BSD thread?

Depends on what you want to do. I suggest benchmarking for your particular situation (and sharing your results, we don't have enough BSD benchs).

I'm trying out DragonflyBSD. I've been at it for a few hours.
The experience has been inferior to OpenBSD at least. The default OpenBSD shell was fine (though I installed zsh anyway), but DragonflyBSD has been quirky. When I installed zsh I had this weird issue where the prompt would be prefixed by "2004h" and when I pressed enter the line I pressed it in would be suffixed by "2004l". Tab completions on the default shell sometimes work, sometimes don't. For instance I can tab complete a filename after typing in "nano", but not "ls".
I couldn't scroll up and down until I had the idea of pulling up the old "press scroll lock and use the arrow keys" and it worked. Not really a downside, just a quirk. I don't even remember where I learned that, which brings the question, is there a manpage or a book to read about these details like shortcuts on a framebuffer shell?
I installed sudo and tried to run it without a sudoers, got the usual "you're on santa's naughty list", and the message was sent to the root user through mail. First time I ever saw that actually work. I then logged in as root, installed tmux, read the man page of sudoers on one side and input commands on the other. tmux seems to be broken on dragonfly, the green bar on the bottom keeps replicating itself upwards every few seconds. I've added myself to the wheel group and logged in as my non-root user, but sudo didn't work all the same. Decided not to bother with it.
The documentation is pretty bad, I decided to try synth which I read about on some other thread, and read a bit of the manpage.
I saw "synth configure" and the manpage said it would help me configure synth. It also said how it would behave if the PORTSDIR environment variable was not set. The gist of it is that the configure option would get the configuration from /usr/share/mk and if that failed try the /usr/ports and /usr/dports if PORTSDIR was not set.
I decided to just create one and then both of the directories, but nothing worked like the manpage claimed. I then ran "env PORTSDIR=/usr/dports synth configure" and synth exited with the error message "Configuration failed to load". I already don't like synth, because it doesn't actually work and the manpage is wrong.
I'm currently installing lumina and xorg to see how a GUI dragonfly system works, but so far I'd rather just use OpenBSD over DragonflyBSD both as a desktop and a server.

Attached: 1445197686285-0.png (794x560, 399.19K)

Forgot to mention, I didn't just add myself to wheel, I also allowed the wheel group to sudo, but it didn't work.
I already had bad experiences with 3 installed packages that work fine on every other OS I tried, who knows how many else are there?
The xorg stuff will take a while, it's downloading below 100KB/s and it's a 134MB download.

I'm not familiar with dragonfly, but openbsd code is so well audited that any other choice seems silly.

I don't like DragonflyBSD already.
Everything has a minor but glaring issue, manuals are wrong, nothing has stood out as desirable.
Might drop looking at it after this X server stuff. NetBSD is next, but not today.

Disable bracketed paste. In general, the console is really outdated. I didn't have your sudo/synth issues, honestly.

The experience you get right now is like Gentoo 10 years ago, I'd say. OpenBSD has a lot more manpower and funding, of course it's gonna be more streamlined (and have better docs). With its resources, I prefer Dfly focusing on the technical side, honestly. Maybe waiting is the best thing to do, but contributing to make it better seems worthwhile.

Anyway, you have no reason to not use Gentoo. I don't use the BSDs for this exact reason: I don't want to choose the "least worse" compromise between performances, usability and politics.

I don't know much about the BSDs other than what I learned from fucking around in OpenBSD and NetBSD VMs, but I have been curious, so I will just ask people that may know. Is PacBSD (previously known as ArchBSD) any good? I heard about it a couple times, and I like Arch overall, but it has systemd, so I would rather avoid it. Thinking about the BSDs always reminds me of it. Maybe that would be a good Arch replacement, I don't know.

Kinda reluctant to try Gentoo on my computer when I have an Intel Core 2 Duo E6300. I will probably get a better Core 2 Duo at some point, but I don't intend to ever use hardware that came out after around 2008, not on a machine that I want to be as uncucked as I can possibly make it. I want it to be perfect.

Attached: 924.jpg (1280x720, 81.62K)

Why not just acquire a quad/hexa core Phenom II desktop? They're dirt cheap and easy to find (they were commonly deployed in enterprise/business environments) and as a bonus, they're free of the PSP. (Your CPU has the IME.) Goes without saying, but don't buy anything with Bulldozer/Piledriver CPUs even if you can get a great deal - a hexa core Phenom II beats them in every real (so, non-integer heavy) workload.

Is there any chance AMD Polaris GPUs will ever be supported in Dragonfly? I'd really like to switch to BSD on my desktop if possible, and this seems like the best option.

