/tech/ - Technology

Haiku is desktop ready for the brave who like semi comfy things.

OpenBSD is coming along nicely, I'm not current with FreeBSD, NetBSD or the Solaris clan unfortunately, anybody?

QNX killed one of my laptops, because it apparently sucks at pc power management. It's a shame when you could probably tune it to be an extremely responsive desktop.
There is a torrent with a live install dvd and keygen for 6.4.0 around if anyone wants to try it. The 6.3.0 release was open-sourced and can be compiled with a pirated development suite.

>>20967
Good with SMP?
What about GPU support?
>The 6.3.0 release was open-sourced and can be compiled with a pirated development suite.
I'm interested, since it's free if it can be ported over to a free development environment it'd be a better base for SSI than HURD and HURD is getting there, kinda but stuck on 32 bit.

>>20968
>Good with SMP?
It's supported and automatically selected. I haven't seen any benchmarks tho.
>What about GPU support?
My version shows multiple "SVGA" and "VESA" modes. The native window system (Photon) is a backend for a few XFree versions, but it was scrapped on release 7.0.
People on the openqnx forums have developed their own gpu drivers and said the microkernel architecture made debugging a breeze.
>I'm interested, since it's free if it can be ported over to a free development environment
It's entirely written in C and comes with extensive documentation. The patents on the microkernel design have also expired by now.
>better base for SSI than HURD
Definitely the case. OSX makes a point of using an earlier monolith-ish mach design.
>stuck on 32 bit
Someone on the forums said they ported a qnx6 release to amd64 without much effort. They never published it because it became official target on release 7.0.

>>20965
OpenBSD and FreeBSD are actually very usable (both imported the AMDGPU driver for example).
Read the official docs (they are well-written!).

Check out these man-pages for OpenBSD:
>https://man.openbsd.org/man8/afterboot.8 (read this first)
>https://man.openbsd.org/man8/syspatch.8
>https://man.openbsd.org/man8/fw_update.8 (use the -a flag)
>https://man.openbsd.org/man8/sysupgrade.8
>https://man.openbsd.org/man1/xenodm.1 (they maintain their own fork of Xorg called "Xenocara")
>https://man.openbsd.org/cwm.1 (there is also fvwm in the default install, other WMs can be installed with pkg_add. Also, OpenBSD comes with micro Emacs (mg) and vi editors))

>>20966
>Solaris
It got "killed" by Oracle and now it's non-free.

>>20974
>Check out these man-pages for OpenBSD:
Based. Manpages are still the most optimal medium for documentation.
>>Solaris
The OpenSolaris codebase was forked and extended into the Illumos operating system by former Sun employees. Is it any good?

>>20966
>NetBSD
I think it's dead but it has ZFS and it is not FreeBSD or GNU/Lainuks so yeah I use it in servers

what is bsd

I've been using FreeBSD for like two years now on my desktop and servers, and recently also installed it on my laptop. it's really comfy. I hope I never have to go back to gahnoo lincucks

*BSD basically solves a lot of problems I had with Linux that lead to me distro hopping a lot but it basically comes down to me feeling like the fact that *BSD is developed as a complete system rather than a kernel and some barely useful coreutils makes it actually just work (if your hardware is supported). *BSD userspaces are stable and everything is documented, so you're not at the mercy of random search results for figuring out how to do something like with Linux where you not only are usually going to have to search something up but also you need to take into account which distro it is and which release it is since things are constantly changing and constantly breaking for no good reason.

it's also very refreshing that the BSDs feel a lot more like they're closer to the people who actually use them. Linux, and most Linux users, feel like they have mostly adopted an entirely consumer mindset towards the technologies they use. the same kind that people who use Apple/Microsoft/Google products, which is very fucking weird to me since nothing on Linux costs money. it's so tiresome and annoying seeing Linux users constantly talking about either which distro they think is best, or about which userspace software they consoom and rice out, or worst of all their idealistic and completely irrelevant free software politics that has quite clearly completely failed since Linux has been thoroughly subverted by corporate interests at this point. I just want an OS that lets me get my work done and stays out of my way, and I guess this is why a lot of tech people end up going for MacOS since it's supposedly an OS that just werks and stays out of your way and is reasonably well-designed, but I'm an autist and also a sysadmin so I ended up going with *BSD because it fits my definition of "just let me do my work and stay out of my way".

