshots/packages/i386/ Then save using ESC and then :w and enter key. I suppose you're using a snapshot image on i386 architecture, but you can change it yourself. And then, enter on root account (Ctrl+Alt+F1 and then type root and your password) and type: # pkg_add -vi xfce Wait until he finish the installation. After he did it, write: # vi /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc Then go to the last line that say: [...] xterm & fvwm || xterm if [ "$SSH_AGENT_PID" ]; then ssh-add -D < /dev/null eval `ssh-agent -s -k` fi [...] Change the "fvwm" to "xfce". Then run Xenocara again and... voila, you have a OpenBSD with XFCE. Now install some packages like: # pkg_add -vi firefox youtube-dl mupdf ... Also, if you have any question always use first the man pages. Like: I don't know how to use vi... what I do? Go to the man page: $ man vi He will open the nvi(1) page and you can see the "FAST STARTUP".

>>7412 soykaf there a line wrong. It's: alias $PKG_PATH=http://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/snapshots/packages/i386/ Don't forget the "$" first of "$PKG_PATH".

For my desktop I prefer Linux. I need a lot of pretty specific software and it's just a pain to port everything myself. I primarily use crux and sometimes slackware- which are about as plain unix as linux can get. Crux, for example, uses a ports system for package management and BSD style init scripts. I've used openBSD on webservers and been very impressed. Really clean, efficient system. I've not been impressed with freeBSD. Some changes they made which broke the ports tree on older versions annoyed me quite a bit. It seemed that I was constantly trying to work around specific systems that could just as well have been general. It just struck that sour spot with me like debian of wanting to do everything for me but not being able. Some time when I get the chance I'm going to play with retro BSD. That looks like a damn cool system.

>>7439 We are discussion software. I think thats more than a few miles away from rape.

>>7440 He didn't express his point well, but he's right. Freedom should and does not include the freedom to deny freedom to others.

>>7443 But then the only really _free_ "licences" would be WTFPL and CC0.

>>7444 Why would you say that? I'm arguing the opposite. For instance WTFPL does allow you to not share your modified sources, thus denying freedom to your users. And CC is irrelevant here, since it doesn't have much to do with software. This debate has been going on for a long time, but it's only fair that developers should choose their licenses on a per project basis. IMHO, permissive licences are well suited to academic works while you might want to use GPL and so for software blocks which should be kept free whatever the circumstances (like a compiler or a kernel for instance).

>>7443 >Freedom should >should I don't know man... you're doing it wrong, from my perspective. Freedom "should" not do nothing. Freedom is not limited to what you or a group of people think, they are just free, no rules. If your ideology think the freedom "should" do something, then it's no more freedom, because freedom is plenitude state. There are many philosophy about it, so almost everything we discuss here already have many books and things like that. I think it's a linguistic problem too, english and latin derived languages don't have specific words to describe what we are trying to express.

>>7446 You're falling for that old blunder. When i say freedom when referring to software licenses, I'm referring to freedom as defined by RMS and the FSF. Oh and for the record i disagree with you on philosophical terms, freedom isn't some natural state of affairs, it's something gained through the social contract. Freedom doesn't merely come with rules, without rules, freedom does not exist. Animals aren't free, to the contrary, they are governed by the strong. Only through civilization have we unburdened ourselves from the rash realities of nature and transcended them to the point where human beings were able to decide what to do with their lives.

>>7447 >without rules, freedom does not exist. Sorry, can you justify it? It's absurdly no sense to me. Suppose a atom is on void. There no rules there, yet, the atom have the freedom do whatever movement if he need to do... this does not prove you're wrong?

>>7451 Funnily enough, your physics example is spot on. See atoms only exist because the universe is a certain way, obeys certain laws. Suppose the strong force wasn't that strong, or electromagnetism didn't decay with distance, suppose the rules were different, the mere concept of an atom couldn't be. There must be order for there to be freedom. And it's the same in society, if there aren't any laws there can't be any order and therefore no freedom. You can't choose what you do with your life when you're only fighting to survive.

Post screenshots of your BSD's. I fuarrrked up my FreeBSD install again so no screenshot.

>>7454 OSX is not BSD dude.