I got a MATE desktop running. I had trouble with that too, dbus threw an error and I had to google for it. In the end I had to run "dbus-uuidgen > /etc/machine-id" as root.
For some reason the games in the /usr/games folder sometimes belong to the games group and sometimes to the wheel group. For instance "Worm" belongs to the wheel group, but "rogue" belongs to the games group. It's like I said before, everything has a minor but glaring issue. I can just run chown root:games on the entire folder, but when you have to do some manual fixing with previous knowledge or looking things up on google for the entire operating system it gets really annoying. If I'm doing that I might aswell stay on Linux.

I don't really know how DragonflyBSD performs I haven't ran benchmarks and this is just a single core VM with 2GBs of RAM. All I can tell is that a 3.4ghz single core with 2GBs of RAM has more than enough resources to run a DE. If the claim that DragonflyBSD is the fastest unix-like/unix-based OS out there is true maybe someone is willing to put up with its troubles, but I'm not. OpenBSD was still a better experience, everything just worked and the documentation was the best I have experienced.

So far my major qualm with both operating systems is how the release upgrade system on both of them is just insanity. Ubuntu has the extremely simple do-release-upgrade, rolling release distros don't have such a problem, debian uses the same manual instructions every release system but things are always much shorter and clearer.

OpenBSD: "Reboot into a special mode specifically to update and run this huge list of commands"
openbsd.org/faq/upgrade63.html
DragonflyBSD: "Manually pull our git repo then manually build and install things with make (does this even use the package manager?)"
dragonflybsd.org/docs/handbook/Upgrading/
dragonflybsd.org/release52/

OpenBSD made a lot of partitions for a lot of things by default, and it wasn't clear what each one of them was for. DragonflyBSD made a boot partition, a root partition and a swap partition. OpenBSD's choice makes me question whether or not it's a good idea to just make my own partition scheme because if the developers picked things this way maybe they're neccessary, but on DragonflyBSD I can see I could just separate my home partition if I wanted. Either way both OS'es fail on this regard by just assuming the user knows everything. A pop up asking "do you want a separate home partition" or whatever would be optimal. Most linux distros fail on this regard too, I think an OS developer can't expect people to have gathered knowledge from the limbo, or to be aware of random things that aren't immediately obvious. Imagine how much time the world has lost because everyone who ever learned how to use a shell in one of these modern unix operating systems had to stumble upon the shell's features to learn them because their documentation is garbage, whereas older operating systems came with books that taught you all you should know.

NetBSD comes later, but so far OpenBSD is winning, except when you have to upgrade your release. I know OpenBSD-current is a thing, but rolling release on a server is asking for headaches, and even on a desktop it's not exactly a smart choice. I already have too many computers to dump my time maintaning every single one of them, and needless maintenance is dumb.

By the way the server I'll ultimately install one of those or Devuan on is a 64 bit single core sempron at 1.6ghz with no GPU and 1GB of DDR1 RAM.

Attached: spaghetti_copier.jpg (480x638, 33.75K)

What do you find difficult about the upgrade process? If you find the standard way too bothersome, you can get an iso from -current, burn it, boot from it, and select "Upgrade". On a server syspatch will serve you well (and you can just upgrade release by release).

The difference is in the fundamental design (LWKT, amiga ports-like messaging, tokens, system servers as lockfree/lockless processes). That said, it still needs a lot of polish.

I'm using one of these right now and I want to upgrade it eventually. Haven't done it yet because I don't really feel the need to, so I will probably keep procrastinating for a while. But I can definitely consider that. I used to have one of the hexa cores, actually.

Attached: 1.jpg (1500x896, 382.85K)

There's no special mode, you're just booting the new kernel. And the list of commands is like on page long, and they're not even complicated. Half of that is shit like extracting tarballs. If this is all it takes to keep complete plebs away, that's fine by me. OpenBSD will remain unpozzed so long as it doesn't cater to those niggers.

Attached: computer niggers.webm (1280x720, 1.39M)

I use Linux most of the time because I'm used to it and it has more software available but the BSDs are definitely designed and implemented in a far more simple and concise manner.
I wish more people used them so they'd get better support for things.

wow it's almost like I'm in /g/

i.imgur.com/Io8JvqC.png
this is the ideal desktop, you may not like it, many refuse to accept perfection

You lose.

are you actually fucking retarded? was that irony you just typed?

Hey my man, you know on the 8chans you don't have to upload images to a third party site to share them with us. I realize you're probably used to doing it this way from your many years on reddit, but Zig Forums actually has a neat feature that allows you to upload an image directly to this site and attach it directly to your post. Pretty neat, huh? This is a pretty important feature since this type of community is commonly known as an imageboard lol.