OpenBSD is also cool but I haven't used it as much aside for a few specific things like some networking applications since it's kind of painfully slow compared to FreeBSD. haven't tried NetBSD or DragonflyBSD yet.

>>20965
nice thread, I like BSD and use freebsd on some servers, and zfs is very nice and even almost a couple decades after it went stable linuxtards have not been able to make something as comfy.
THOUGHEVER, all BSDs use cuck licenses and allow corps to leech off of free software, which is why they will always be morally inferior to ganoo/linux and their widespread use must be discouraged in favour of ganoo/linux.

>>20982
you're so right. clearly, using linux is the morally superior choice, unlike *BSD who has with their "cuck license" managed to pretty much avoid corporations meddling with and subverting them

>>20984
FreeBSD and OpenBSD currently have the momentum to receive corporate funds and contributions by corporate users or distribution vendors without being completely hijacked. Minix has notably only been sporadically developed by AST and other academics, so intel forked decided to fork it for their internal development of IME OS.
If you are writing software outside of a large team or reliable government grants, you should license it under copyleft when possible.

>>20984
bsd/mit license is just as coopted as linux at this point. llvm and mach + bsd (macos/ios) being the obvious examples.

but yea linux and (really) gnu has massively failed and its most popular pieces of software were basically funded by corps in the 90s (like gcc) and now linux.

this is because its fundamentally an moral position with communist leanings and therefore a idealist and cooptable piece of philosophy.

>>20986
i still choose to use programs that respect my privacy (tm) but thats a personal choice not a revolutionary statement.

ITT how to not get sex

They're all functionally the same
They're all POSIX shits that implement at least most of the POSIX shits with their own little quirks and modernizations and then mostly get out of your way
The cool thing about GNU/Linux for some people is the GPL-based software ecosystem
Also more people use it, professionally and hobbyistically, so there's more knowledge out there on it
But also you can use a *BSD or non-GNU Linux distro or whatever if you just want
It's a beautiful, free world where you can have sex

>>20989
I do BSDM all the time.

>>20989
using *BSD is revcel praxis

>>20993
Gotta love the quotes page. I'm pleasantly surprised it's updated to include 2023 quotes.

For people asking about the license problem, it can be solved by running
find / -iname license -delete

>>20980
booze, sex, drugs

>>20984
contributions to linux code are still open and available to all, even to the corporations' competitors and to all users.
while apple and netflix pretty much build what they need on top of BSD and kick only crumbs down to the users. they've also pretty much bought off all the main BSD devs.
MIT/BSDcucks are trying very hard to kill the success of free software, that is why we got llvm and attempts by Google to build their own shitty fuchsia or whatever which didn't go anywhere. Corpcels hate their dependence on Linux and the GPL and have been trying for years to get away and all the dumbasses popularizing this cucked mentality of hating the GPL will take us back to the days of shareware. "opensourceware" where you get a crippled version of the real thing, but this time with a little bit of source code and all programmers instead of making cool stuff going back to begging corps for tools and APIs.

>>20965
>>20967
>>20966
>>20974
Cuck license

>>21065
I installed Neutrino RTOS from a cracked development kit. It's one of the few proprietary OSs superior to current the copyleft/open-source medley. Virtue is no excuse for ignorance.
In contrast to vmunix 2: electric boogaloo, QNX was designed to be more modular, lean and performant by developers that weren't busy adding fscking dbus and systemd hooks into kernelspace. QNX is the superior system architecture and it has been before loonix even had round-robin.

>>21065
This. BSD is on borrowed time until Apple poaches all the devs.

To be fair, one has to be familiar with the inner workings of a computer system, process management and application execution to fully appreciate BSD.

>>21091
damn you mean to tell me the Linux community (not including people who work with it professionally obviously) is full of ideologues who don't know anything beyond how to rice their i3 install on Arch so they can post screenshots to reddit?

>>21091
Or you could just be a hipster who thinks GNU/Linux is too mainstream now.