>>7455 Yes it is a UNIX certified derivative of FreeBSD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution

>>7456 No, it's not. The only part of OSX that have code from BSD is the network stack and part of the libc. It's based on Mach kernel, have nothing to do with BSD.

>>7457 >Also Darwin, the system on which Apple's Mac OS X is built, is a derivative of 4.4BSD-Lite2 and FreeBSD. I don't know, mate.

>>7458 The wiki is wrong. The history of OSX: Mach kernel, 4.2BSD and FreeBSD was being developed. Apple forked it and did the XNU kernel: http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/ancient/whatismacosx/arch_xnu.html There "few" things on XNU from BSD, this include network stack and virtual file system. After that, Apple started Darwin, a open source project, with the goal to construct a solid user land, using a fork of their own XNU kernel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_%28operating_system%29#Kernel Years after that, Apple wanted it to be closed source, so they stripped out every GPL code from Darwin, work on parts of the userland (like the Window Manager/Desktop enviroment, package manager, compiler collection [Clang], so on) and rebranded it as Mac OSX. After so many years, few things from FreeBSD remain on OSX, mainly the network stack. Also, parts of the libc use OpenBSD's libc code (at least on IOS).

>>7459 It must be pretty close considering almost everything compiles without any modifications. Even the mascot is trying to be a daemon.

This book says the Mach kernel and FreeBSD are part of the same family in that they have the same origin, but OS X is not derived from FreeBSD and both are significantly different, as both FreeBSD and OS X have made many changes since branching off 4.4BSD. OS X is certified as POSIX [1], but that doesn't make it BSD, that makes it UNIX. [1] http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3555.htm

>>7461 but muh darwin is the bridge.

>>7459 >The wiki is wrong Feel free to fix that

<3<3

>>7461 This is exactly what I said here >>7459 >>7463 Why I should? Mac fags can't even research their own system... >>7464 You know the progress of HAMMER2? This filesystem will be amazing.

>>7468 Don't call me a macfag. Here is the Git todo list for HAMMER2 http://gitweb.dragonflybsd.org/dragonfly.git/blob/464659a3bd4716e96c69eecdf324d8fa37e16788:/sys/vfs/hammer2/TODO

HAs anyone managed to get steam working?

>>7478 Linux games on Steam work on FreeBSD with its Linux compatibility layer. Sadly, the same is not true of OpenBSD, as it has no such layer.

Daily reminder that OpenBSD's ASLR & PID randomization implementations are insecure and that FreeBSD doesn't even have ASLR.

>>7496 issat so well that's a shame

>>7496 >>7498 OpenBSD is one of the first systems to do ASLR. It's secure, not weak (there papers about it, can is all audited). About PID randomization, it's already discussed on mailing list: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=143259096807335&w=2

>>7500 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=143273016311039&w=2 >However, minor the 100 items array, OpenBSD uses random PIDs. While it >indeed reduces the attack surface against PID predictions (mostly local exploits) it facilitates attacks relying on PID reuse (includes remote exploits, so attacks with higher risk than local exploits). >So all in all I'm not convinced at all that using random PIDs reduces the attack surface, I was actuallyworrying if it may not be actually counter productive in terms of security. OpenBSD's implementation of PID randomization opens you up to remote exploits.

>>7503 OpenBSD have no full randomization of PID, and you really have no readed all the mails. @deraadt: >"That is not a protection; actually more of a strategy to deal with >badly written code so that the ports guys don't lose their hair as >quickly." A bit idealistic, but that's the way of OpenBSD. >"The safe way is to avoid use of such deterministic non-random >functions" That's why OpenBSD project substitute all the functions with arc4random: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=141807224826859&w=2 >"It must take a lot of maintainance to regurgitate that kind of bad practice back into the >software ecosystem over and over again."

Off-topic meta discussion can go on /q/ if you have a question about why a post was deleted, you can also join #lainchan on irc.freenode.net . This isn't 4chan/g/, it is against the rules to derail threads. Please do not respond to me here.