Attached: cool club.jpg (800x600, 48.39K)

Don't. I've tried them all and FreeBSD is the easiest to set up, has a shit ton of packages and building programs from source is automated and configurable. Also there's ZFS. It is a very good system, faggots or not.
If you aren't really interested in the other BSDs for their particular quirks and features (or want to develop), you should use FreeBSD. If you grow tired of it, you can transfer almost all of your acquired knowledge to other BSDs without headaches.

Attached: devil_strip_by_ink_pot.jpg (1024x1541, 165.89K)

I use OBSD on the daily it's a pretty nice experience. Great ACPI support, abundant documentation, and simple well designed CLI's make it a real plesure to work on especially on a laptop. The main two usecases it doesn't work well at all for are production systems with critical data because of the lack of ZFS or a alternative like Hammer or btrfs (sort of), and systems which need lots of packages not in the ports tree like if you play a lot of games or something like that. I think raid and UFS is plenty for your average home server and as a home router it's pretty unmatched. On the license issue I'm not a fan of the BSD license, if I contribute to the project I'd rather my code not be modified slightly and sold by a third party but I don't let that get in the way of me using the best software I can.

BSD's aren't distributions of one operating system like distributions of GNU are. All the BSD's, even ones like oBSD who have an active predecessor, are entirely different operating systems with a different kernel, packagebase, and userland. If there's any similarities between the projects, they're no more comparable with each other as they are with GNU, so until you can convince people that oBSD is a GNU/Linux distribution whose only meaningful distinction is its subtle "quirks" because they're both technically Unix-like operating systems with superficially compatible behaviors, it's just as disingenuous to imply that oBSD is a fBSD distribution or some facsimile, and that's very telling of the authority of your own advice, if the unwarranted, barely-related image you uploaded to your post for the sole purpose of garnering attention didn't already make that evident.

...

Yeah, I know, thanks.
Installation and configuration across the BSDs are very similiar, depending on the BSDs they use similiar documentation, they share developers, you will probably use the same tools and their filesystem hierarchy is really similiar too. If you can't take anything away from using FreeBSD for a month and apply it to, let's say, OpenBSD, then something went wrong. You can even use the same firewall (they're not entirely the same anymore though). They're probably more similiar to each other than slackware and ubuntu, or something.

If someone just wants to try out some BSD, my advice is to use FreeBSD for the reasons listed and not rule it out because of some SJW bs. I didn't imply they're just distributions and are basically the same, so maybe your paranoia has gotten the better of you or you can't actually read. The point stands: if you have no interest in any of the things that make NetBSD or OpenBSD or whateverBSD different, you may as well go the easy route and figure it out on the way there. OpenBSD is perfectly usable on a laptop, even when it's not a thinkpad - but I felt that FreeBSD was even easier to use and has features that make it attractive too. Also ZFS and naturally more up-to-date ports. NetBSD was the worst to set up for me personally (ports also out of date and good luck finding a server in Europe).

In case you didn't notice, there's no IDs here, so not sure what good your ad hominem is going to do.

I was never addressing your main point. As for my ad hominem, it was mostly just me insulting you for the hook shit itself, not in connection to your broader point. In that sense, it doesn't detract from the fact that's it's an impolite thing to do. I'm sorry if it came off that way. I don't know you too well, user, but I would expect such low behavior from the Kiki poster, not you.

...

Fuckin' nice.

this

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

Attached: 1465694169997.webm (1920x1080, 1.04M)

It's not funny, and the fact you believe this shit makes you the queer.

lol? Even the author admits it gets smoked by Linux as it has no drivers for fast hardware. All his benchmarks usually cripple Linux by showing how it'd perform if it were retarded and could use no hardware features made after 1999, but support for those features is what influences the design of truly modern OSes.

Attached: lol.png (1197x539, 135.11K)

Cuz it has a cooler logo

Fuck off if my board you degenerate.

Linux isn't Unix-like. It's POSIX conformant (and by it, I mean GNU/Linux, obviously). If you don't care, yeah, Linux is obviously the most performant (the net stack only got recently (4.16) up to par with FreeBSD).
t. Gentoo user

Attached: filenamedotpng.png (244x244, 43.43K)

Make me.

DF is my favorite. HAMMER is a really interesting filesystem and does what you'd need to get a specialty Linux distro to do (or spend days/weeks configuring.)

linus pls

No. I specifically do not have any GNU on my system. Only Linux and software that respects my freedom.

Attached: shut-up-richard.mp4 (1280x720, 611.29K)

Yeah. ZFS is ages of autistic configuration with its own autistic filesystem caching method that should be the kernel's job, meanwhile HAMMER2 just works and does every feature you'd want in a modern filesystem out of the box.