>>21093
I've been using Linux for 20 years now as my main OS, laptops, desktops, servers. I've seen it go from a comfy, config-file managed, UNIX-like operating system with a simple init, to a Windows-like monstrosity.
>systemd (fine if you're an actual sysadmin, not for any other use case)
>flatpak
>snaps
>AppImage
>Microsoft is now directly contributing to Linux kernel code
Linux is no longer easy, nor simple. No longer can fixes from Debian work on Ubuntu, or Mint, or any of its derivatives. Now you have distro-specific instructions.

There is no more choice in Linux, now you're locked into whatever your distro is like. If it's a systemd distro (majority are) then you cannot switch inits unless you want to have an unsupported, unstable, frankenstein of a system.

There are two good Linux distros: Slackware and Void. I'd mention Gentoo but in their attempts to please everyone have become an emerge/dependency catastrophe. Everything else is hot garbage that shouldn't be used by anyone. I say "Linux" in my rants because I know most people who use Linux don't use any of the three mentioned ones.

I'm just tired of learning Linux every time I want to do something. Call me old or whatever, but back in my day, all you needed to do was open /etc/rc.conf and write what you want to run at startup. If you asked me how to make an application start in Ubuntu at boot time, I wouldn't be able to tell you. Now it seems we come up with a new solution to an already-solved problem every year.

The ONLY thing against BSD is the damn license. But then again, nobody is stopping you from forking BSD into a GPL version. Juat any code-improvements done on your fork will be license-incompatible with the othe BSDs.

>>21092
And it is about the same level of difficulty as installing Rainmaker and ricing Windows. Except those screenshots were posted to forums. History repeats itself.

>>21098
Spend less time on /g/, it's incredible how better using GNU/Linux becomes once you stop being preoccupied by made-up "culture war" issues around systemd and corporations actually respecting the license terms of Linux.

>>21099
at least Windows users have always known that they're consumers. Linux users treat the choice in software they use as an ideology/cult and are completely in denial about how the FSF and GNU are actively holding back free software at this point, a movement which has pretty much failed especially if you value not having corporations meddling in the governance and development of free software projects.

>>21100
read the post again because you apparently made it like two sentences in

>>21103
>Linux users treat the choice in software they use as an ideology/cult
Most Linux cultists don't even know why companies choose Microsoft over Linux. Like >>21100 who thinks it's about "culture war".

Companies don't want to use Linux because they don't have time to read linuxquestions.org and traverse dozens of stackoverflow pages when something goes wrong. They want to be able to call someone and have them fix it. This is why RedHat, Ubuntu, Oracle, and every other corporate Linux has moved to the support model. Product is free - support is paid. This has been Microsoft's business model from the start and it took Linux a while to catch up.

I no longer have time to spend hours fixing my computer or ask for help on IRC channels, either. Sometimes it can take me a whole evening to fix something. OpenBSD and FreeBSD have excellent documentation, and that is what I need, really. I realised how fucking broken Linux "documentation" (or lack thereof) made me.
>linuxquestions
>stackoverflow
>Arch Wiki
>Gentoo Handbook
>Baeldung
These are just some of the websites that when used together make a complete Linux documentation system, or as I'd like to call it Linux+docs.

BSD documentation doesn't treat you like a child.
>some useful commands
>just fucking type them in pussy, it's not like you use your machine for anything important
I finally understand what they mean when they say "Linux is a hobbyist OS".

>>21109
The "culture war" comment was not about corporations, but this weird "technological conservative" trend that comes from /g/ and Luke Smith and who pretend to be Free Software supporters while doing nothing but sabotaging every successful Free Software project.

>>21112
>this weird "technological conservative" trend
No clue about that. America is a weird country where everything seems to be opposite. In my experience people who use Linux and BSD are usually some kind of leftist.

If you wanted to be a UNIX elitist, you'd run Mac OS X because Apple actually paid for UNIX certification, so that osx is a bona fide UNIX.

>Luke Smith
I had to google the name. I don't watch streamers or youtube personalities, so I have never heard of him. Aside from him using Arch Linux (arguably one of the worst distros) and some stupid software choices, seemed like your average Linux-fanboy/techbro.

But then I found:
>In the same way that Hume argued that morality must be a different substance from fact, I will state flatly that consciousness, in its essence, must be a totally different substance from matter.
>Physicalism and materialism assume that the core of the universe is familiar atomic matter and other physical forces and energies. Consciousness is simply something ontologically apart from these things.
https://lukesmith.xyz/articles/consciousness-and-materialism/
He's an actual moron.

