Anyone here run FreeBSD on hardware?
Although if you're gonna go cuck license, I hear OpenBSD is the best way to go about that.
What do you mean by "cuck license"? I'm trying to learn more about BSD OS's.
This should sum it up pretty well.
The BSD license allows proprietary redistribution of their software.
I'm trying to learn more about BSD OS's.
Your in the wrong place. Holla Forums is the cult of the GNU.
Just download and install a few different flavors and read/learn. Don't forget to check out TrueOS.
TrueOS is FreeBSD optimized for the desktop.
Don't worry about it, it won't mean anything to you as an end user. The complaint is that BSD code can be used in part of a closed sourced proprietary system. That causes a certain autist here to sperg out, even though this guy certainly doesn't contribute to any operating system, and likely cannot even code.
How does that affect or impact a private user? Say, someone with a personal NAS and personal computer running a BSD OS? How does BSD licensing "enslave" a user? Honestly I wasn't thinking about the license.
It doesn't impact you.
The Stallman cult is certainly pathological in it's absolute craving for open ended software. Ideological to an extent. I just want a machine that isn't 100% spyware. I get that Stallman wants his software to be totally open, but the vast majority of people aren't looking at source code to build of off applications.
Anyone here use the software? What do you use it for?
That's what I thought. If people are going to do something, they are going to do it anyways.
Then FreeBSD will be fine for you. If you want to read the arguments against Stallman's philosophy, this is good:
I use FreeBSD as a home server.
The FreeBSD handbook is absolutely top notch, really there isn't anything like it for another operating system (Maybe a Solaris guy will disagree?)
Glad to here. I'm having it printed. My first foray into Linux was a nightmare because information was so disorganized, poorly delivered, or incomplete. I tried some Arch, then Ubuntu (thinking it would ease the learning curve). Even when I switched to Ubuntu I was still being referred to the Arch wiki since it's the most complete source of info anyone could point me to.
holy shit did you make this? priceless
FreeBSD's handbook is great. So is OpenBSD's built in man pages.
I enjoy NetBSD classic unix style and use it for a few different random things but the documentation is a total clusterfuck. You have to tinker with it a lot to get things going.
It's an ancient relic.
GPL would be much better without all the linking rules, tivoization and other restrictions. Just a software license that protects the four user freedoms and forces all derivative works to be released under the same terms.
OP makes a thread about FreeBSD.
Thread becomes FreeBSD vs OpenBSD
There already is a FreeBSD vs OpenBSD thread
And yes, I use FreeBSD on hardware. Ask me anything.
What's your favorite food?
Tits or ass?
LGPL vs WTFPL: Who is best dad?
The opium smoking yellow asian is the best dad.
that may actually be the worst comparison chart i ever had the misfortune of reading, even as a joke. there's probably a poster out there who thinks this is good and that it should be posted when people ask about the gpl
that's the MPL.
Tried TruOS on my laptop. Mostly worked, except for the trackpad. I usually use a mouse though. That said, the graphics drivers apart from Nvidia's blob is where Linux was five years ago; performance was lousy with Intel and AMD gpus.
This is the standard 4chan infographic - a caricature of pure shit.
Tried FreeBSD for a while, but I eventually switched back to Linux. I'm a heavy user of firejail. There is no similarly simple jailing solution in FreeBSD afaik.
UNIX and all UNIX-like OSes are abominations.
Name an OS that isn't
both your posts are offtopic
Tried FreeBSD on the laptop and server.
Laptop: Touchpad support is limited (no multitouch, little documentation), KDE takes three times longer to load than on Linux on the same hardware. Chromium is broken, but there's Firefox. One of my external HDDs won't be detected, another only runs on USB 1.0 speed.
Server: Works fine. The community is smaller than most Linux distributions', so naturally some packages are less well maintained. There are much fewer Ansible and Puppet scripts.
GPL is free as in price (you can't make money with GPL'd stuff), BSD license is free as in freedom (you can do whatever you want with BSD licensed stuff). BSD licensed stuff also attracts corporations that actually have the money to audit the code, unlike GPL'd stuff, which only attracts faggots like you, who'll cultish-ly talk about how great it is, but won't contribute a single line of code, let alone audit anything. There's a reason why unpatched security holes lurk in the Linux kernel for an average of 5 - 10 years. Why don't you get off of your fat, lazy ass and actually contribute to an open source project for a change?
Oh believe me, there is not "a" poster out there who thinks it's good and that it should be posted when people ask about the GPL, but fucktons of them. George Carlin really wasn't bullshitting when he said that "people are fucking dumb"...
you can't make money with GPL'd stuff
GPL Section 11 says:
"BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW."
Notice how it says "FREE OF CHARGE"? That means you can't make money from GPL'd stuff.
"Licensed free of charge" means that nobody has to pay money to use the GPL in their software or to accept its terms (i.e. the license itself is free of charge.) It doesn't mean that the software licensed under the GPL has to be free of charge.