Isn't FreeBSD the BSD with the pozzed CoC?

What, how? Handling ZFS is super easy and convenient from what I've experienced. What did you want ZFS to do?

You're asking like you give a shit. It's also the easiest to get into (arguably), has ZFS and some other upsides. Letting the cumulated efforts of so many developers go to waste because some mentally handicapped men want you to imagine them as real girls is pants on head retarded. Not approving what happened, but nobody likes defeatists that feign interest. Theres a halfchan distro shitposting thread

Why are you letting them have root on your computer?

I mean, that's kind of how it's always been, considering the only reason why ZFS can't be distributed on Lignux is because of an incompatible license. It's a pretty fucked up irony that an ostensibly copycenter projects one claim to fame is that it basically has a walled-garden fs, and it isn't even the OS where mainline development happens--it just happens fBSD is slightly more enterprise-able. Without ZFS, fBSD-using sysmins wouldn't even be able to garner any derision towards Lignux, because they'd be effectively the same as most enterprise-oriented GNU distributions. On the bright side, with the advent of Ubuntu shipping with ZFS, that brickwall may be able to fade away.

ZFS is a frankenstein clusterfuck of bad design.
The only reason to use it is if you're stuck in 2006.

What do you recommend?

LVM and ext4. Add whatever else you need to that 'stack'. But don't shy away from LVM, it's wonderful.

Linux is nonfree software senpai.

I would prefer a nice usable public domain OS. Until then I will have to settle on just stripping out GPL3 code.

...

Reiserfs is better. It's a shame that Reiser4 will never be stable.

...

I fail to see what that has to do with anything. That's nothing more than a red herring.

How do you know? Who told you I have a single piece of gnu in my linux system?

Are you implying there's Linux in my GNU system?

If more men were like Hans Reiser, fewer women would be like Nina Reiser. The man has my respect.

Considering the fact that she's dead, wouldn't it mean more women would be like Nina Reiser?

Not spaghetti guy but I chose against OpenBSD for my routers because of the update process.
I manage ~20 remote sites, I need to keep these updated, having to drive to all those remote sites every 6 months would be hell.

I feel like a bit of a pleb choosing pfsense but at least I can login, update and reboot from my office.

Briefly tried OpenBSD before realizing it doesn't support my wifi card; it seemed okay.
Eventually bought a USB wifi dongle, and recently tried out FreeBSD with it.
Also seems okay, but the dongle itself performs significantly worse than it did under Gentoo Linux.
All in all, BSD seems like it could be a good choice as a server OS, but is less than ideal for a desktop or laptop OS.

Funnily enough it used to be the goto OS for network performance. I'm sure their completely unrelated to actually developing the project SJW faggotry wasn't what stopped progress, the fact these 2 things happened at once is just a coincidence. :^)
Anyway if you want to run a BSD that's pretty much the experience with Open/Dragon/Net BSD, it's better than ganoo+linux, but only when it supports your hardware and has the features you need.

What's the purpose of BSD compared to other freetard distros?

GNU + linux = anarcho communist
*BSD = anarcho capitalist
MINIX = ultra-zionist
seL4 = National Socialist
TempleOS = Deus Vult

I'm currently compiling Xorg from the ports tree, and every so often a distfile will fail to fetch because I've spontaneously lost wireless connectivity. I can't speak for networking performance under a wired connection with a well supported NIC, but wireless so far has sucked.

How are any of the BSDs better?
At this point I'm just trying out FreeBSD to diversify my machines. I've gotten too comfortable with Linux and GNU everything.

There are the ideological disagreements about what is most "free" or practical, but there seems to be less and less purpose all the time.

Yes the people that banned saying the word hug on IRC are ancap and not SJW sure thing
I hope you know the academics that made that are all communists
sure
GNU might be. Linux is a dictatorship.

They didn't ban saying the word hug, you just have to get the other person's consent before hug emoting, because otherwise it's hugrape. A signed, witnessed, and notarized consent form obtained beforehand, a copy of which has been registered with the FreeBSD CoC Authority, should be sufficient. Also, it would have to be a private IRC message, because even if it's consensual, it might trigger other people who see it who have been hugraped in the past. You might laugh, but until you've struggled with PTSD subsequent to hugrape, you need to check your privilege.

Don't know enough to give thoughts about this. Why is it worse in the filesystem? Regarding speed, ZFS feels fast enough, but that's subjective and I didn't test anything.
Why is ZFS in that sense bad to you? Take into consideration that it has upsides too.
I remember reading speed comparisons between hardware and software RAID control and they were on par or faster - as far as I remember. Also ZFS = high trust of data integrity.
Is it worse than what it would've been at the device layer?