Mac OS X is considered to be the most commercially successful BSD variant. OS X is built on the XNU kernel, Darwin OS, and Aqua/Finder on the top. The NeXT Mach kernel shares code from BSD. The FreeBSD Handbook states "OS X borrows heavily from FreeBSD for the network stack, virtual file system, and many userland components." FreeBSD states in many places that they share code. https://wiki.freebsd.org/Myths Apple is listed under "Who uses FreeBSD" here. https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/nutshell.html "This is as much a myth about OS X as about FreeBSD: that OS X is just FreeBSD with a pretty GUI. The two operating systems do share a lot of code, for example most userland utilities and the C library on OS X are derived from FreeBSD versions. Some of this code flow works in the other direction, for example FreeBSD 9.1 and later include a C++ stack and compiler that were originally developed for OS X, with major parts of the work done by Apple employees. Other parts are very different. The XNU kernel used on OS X includes a few subsystems from (older versions of) FreeBSD, but is mostly an independent implementation. The similarities in the userland, however, make it much easier to port OS X code to FreeBSD than any other system. For example, both libdispatch (Grand Central Dispatch in Apple's marketing) and libc++ were written for OS X and worked on FreeBSD before any other OS." The relationship between Darwin and BSD is mentioned many times here. "OS X" shows up 16 times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution The OS family for Darwin is "Unix (BSD)" BSD is mentioned in the first sentence, then 10 more times in the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system) OS X is a BSD derivative and deserves to be in this thread plain and simple. Just look at the logo for God's sake.

Using OpenBSD as a PDC and firewall here. It will be a perfect world if it ran muh vidya well, but for that I'm okay with Gentoo Hardened.

>>7530 have you messed with pfsense?

>>7141 I tried running OpenBSD on my Dell Latitude. The wifi card (mine is the Qualcomm Atheros QCA9565 / AR9565) isn't supported so you will have to use a dongle. It runs fine however I didn't test it extensively because I want/need the few games I play, bumblebee and virtualization.

>>7140 >FreeBSD is faster than Linux Actually according to the FreeBSD foundation this isn't the case. "BSD systems, in particular FreeBSD, can have notably higher performance than Linux. But this is not across the board. In many cases, there is little or no difference in performance. In some cases, Linux may perform better than FreeBSD." https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/explaining-bsd/comparing-bsd-and-linux.html

As soon as libreboot supports OpenBSD or vice versa then it's back to being my daily driver. I have been seriously considering putting it on another of my machines, but muh vidja gaymes.

Would you recommend FreeBSD or OpenBSD to someone new? Philosophically, I prefer OpenBSD's approach but I'm not sure what the practical choice would be.

>>7811 as far as documentation and software, FreeBSD.

>>7813 Perhaps I can start with FreeBSD and then evaluate OpenBSD when I'm more familiar with the platform.

UNIX it is then: Robert Nordier successfully ported Unix v7 to x86 if you want to try it out: http://www.nordier.com/v7x86/ It is also possible to get the original copies of v1-7 from here: http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Distributions/research/ Enjoy.

Please keep this thread on-topic and discuss GPL vs. BSD in another thread. It would also be helpful if everyone used the report button, instead of responding to bait.

>can't discuss licensing even though the OP blatantly mentions the BSD license as a plus Lainchan mods confirmed even more Nazi than 4chan mods.

>>7882 If you guys could handle it there would not be a problem. I just deleted a bunch of soykaf-laden meme replies about GPL vs. BSD. It's a sensitive topic that everyone from imageboards has soured. Arguing like babies is against the rules. Make a separate, new thread. Don't respond to me here, post on /q/ or come to IRC.

OpenBSD had the world's first remotely exploitable kernel: https://lwn.net/Articles/225947/ There was also a remote root exploit for OpenSSH further showing the incompetence of OpenBSD developers: https://packetstormsecurity.com/files/26328/sshutup-theo.tar.gz.html OpenBSD = ripped NetBSD with added vulnerabilities

>>7973 They've had 2 remote exploits ever. Compare that to Win 7 http://www.cvedetails.com/product/17153/Microsoft-Windows-7.html?vendor_id=26 or linux http://www.cvedetails.com/vendor/33/Linux.html Now OpenBSD http://www.cvedetails.com/vendor/97/Openbsd.html Nigga pls.

Practically speaking, why should I use BSD over Linux?

>>7981 You have a operating system project where you don't want to share sources.