>>21112
>>21114
whether left- or right-wing, linux cultists always think that their OS is something more than just a OS choice. It's like trust fund lifestyle anarchism in a way… thinking that you are "saving the world" by using a certain product.

>>21120
Choosing free software over proprietary software is more than an OS choice though, specially if you are a developer

>>21121
sure, all things equal free is better than non-free, but it's not gonna change the world.

>>21120
I don't think this idea exists past 90s tech optimism and like YouTube and /g/ where it's seen as some escape from Windows and nothing else

>>21120
nope, its actual participation in a collaborative, moneyless market of products. you know, the thing people who hate "stembros" pretend to champion all the time but never actually create anything to share with others?

a lot of Linux users are programmers who have shared their own code with others and built up free software to the point where it has killed off actual corporations (old Unix vendors) and standardized various open protocols and standards. it's a stark contrast from what the IT sector used to look like in the 90s. and people have forgotten how hard it was to get here and now want to dismiss the impact of free software as if it's nothing and want to go back to closed shit through the use of permissive licences so that the likes of AWS and Netflix can now step in to EEE.

>>21109
indeed, it's really jarring and painful now whenever I have to use Linux (or third-party software on a *BSD) and realize that a lot of things are either not documented, or have very little documentation, and also whatever userspace software you're used to using? yeah they changed that last release for no reason at all. you have to use a search engine to figure out how to do some basic sysadmin task now. oh, but you also need to find a recent article, and it also needs to be for the distribution you're running, because GNU/Linux is just a kernel and some shitty barely useful coreutils and otherwise it's a free-for-all for corporations to push distros to adopt whatever shitware they've developed.

it's madness and yet another example of the tech industry being built atop amateurish software with nothing approaching any standards that it would need to be able to call itself "engineering".

>>21125
>a lot of Linux users are programmers who have shared their own code with others

the thing about this is that the people who use Linux and are actual programmers or work professionally with Linux (I would count myself among them being a Linux sysadmin) are usually not the extremely vocal stallmanist weirdos that post on imageboards about how Linux is the best OS ever made and the pinnacle of engineering and also using it is going to save you from ZOG or capitalism or whatever flavor of politics they subscribe to (usually the former since a lot of them are also from /g/). that group of people gives the distinct impression of not being technically competent and all and having merely adopted a consumer identity around free software, which is incredibly bizarre but that's the state of the world apparently.

the people who work with Linux professionally ime either treat it as just a tool that is better than Windows for developing on, or they actively dislike it for being actually a complete shitshow both as far as the design of the OS as a whole goes (compared to *BSD which is well-documented and developed as a complete system, so is consistent and easy to understand) and also as far as things like the coreutils go (pic related).

also, terminally online /g/ faggots love to blame "permissive licenses" for open-source software being EEE'd while ignoring that Linux itself already has a ton of corporate meddling in both the governance of it and the development of it. there is literally DRM (Digitial Rights Management, not Direct Rendering Manager lel) in the Linux kernel.

it amazes me how for being leftists apparently, no one on leftypol understands that free software is a commons that is being enclosed. that process is well and truly underway. developing free software and using free software is good, I personally use almost entirely free software on all my machines, but let's not pretend that it wasn't historically necessary for things to turn out this way.

>>21127
>no one on leftypol understands that free software is a commons that is being enclosed
yeah i'm just finding out about this bill gates guy, man that guy sucked fr fr

>>21098
>>systemd
I like it, it offers service management just like good commercial operating systems.
>>flatpak
It's good but it would have been better if they didn't made it specifically for GUI apps.
>>snaps
Similar to flatpak but hated, has a better support for all types of apps in general (CLI, GUI, Drivers)
>>AppImage
Made by a *BSD/Apple faggot who shits on Wayland all day.
>>Microsoft is now directly contributing to Linux kernel code
And? Your point being? Isn't the nature of free software that says "eveyrone can contribute"?
>Linux is no longer easy, nor simple.
Skill issue, Linux is easier than ever.
>No longer can fixes from Debian work on Ubuntu, or Mint, or any of its derivatives. Now you have distro-specific instructions.
Why should they? They are different distros and they work differently.
>There is no more choice in Linux, now you're locked into whatever your distro is like. If it's a systemd distro (majority are) then you cannot switch inits unless you want to have an unsupported, unstable, frankenstein of a system.
There are like 300 distros, and there are many of which that don't use systemd, what the fuck do you want?
>I'm just tired of learning Linux every time I want to do something.
If you think you can stop learning at any point in life you are a moron, every fucking day you wake up from the bed you learn something new, why can't you learn how to use modern Linux?
>The ONLY thing against BSD is the damn license. But then again, nobody is stopping you from forking BSD into a GPL version. Juat any code-improvements done on your fork will be license-incompatible with the othe BSDs.
Nobody will make a fork of FreeBSD adding new "cool" features and making GPLv3, nobody.
However there are lot's of proprietary OSes based on *BSD.