I see you're addressing mainly why you think it's bad design in the first place, not if it's actually worse in practice. I'm interested in hearing your opinions in regards to both points - but please also state why you think that is. There's surely other points of criticism (like license and size of codebase or something), but I didn't see anyone complain that ZFS is hard or inefficient to use yet.

I've found ZFS to be easy to use and it's always good to know your important data has somewhat of a fault tolerance. Tell me why you think it's shit, sincerely interested in learning more. I didn't use it long enough to know its internals.

Attached: 345345352.jpg (500x706, 51.76K)

I bet you use systemd.

Yes, I actually ported it to FreeBSD all by myself. Great post.

Still interested in the reasoning why ZFS is bad

Attached: 1449196410719.png (571x469, 234.39K)

GNU is already replaced.

some of those decisions can be explained by not wanting to depend on other's, possibly broken, implementation of things. It treats the hardware as an adversary.

At best, those features are no better than the general-purpose ones they're duplicating but come with their own set of special snowflake tools that only work on that fs and also need disabled in cases where they conflict with general-purpose ones like how you have to disable their I/O scheduler so it doesn't fight Linux's I/O scheduler and match LVM's block size. Since the code is redundant it gets less attention from devs and can be expected to be slow to take advantage of new hardware features. It's practically frozen in a "state of the art, 2006" state and is still catching up to 2008's features like TRIM.
When ZFS was originally designed these general-purpose layers didn't exist, and rather than design those, they just crammed everything into the fs layer. Maybe the fs team and OS team weren't on speaking terms or it was done by an indepdent team, I don't know the history.

ayeeeeee

I don't really see it as a bad thing (other than that it is harder to port to other systems, such as OpenBSD, who decided against doing it because of the huge amount of work it would entail) - but it doesn't seem like the frankenstein design poster will answer anytime soon.

It also has special snowflake features that make ZFS worthwhile IMO. They're all really easy to use, well documented and their output isn't hard to interpret. I'd even say they went out of their way to make a ZFS filesystem as easy to set up and maintain as possible.
As you said I think that was one of the design goals (depending on what "everything" means here) - or at least it's advertised as such now. I don't really see that as a bad thing, other than that it seems to limit the systems it can be used on etc.

Why? It's more like Libertarianism with its independent servers and modules.

Don't blame them, they could only afford to work from Redfern

the more i read about openbsd the more attractive it sounds. The only downside seems to be a less hackable kernel, no?

Because it's the botnet OS in every modern (((intel))) CPU (specifically on the CPU within the CPU), and is probably used to spy on bad goys.
It is also probably a safeguard that can be used as a trump card in case of a goy revolt against ZOG. Such a war would have one side's entire communication and computation infrastructure compromised from the start.

Can you please fuck off? The people who develop OpenBSD actually use it on their desktops. It may not have a new fs, but the old one works just fine. Package management is superb and nothing like apt/aptitude crap that has stopped being developed since forever. Multithreaded performance is lacking compared to linux because the OpenBSD developers care about correctness and security when they write code. You can get a hell of a speedup when you write spaghetti code.
OpenBSD is great for people who like to get things done. I use it for only one reason: it's the simplest to use OS out there. No bells, no whistles, no hand-holding, great documentation. It does what you tell it to do and nothing more. And let's not forget that if you ever used ssh, you must thank the OpenBSD team for giving it for free.

Could you please tell me how you reached that conclusion. Go look OpenBSD's source code and then Ubuntu/Debian/etc code. The former can be read and understood much easier.

Actually almost all BSD developers use Macs

FreeBSD Developers*

OpenBSD is the OS I'd like to have on my T60 but every application I tend to use coredumps like a motherfucker.
Oh well, back to Slackware.

Attached: Sea-Monkey-111338.jpg (1000x660, 107.74K)

Could YOU please fuck off with your fanboyism? While modern UFS is pretty good, it's nowhere near something like XFS for real performances or ZFS for features.
Where did I say apt? Compare it to portage, or even the stuff the other BSDs use; if it doesn't have build time config, it's shit (how do I get 10bit x264, for example?).
What's your point? That OpenBSD isn't bad? Of course it's good; it's just not for workstations.

I could also add that their anti-GPL zealotry is disgusting.

And the communist gnu shill finally reveals himself.

you're probably running programs that use too much memory. increase
the size of your data area with ulimit -d. see man ksh. and stop
running bloated software.

fluxbox?

Fluxbox is inferior to OpenBox in capabilities and code quality.