Anyone here like OpenBSD? I really like their manpages and using FVWM as a desktop...

cuck

Not even Stallman thinks that the permissive licensing is a reason not to use it.

I think it's OK but there's a few reasons I'm sticking to Debian, mainly full disk encryption.

Nigga, FDE is better and easier to do on OpenBSD than loonix, same with FreeBSD

Are you sure?

libreboot.org/docs/bsd/openbsd.html#installing-openbsd-with-full-disk-encryption

When I say full I mean full. Not full except for /boot or the BSD equivalent of.

wow didn't know stallman is a cuck.

babby's first day on Holla Forums

You have been outed redditor and now you must return to your reddit cancer sites. You are only destroying tech by being here. You have to go. Die faggot cuck faggot.

Are you gnew?

Openbsd comes with cwm packed in, why are you using fvwm?

It's extremely easy to do, seems like grub2 doesnt want to boot it though, openbsd doesnt normally use grub

gno. only if you dont get any pussy.

i've been here longer than you have. cucks.

You take it up the ass from men while you decide what to upvote. You are a faggot a redditor and scum. I pray that god wipes you from the earth soon.

Publishing software under a permissive license means you are giving people and companies the permission to modify and convey the software without publishing the source code. You do work for them, but they don't return the favour. It's like paying your wife/girlfriend alimony but she's fucking other men and not you, it means you're a cuck. The analogy is therefore quite fitting.

see this

Minix is still the main project, no matter what Intel does. Proves your cuck theory wrong.

So true.

Running -current is where the action is. Below is how you update your source tree, compile a new kernel, compile and install new userland, merge new config files and create new devices.

cd /usr/src
cvs -q up -Pd

cd /sys/arch/$(machine)/compile/GENERIC.MP
make obj
make config
make
make install
reboot

cd /usr/src
make obj
make build

sysmerge
/dev/MAKEDEV

I run the first two commands just to see what's new in the source tree.. if anything looks exciting, I do the rest, after checking openbsd.org/faq/current.html for shit that will wreck your day.

t. cuck

I don't contribute to open source projects so does that mean I'm the one cucking them? Sounds great to me. And in any case I don't see how it would effect my experience with the OS so what point are you trying to make again?

OpenBSD gave me an extremely rigid and uncomfortable erection. Never tried it again

LOL look at the cuck! Look at the cuck!!!! He did it for free!!!!!!

Don't you see how ridiculous this sounds? And it's a good thing if a big company starts using it, they're likely going to run into problems and contribute fixes. Even if they do not, they'll hire others with experience in that system which increases the overall mindshare.

Yay! This post comes to you through my new isolating proxy running OpenBSD. No more uncontrolled internet access for Mr. Windowsbox.

Now I just have to implement about a dozen more features, besides http and dns, to get a full featured internet access back.

So again, how? The bootloaders on flash generally don't support encryption. That's why using Coreboot/Libreboot is an exception, because GRUB2 does.

christ why do these faggots even try

every time. You gonna buy trash, stick to your trash chips, trash drivers and trash OS.

Except that's not what happens. The company closes the source and contributes nothing because it becomes their intellectual property as the license allows.

That's the price of actually controlling your network, regardless of your OS choice.

The OpenBSD bootloader can handle FDE with like a 5mb boot partition for the loader itself.

speaking of which, fvwm.org gives me an error, is fvwm kill? I mean I always felt that UDE did things better, but it would be disappointing to see fvwm go

Then no. Basically, it's down to someone to attack my OS while it's running (pretty possible) or while it's powered off to alter the decryption, and it's far easier to change what's on the HDD than to write to my laptop's flash. Mind, it is possible that someone will do a proper BSD payload for Coreboot, but there's a few other reason I'm not running OpenBSD. sndio is awful for a start, and so is its Unicode support.

You're an actual full fledged moron.

The bootloader is actually 512 bytes that loads the boot program. and no, nobody is going to replace the actual 512 byte bootloader on OpenBSD. If you'd know anything about the system, kern.securelevel makes it so you cant write the boot program.

Stay with gnu.

That only applies when the OS is running. But I'm speaking about offline attacks where someone takes the HDD out and modifies the bootloader. Mine is entirely in the system's flash which needs more time and effort to change.

I do. Whenever I'm using Linux and I find myself thinking "Shit, this is just too fast. I need to be able to make tea and fold some laundry while this program is loading" or "Jeez, these packages are too new", I'm comforted by the thought that OpenBSD is there for me.

The end of fvwm would be a shame. And another reason to support OpenBSD, if they keep it alive as their standard wm.

It was the first wm I used on my own computer, and I had so much fun ricing the shit out off it. I made it look and feel like all sorts of different operating systems and early desktop environments. Man, I even set up some quick menus that could be accessed with my flight stick, which I used as a cheap 3d pointing device at the time.

That's what Debian stable is for.
That's what desktop environments and modern web browsers are for.