Why does nobody know how to read?
Why would I want to use FreeBSD on my server instead of Debian?
That's the MikeeUSA reading, if I remember correctly. It's not the reading anyone uses in the real world. It only means that you don't have to pay to get the GPL to apply, but the GPL only applies in cases where you already have the software in some form.
It's legal to sell a copy of GPL'd software. Stallman used to do it, before he had a better source of income. He'd put his software online and also sell it on tape. And anyone who got the software had the right to make and distribute their own copies.
GPL'd software is sold all the time. At best it's an academic issue, but based on what lawyers say I think it's not an issue at all.
BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE
The program is licensed, and the licensing is free of charge.
Typical GNUtards, always moving the goalposts...
You are confused about what is moving the goalposts my new friend.
10/10 Now this is a real troll.
This was mentioned but I'd definitely try out OpenBSD if you want to run on something with reasonably common like a thinkpad. It's really just a pleasure to use, dead simple and most of what you need is already in base. I used TruOS and it really wasn't for me, that was a long time ago though and I think they've made some progress since I tried it.
You can have a pretty complete install with very little outside of base:
bt| pkg_info -m
ffmpeg-20170825p2 audio/video converter and streamer
firefox-57.0.1 Mozilla web browser
gambit-4.8.8 complete, efficient and reliable implementation of Scheme
heirloom-doctools-160308p1 modernized troff implementation
iwn-firmware-5.11p1 firmware binary images for iwn(4) driver
quirks-2.395 exceptions to pkg_add rules
uvideo-firmware-1.2p2 firmware binary images for uvideo(4) driver
vmm-firmware-1.10.2p4 firmware binary images for vmm(4) driver
If you're Google.
Any service based software can make money off GPL. Any business facing company can make money off GPL by offering customer service, and set-up.
I don't even use GPL, you're just wrong here.
The GPL doesn't say "this license is free of charge", it says "the program is licensed free of charge", meaning that the program is licensed to be free of charge. If it wasn't licensed to be free of charge, it wouldn't say it was.
The reason BSDs and especially OpenBSD are secure is not corporate involvement, it's a developer culture dedicated to security, and code quality not shared in linux.
Try to find any lawyer at all who agrees with you.
Even if that were what the license meant it wouldn't matter because nobody treats it that way in practice.
The FSF explicitly rejects licenses that forbid charging money.
You're asserting that the GPLv3 forbids the program to be "licensed free of charge". This alone is false. If you want to know the true meaning, you need to include all the other bits of that section. What you're doing is taking the words out of context, what you're doing is lying.
The FSF also lies alot, and they brainwashed you with their doublethink. They do NOT reject licenses that forbid charging money.
No, they brainwashed you into thinking that. The truth is that they don't want anyone charging money for software because they like software to be free as in free beer, not free as in free speech.
Sucks to be you. I have no problem developing software under GPLv3 and earning a profit when I license them to people.
FreeBSD has difficulties with power management on my laptop, which being a T60 makes me a bit miffed.
Repeated sleep / wake cycles make it unstable. Apparently this is a known issue with FreeBSD on many laptops. It’s a shame because I really like it.
FreeBSD is most at home on servers or desktops, I ran it on my home desktop for many years and it was always rock solid there.
<faggots immediately derail into license bullshit
I hope a dog eats your faces.
That's a shitty duke nukem reference.
Openbsd has the best acpi of any open source os, especially on thinkpads you might want to give it a shot if you're want to run a bsd on a laptop.
The truth is that they don't want anyone charging money for software
Is this why the FSF used to charge $5k for GNUPro?
Yes they do. They considered MAME (which is now LGPL I think) and Alpine to be non-free due to non-commercial clauses in their licenses. So much so, in fact, that they wrote a free replacement for the latter.
Was that really the FSF? I only see Cygnus.
Cygnus was a fork of GNU that runs on top of Windows. The FSF sold the GNU OS as the GNU OS.
You're thinking of Cygwin, maybe.
Cygnus created Cygwin but also did a lot of non-Windows stuff. It merged with Red Hat.
free as in free beer/bread
"if you want to share beer/bread you need
force make sure they also share beer/bread to others"
commie shit with ambitions impossible at the current age
cult-like pyramid recruitment scheme
reels in donations like cult
impossible to profit as author, forever e-beg donations with your GPL-only e-currency no one ever uses aside from other GPL cultists or implement pro "donation features"
if you profit from GPL either as author or not, the cult leader will rant about your work and those who use it.
hates other licenses when others're just doing their own shit.
free as in freedom
no digital restrictions, the only real freedom you'll ever experience in your whole life.
attracts market and employment due to profitablility
"just werks" get paid by top companies
or sell the your own work that is license compatible with most software
patent it and earn royalties
I love how every thread I start on Holla Forums turns into a BSD/GPL licensing debate.
It's an obvious fault line and the mods ignore it. So shills and shizos will hammer at it to destroy the community whenever they can.