>>21153
>I like it, it offers service management just like good commercial operating systems.
Maybe explain the actual advantages of systemd over openrc, daemontools or s6 instead of vaguely refering to anything from Solaris SMF to the Windows service control manager.

>>>AppImage
>Made by a *BSD/Apple faggot who shits on Wayland all day.
AppImages are the closest there is to sane portable linux executables even though they are glibc dependent dynamic ELFs (which "*BSD/Apple faggots" can't run without emulation). Flatpak uses bwrap, needing cgroups and FUSE but what for. While being marginally more secure than chroot, it comes nowhere near non-kvm virtualization. The deduplication runtimes provide is nice, yet didn't make a noticeable difference on my install.

>Why should they? They are different distros and they work differently.
Linux distros share a varying amount of infrastructure. Dynamic libc binaries run on every glibc distro. Static binaries run on every linux system from the last decade, because Linus takes backwards compatibility very seriously. Developers have a finite amount of time to spend on writing portable software and most users don't have time to port the program they need from a popular freedesktop shitshow distro to their reliable desktop.
Distro incompatibilities make everyone's job harder, except that of the redhat salesmen.

>There are like 300 distros, and there are many of which that don't use systemd, what the fuck do you want?
Systemd-logind subsumed consolekit and systemd-udev displaced mknod. The "alternatives" many distros like gentoo offer are elogind and eudev, that copy the design flaws of systemd wholesale (cgroups and dbus dependency, /dev initialization issues). Dbus is a worse offender though with both qt5 and gtk3 requiring it and bus activation violating orthogonality to the service manager.

>If you think you can stop learning at any point in life you are a moron, every fucking day you wake up from the bed you learn something new, why can't you learn how to use modern Linux?
<i fucking love science soyjak.jpg
Legacy matters. People generally don't want to rewrite their initscripts every few years. I wrote openbsd initscripts for fetchmail and tor at a time when the package manager didn't ship it and they will continue to work indefinitely. Systemd initscripts don't even fully map onto the functionality of sysvinit and have already cultivated a lot of kludges (systemd distros try to prohibit usernames starting with numbers).
While the gnome developers may be morons, i think redhat runs these projects as a job creation measure.

>Nobody will make a fork of FreeBSD adding new "cool" features and making GPLv3, nobody.
It's a social issue. FreeBSD and NetBSD are direct sucessors of Berkeley projects incompatible with the gpl and Theo de Raadt is very opiniated on licensing. Plenty of linux distros license their code permissively, nobody forks them only to license their contributions under the gpl.

>>21127
>I would count myself among them being a Linux sysadmin
Hellow fellow an-n anon, i am in a different trade but want/need to switch as i can no longer do intense physical labors and do not want to fall back in to homelessness. What is it you recommend learning, doing in higher-education or certificates to go in to the field?
I am in my 30's and have been using linux all my life as my main OS. I feel like i have a good grasp of the skill-set but will obviously have a lot of gaps in my knowledge.
Thanks.

>>21185
> feel like i have a good grasp of the skill-set but will obviously have a lot of gaps in my knowledge.
You'd be better off learning BSD. It is a niche, but still sought after. The job marketplace is full of Red Hat, Oracle, Linux+ certified people. Nobody knows BSD, yet the internet runs on pfsense switches.