You are right. But, OpenBSD is still slow. In both senses that implied. And I say this as a fanboy who gladly accepts some slowness as the price for stability and simplicity.

That's super dependent on how the program is working with syscalls, and even then you're not seeing massive decreases, I think a syscall heavy program can get max 30% perf hit(Some BSDC

Using OpenBSD for its best case, a static website server or firewall, should see you sweet fuck all of a perf drop.

There are people quite happily having their OpenBSD boxes run data center tier networks, you really have to be sure what you're doing absolutely requires one big tonking box with an OS that will use it because I guarantee OpenBSD will cover 99% of use cases.

OpenBSD will scale horizontally with relayd and carp as well, you were probably going to do some cancerous RancherOS multi-container setup from a medium tutorial anyway.

Actually that's the one thing the license doesn't allow. You'd know this if you were literate.

Is OpenBSD actually inherently more secure, or is that a meme? Also, I heard keeping OpenBSD updated is a bitch. Is that true?

It is not a meme, it might not be as secure feature list wise from something like Linux with grsecurity+PAX+MAC but OpenBSD will make security default and prefer to break backwards compatibility for better operation.
ASLR and 64 bit time are pretty good claims to fame, they just turn it on, let their whole ports tree break and then upstream the patches, which will then trickle to other OSes, enabling them to turn on ASLR and 64 bit time.
If you run minimal Alpine Linux you're probably more secure.

Upgrading was never a problem, security patches were a cunt until the latest release but the syspatch utility fixes this.

Why would they need to change whats on the flash? They could just replace it.

lolno

yeah I went back and read the docs, its like 512 bytes for the bootloader and less than 1mb for the boot program

Difference between open and free distros?

I actually always thought of Alpine as the OpenBSD of the Linux world. I wonder if anyone uses it as a daily driver.

There are no universally agreed on definitions for those.
But in general, "open source" and "free software" (as in freedom) are approximately the same practically but different ideologically.

made me reply 1/10

Sure, with the right flash chip, it'd be easier to just use the wires attached to mine to write it, and neither would be as easy as altering the contents of the HDD. No it won't stand up to serious attackers but that's not my intention.

You're stuck with XFCE and nothing else for a DE, I'm sure you could get some nice WM setup if you're into ricing.

I used it as a daily driver a few years ago but I got tired of problems stemming from musl. Certain software is not in the repos and even though it might be simple software that you would assume would compile against musl, there could be a lot of troubleshooting before it happens. I got tired of that.

Still use it on my servers though, it's a fucking fantastic distro. If you can live with the software that is in the repos and the performance/compatibility for video without having binary drivers (nvidia drivers etc) it can be a daily driver. But if at some point you decide you need some software that is not in the repos, have fun..

no

As someone who had to create and maintain MAC rules with PaX/GrSec for a bunch of web/database/mail servers in the early 00's, let me tell you something: I don't ever want to deal with that level of micromanagement ever again. I switched to OpenBSD as soon as the SMP stuff was working and never looked back. Would have done it sooner, except boss didn't want to "waste" the SMP server hardware. Well it ended up wasting lots of my time instead, which delayed the main projects I was working on (writing code and developing products to sell).

doesn't pfsense just work?

m8 if someone is capable of evil-maid attacks like that they can just swap out your whole computer for a replica that's close enough. It doesn't need to actually do anything other than present a convincing password prompt. There is fundamentally no way to really tell whether the keyboard or the computer has been modified.

Kind soul sought..

From Obsd, ssh -X to a linux box works immediately. I type xeyes on the remote host, I get xeyes.

From Obsd, to another obsd box, ssh -X works to log in but returns "Error: Can't open display:" message when I try and launch an X app.

What am I missing?

The DISPLAY environment variable, possibly. ssh -X to both Linux and OpenBSD and compare it. If you lose the $DISPLAY on the OpenBSD box try exporting it as the same thing as you had on the Linux box.

Thank you for the insight. On the Linux box it is set to DISPLAY=localhost:10.0 (which strikes me as odd, but it works.)

On the BSD box, no DISPLAY variable is set.. if I export the linux setting, it does not work, "cannot open display"..

.. and I now see this message on login: "X11 forwarding request failed on channel 0." I missed that error before, it's something to start with.

pfsense just works in the sense that it allows unrestricted outbound traffic.
You can also get this to "just work" for OpenBSD but if you do default deny all then slowly allow what you want then you will be in actual control of what your pc does, especially if it's a winshit box.

Sounds like some real bullshit, I am always looking at OpenBSD vs my .nix config and wondering if it would still be easier to just switch to OBSD.

man.openbsd.org/sshd_config
Default is no, just saying.

Crappy scheduler and filesystem. 3rd party applications shit themselves randomly.

Not happening. It'd be too noticeable with my ragged old computer.
Also a tall order.

What is doable is altering the flash, or sticking a keyboard tap in there but those are threats I cannot possibly address. Altering a bootloader on the hard drive can be done by any scrub, why I don't want it there in plaintext.

