Somewhat serious BSD discussion

...

I'm read-only though. Can't into recaptcha.

This was enough for me to stop considering BSD family as a viable choice for production and home environment.
whonix.org/wiki/FAQ#Why_isn.27t_OpenBSD_Used.3F
whonix.org/wiki/FAQ#Why_isn.27t_FreeBSD_Used.3F

Protip newfag, the only difference between these two is license. Since I'm sure you and other newfags don't understand I will explain.
GCC and Clang are both the exact same gigantic tumors of c++ cancer. They are both on a race to the bottom in terms of generated binary safety and quality. They have little to no care about doing things the right way they only care about who benchmarks faster. Since this a BSD thread we will use OpenBSD as an example. Lets navigate to the source tree (/usr/src), now lets look and see what folder contains GCC and Clang. Thats right! Its the gnu folder. What does gnu stand for in OpenBSD land? Gigantic Nasty Unavoidable! If you don't agree with this try timing the build time of clang and modern gcc. Then compile gcc 2,3, or 4.2.4, and witness that it is multiple orders of magnitude faster than clang and modern gcc. Next you might question why OpenBSD deems them unavoidable. The only thing in OpenBSD base that requires a c++ compiler is in fact the compilers themselves no? Well this is true unfortunately c++ has weaseled itself in almost everywhere else. If OpenBSD wasn't to include it then many people would have to install one immediately afterwords and as far as I am aware these modern compilers can't even bootstrap themselves from a purely C compiler. Bjarne Stroustrup was a mistake

This is incorrect. Simplicity and Correctness are the governing features for OpenBSD. As it turns out security is tangential to these things, however it is not the main focus of OBSD.
See above, it was removed because it was too complex. Security could have been fixed.
Otherwise I think the rest of the post is not bad.

parallel*

Noted. Probably made other mistakes along the way - the comparison isn't really complete. I asked for input on those points, but there was only so much response

Simpler and less code makes it also more secure. Nobody was using Linux compat feature, so it got removed. It's the same reason code for DOS and other ancient platforms got removed from LibreSSL. Useless clutter is a distraction (waste of time) at best. Besides, nowadays it's more common to run stuff in a VM than depend on these flakey compat layers that nobody is interested in maintaining. Or did you submit any patches?

I see a lot of FreeBSD vs OpenBSD posting, but never much for NetBSD. I know it is primarily of interest for old hardware and the like, but has anyone here tried it on some things remotely modern (or at all really). How is it? Why would you use it over one of the other two?

You just re-worded and expanded upon what I said.
Obviously not, I wasn't using it either. I stated it was removed because it was too complex, which along with being irrelevant is exactly why it was removed. If it was relevant then any security holes could have been fixed. You mentioned a prime example of this with libressl.


My main issue with NetBSD is that some of their dev's don't realize when reported security vulnerabilities are in fact vulnerabilities. See the Illja Sprundel talk that gets posted for examples of this. I do love seeing all the classic hardware that the Japanese NetBSD users rice out with weebshit. I personally really want a luna68k or luna88k, but would likely use the openbsd port instead.