>>21153
>Nobody will make a fork of FreeBSD adding new "cool" features and making GPLv3, nobody.
DragonFlyBSD doesn't care about having GPL'd code in it, code they write is still BSD though, there is also Hyperbola BSD but that's OpenBSD
>However there are lot's of proprietary OSes based on *BSD.
Linux has the same problem, reason why Android and Red Hat exist, Linux will be used by proprietary OSes until it adopts the GPLv3

What I've learned in why to use BSD:
>Documentation is better
<Doesn't mean much without a concrete example. Nor interesting, coming from the point of view of a programmer who ctrl-f docs, uses search engines, checks stackoverflow – to avoid a deep dive into the documentation.
<(I know that reading documentation is helpful, but gambling on spending 2 hours reading something that might not even solve your problem is less appealing than an hour at worse of googling).
>It's all in one, which makes it more stable
<Even though linux can be very stable, hence the dominancd in servers – so idk what it means to be "more" stable.
>Linux has sort of has similar issues like the bsd license
<This some how justifies the bsd licence
>Linux users use the system because of their ideology
<Even though the application, development, access, etc – of technology is inherently political
>Linus users don't even fully know the os, just how to rice an i3
<Because having users of different tech levels using linux is bad, I guess?
<And having to learn the entirety of how your os works so you can finally find any worth in it, compared to Linux value being extremely obvious (unless you struggle with the idea that an os can have a different use case other than being the same machine you game, fap, and pay your taxes on) – is an own.
>On bsd, since no one uses, there's like 5 of them, compared to linux which has alot, and that's a problem because of development
<While an issue, I think this can be fixed by just having a hierarchy of what to work on, and to push to stop the continuation of other distros. Maybe kubuntu should just be a spin, where it's Ubuntu but optimized for kde, and has that spyware removed.
<It's also abit unfair since while there's who cares ones like MX linux, there are fair reasons for distros to exist even small. Like manjaro which is arch but designed around having a second layer of testing, that requires a split to occur.
<Also, despite the development issue, linux has a bigger support, which makes BSD pointless.
>Linux is bad because it isn't easy and you can't do something like switch systemd to init
<Which is hard to even evaluate since what makes them more difficult or why it leads to difficulty isn't elaborated.
<Nor communicates the scale. Systems are complicated, I can't say if it should be like this, but I struggle to understand how you can switch init systems like how you'd switch lego bricks
>Linux is bad because companies don't like their bad documentation
<Literal nonsense since many times when asked about a linux version of their software they point to the lack of desktop market share.
<A small example being adobe; and a larger opposite example being android which is the dominant phone os, and despite having linux bad documentation, many companies create software for it

Yes, I know the comment radiates passive aggressive smugness shittyness.
I just don't understand the appeal of bsd other than a pure hobby.

And I can't respect it at all because of the license.
The fact that the only defence is, "there are similar issues with linux", SHOCKINGLY doesn't make me want to use bsd.

>>21191
You've obviously never used BSD.

>>21191
><(I know that reading documentation is helpful, but gambling on spending 2 hours reading something that might not even solve your problem is less appealing than an hour at worse of googling).
BSD manpages usually are a lot shorter than linux ones are, because they are written very concisely and most commands have less flags. Compare https://man.openbsd.org/vnconfig with https://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/xenial/man8/losetup.8.html
The longer manpages are about programs with their own scripting languages. Most shells on linux describe the language, gnu m4 doesn't (https://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/xenial/man1/m4.1.html) but openbsd m4 does (https://man.openbsd.org/m4).
OpenBSD directs you to read the afterboot entry after the install and has many helpful tutorial-esque pages in section 7 and 8. Linux has a few helpful pages in section 7. On my install only a few commands for administration have been installed to section 8.
This reflects the linux specific issue of rarely being designed as one consistent userspace. I never used a linux distro with system specific manpages as complete as that of OpenBSD, even though many distros take after singular aspects of the BSDs like ports (gentoo, void) or init (slackware, crux, every distro using daemontools/runit).

>>21193
OP here. OpenBSD just works. It's fucking awesome. Word to the wise, use ports on FreeBSD, the defaults on packages aren't so great. Packages on OpenBSD are *chef's kiss*.

Switching everything to BSD, it's just so simple and it makes sense. Keeping a Slackware partition for when I wanna play csgo. But BSD is absolutely fantastic. There's no mystery, no cryptic binaries, no unknown daemons. Just files and associated confs. Honestly, the simplicity is the thing that is making me switch. Don't really care about all the other stuff.

>>21192
Thank you, captain obvious.

>>21193
I'm not doubting they're better, it's just such an underwhelming point that it blows my mind that it's even brought up.
Especially considering that the goal of each documentation is different.

Linux assumes you know, or already have a resource to look into what it is, making the documentation just by applying it to the kernel/os.
Bad goes the opposite approach, hence you see it explaining macros in the m4 documentation, which normally I just look it up on wikipedia since it's a general concept.
Not saying it's bad, reading the same information from different view points/styles helps with reinforcement – it's just if you don't have the expectation that linux will not fulfill that need, then the documentation isn't that bad.

>>21194
Good for you OP.

>>21100
>>21112
>while doing nothing but sabotaging every successful Free Software project.
Some things really are better like audio (but Pipewire > Pulseaudio). But the main use of Snap and Flatpak is to distrubute non-free software but it can be also useful for getting (free) software that is not packaged for your distro.

But I want to point out that Systemd is literally made to serve Red Hat's needs. They need to unify the ecosystem, so their job is easier. The only reason why Systemd is fast is that it starts up things in parallel. I know for a fact that both OpenRC (with parallel init enabled in the config) and Runit are as fast as Systemd (Void Linux boots faster than Arch Linux with same daemons enabled on my PC). Systemd sometimes hangs while shutting down the PC (no other init system does that) and it waits for like 2 minutes per service by default. Also, Systemd is just much larger than either OpenRC or Runit. More code = larger attack surface and more stuff to maintain. OpenRC is also very easy to use because it has rc-service/rc-update (for enabling/disabling and starting/stopping services). It's not harder than systemd/systemctl. I recommend testing OpenRC and Runit (try Void Linux).

For more info (there are more arguments):
https://nosystemd.org
https://suckless.org/sucks/systemd/
https://pwnies.com/systemd-bugs/
https://lwn.net/Articles/641275/ (remember that kdbus thing that systemd developers tried to add to the Linux kernel?)
https://without-systemd.org/wiki/index_php/Arguments_against_systemd/ (read this if you are in a hurry)

>>21198
suckless is a right-wing, almost nazi project
it also doesn't actually suck less, imagine recompiling your shit because you hardcode configuration.

>>21202
>imagine recompiling your shit because you hardcode configuration.
I take it you've never done it. Recompiling dwm takes two seconds on my 2011 thinkpad. Or are you scared of config files?
>suckless is a right-wing, almost nazi project
AFAIK the only openly political people involved in suckless were Uriel, who was an objectivist and Enrico Weigelt who had a qboomer spergout on the linux kernel mailing list.
Two associated projects are bitreich and 9front. Bitreich has literal hippies on its team. 9front included a picture of Ausschwitz titled ruby on rails, which they publically apologized for and added an antifascist banner in response.

>>21202
>suckless is a right-wing, almost nazi project
>everything I don't like or don't understand is Nazi
Fucking hell anon, easiest excuse to remain lazy and not learn anything new.
>imagine recompiling your shit because you hardcode configuration.
You're thinking like a baby. It isn't about recompiling, it is about how the setup/configuration of the application is stored or utilised. If you have a GUI app, and you change settings, you expect them to. be saved and effective immediately, this is when settings are dynamically loaded during runtime. You don't really know what is happening in the background in this case. What did checking that box really do? Most Windows programs have closed source, so this is rarely a worry.

Compiling a source file OR loading a configuration file ar startup are effectively the same. In both cases the application loads the settings at startup and holds them for the duration of running. This means there are no mysteries as to what is happening or what settings are loaded. You can check the source or conf file and compare it to what is happening in the application. When you want to change the settings, you have to change the source file or conf file and then restart the program (or have it reload with new settings). No secrets, no mysteries, this is how most open source/libre software operates.

Personally, I prefer conf files to recompiling. I use awesomewm as my window manager and have for years. You edit a rc.lua file and awesomewm reloads super quickly, applying the conf file.

>>21202
Suckless is a collection of software that follows the UNIX philosophy: have a program do one thing and do it well. If you use computers for more than browsing the internet, watching movies or drawing in GIMP, then you quickly come to appreciate the UNIX philosophy behind software. Unless of course you have money, then you just buy whatever software you need with support and have someone else do it all for you.

>>21202
You aren't arguing in good faith if you ignore all other links. Suckless is a valid source since everything they say can be verified from other sources.

>>21206
>>21208
>>21209
>>21241
https://suckless.org/conferences/2017/
they literally did a torchlit walk less than a month after charlottesville as part of their 2017 hackathon. first year they did it too, so it wasn't some UNIX tradition to be done at hackathons. their devs sperged about typical 2017 american politics talking points like "cultural marxism" too so it wasn't coincidence: https://lobste.rs/s/nf3xgg/i_am_leaving_llvm#c_yoghmo
and there was also a lovely defence of hitler by one of them on the devuan mailing list which has since been scrubbed: https://archive.is/zcyJU

believe what you want but it's pretty plain.

>>21244
wow i already thought suckless was cringey and off, nice to know it's justified

>>21244
I nearly believed you. You're either dishonest or really need the things you don't like to be Nazi. Apparently torch-lit walks is something done in Germany.

… or these guys are also fucking Nazis.
>pic rel
https://www.saalbach.com/en/events/torch-lit-walk-hinterglemm_e_122752

Looking at their conferences page, there's absolutely nothing to hint at any kind of Nazi or right-wing ideology.

>>21244
>it wasn't coincidence: https://lobste.rs/s/nf3xgg/i_am_leaving_llvm#c_yoghmo
>duncaen
That's one of the lead developers/maintainers of Void Linux. I actually like Void, but that guy is a fucking asshole. Their IRC is unpleasant because of him.

>>21252
As a germ i can confirm this. Torchlit walks are common as school or town events. I think torchlit hikes in particular were historically notable in the German Liberal Nationalist movement of the Vormärz era and rooted in a romanticist worship of nature and the Volksgeist. The NSDAP knowingly lifted many propagandistic elements from this time, including book burnings and opera.

I don't care either way. Suckless software is small and portable, which is sort of common for window managers, but rarer for virtual terminals and browsers. Except for the util-linux replacement you can build everything with just an ansi C compiler and TCP/IP and/or X depending on the software.

FreeBSD 14.0-RELEASE is out. I installed it on my dekstop, it just works.

>>20981
The fact that FreeBSD is a complete system has a drawback in that it does not go beyond the old UNIX conventions which, as any Lisp enthusiast would tell you, are TERRIBLE AND NEED TO DIE!! Without GNU/Linux's modularity we wouldn't have stuff like NixOS or Gentoo (though admittedly security by design is even shittier on NixOS, they still can't manage to get SELinux or even Firejail to work). Also, both FreeBSD and GNU/Linux pretty much require hardening, something that OpenBSD does not need as much (congrats, OpenBSD chads, take a cookie). So it's more complicated than it seems. All-in-all I think the BSDs are better than GNU/Linux overall but GNU/Linux's modularity is one of its biggest strengths and weaknesses.

>>22995 (me)
Also, the fact that GNU/Linux does not have one distribution mitigates the power distro maintainers have over the users. If distro maintainers become corrupt or start doing some decisions you do not like you can just go use another distro. How many usable BSDs are there? FreeBSD… OpenBSD… The end.

Also, it's not entirely true that GNU/Linux isn't developed as a complete OS, it's just that people like to replace some components they do not like in it (looking at you, Alpine), something that you simply don't do in the BSDs. The whole system core is basically developed by GNU with Linux borrowed as a kernel because they still can't finish GNU Hurd. But if by GNU/Linux being incomplete you mean that it doesn't use its own in-house kernel then you'd be correct.

I'm not saying that GNU/Linux is better than BSDs, I just disagree that the fact that the development of the BSDs is so centralized is entirely a good thing.

>>20965
>It's no wonder that the most staunch anti-linux pro-unix/BSD person I ever met was a staunch Communist
How is communism connected to hating on GNU/Linux? If anything, GNU/Linux haters are often lolberts or liberals who think copyleft is communist and authoritarian and who are way more class collaborationist than copyleft enjoyers ever will be. I think those BSD users who don't just blindly hate GNU/Linux and who support copyleft are more likely to be communists.

>>23017
Yeah, most copyleft haters hate it because you can't combine it with permissive licenses. And why would you use permissive licenses? So corpos could use your code in their proprietary product, of course.