I got it. I just had to enable forwarding in the sshd config file on the remote box. I was focused on the ssh config file, for client configuration, and not the sshd config file, for server configuration. That d is fairly important.

Thanks for the pointers and let's never speak of this again.

my point is it's easier to tap the keyboard(heck, you don't even need to modify or replace the keyboard, you can just add a conspicious MITM device between the computer's usb port and the keyboard's usb connector. People wouldn't check behind their PC and such a device shouldn't be too hard to build.

Hahaa.. I would be so fucked, those are a lot smaller that I thought they'd be.

The filesystem is perfectly serviceable, 3rd party applications shitting themselves is a feature, not a bug, OpenBSD enforces security, if your program tries to access stuff it isn't supposed to it will get killed, if it accesses more ram than you've allocated it, OpenBSD kills it, correct behavior is more important than staying alive.

OpenBSD has had FDE with encrypted boot for quite a while now.
blog.cagedmonster.net/setup-openbsd-with-full-disk-encryption/

MACs used to be terrible, now you have great tools to make policies really fast.
Most of grsec/PaX is just turn option on in kernel config and not having to tune anything maybe a few PaXflags for things that need JIT and so on.
OpenBSD is fine if you are the only person using it at the same time, but when you have multiple users on server you really want to confine them MLS is great for that stuff.

wow I didn't think they were that small or easily available either.

why

OpenBSD has 'X11Forwarding no' in /etc/ssh/sshd_config for security reasons.

I do.

The cuck license allows their tools to be used everywhere. The project's goal is security by default. Not limiting the distribution of your secure code in any way is a crucial step to achieve that goal.

Copyleft is our method of making sure that our free software does not
generate nonfree competitors which consist of our code plus something
else that is off limits to us.

Non-free software is an injustice.
Our goal is to eliminate that injustice, to give computer users freedom.
Developing free software part of what we do to achieve this goal.
When any program fosters non-free software, that works directly
against the overall goal. Security is a secondary goal.
The primary goal is to not get fucked by corporations,
especially not to get fucked by your own code stolen under a cuck license from you.

The only code that helps us and not our adversaries is copylefted code.
Free software released under a cuck license is available
for us to use, but available to our adversaries just as well.
If you want your work to give freedom an advantage, use the leverage
available to you -- copyleft your code.

Are you referring to OpenBSD and FreeBSD?

What about it?
Works much better for me than the mess of audio on linux.

What is MLS?

talk for yourself faggot
i dont care if all companies become foss if they are all insecure and filled with botnet

...

Have there been many major cases of software or corporations being taken down, due to GPL infringements? I understand the theory but being that the bad guys don't give a flying fuck about the rules, I have a hard time this is going to be effective, or has been effective. How well do you think the GPL is going to protect Linux from Microsoft's embrace, extend and extinguish plan?

Also, if you look at Linux, it is prone to crazies (with social agendas.) Who knows what sort of batshit will make its way into the ecosystem, ultimately, as the lines between science and social sciences continue to blur.

BSD guys just have bigger dicks, I think, is the main issue.

Multi Level Security

GPL enforces distribution of code, BSD allows limiting it, so your argument is for GPL rather than against it.

GPL is the SJW license. Just look at this post

If Stallman meant that about OpenBSD...why, then, does the Free Software Foundation state this on their website regarding why they don't endorse other systems (in this case, BSD):

It would appear that BSD nonfree firmware blobs indeed make this more than a matter of license!

at least provide actual arguments rather than shitposting

The FSF will not endorse any kind of software distribution that promotes for users to install proprietary software. In the bit you quoted, you can see that the BSDs have a policy of promoting users to install proprietary software. This means the FSF won't endorse the BSDs.

are you retarded? if you run an anal probe OS you're not free

Find me an actively-developed mainline BSD (or BSD period) that doesn't contain what the GNU community calls blobs! It's perceived as a greater concern than recommending nonfree software or licensing. Note that the Stallman quote about recommending OpenBSD privately was made back in 2007; Linux-libre was launched in 2008, so this issue was most probably not yet on his radar.

OpenBSD is blobless, you have to load firmware using fw_update(1).
Why do you think they didn't support the raspi until Broadcom released the specs of the chip?

Base has no blobs, but because installing proprietary software is possible using pkg_add(1) and fw_update(1) the FSF doesn't endorse OpenBSD.

I am fine with that, the FSF has their standards for a reason, but OpenBSD is "free" it just doesn't adhere to the politics of "free" by making it easy to install nonfree.

I like that is a secure and functional. I am running KDE4 on my OpenBSD6.1. Very functional. Mostly I use my computer for LaTeX projects, pkg_mgr and pkg_add worked fine to fine all the dependencies I needed to run every LaTeX editor I need to use.

I literally do not see a reason to use any form of BSD over linux, honestly. At least not for personal use. For servers and commercial use I definitely see it.

Simplicity, much smaller code base, code correctness, security, ease of configuration, strong project leadership, awesome documentation, port unix vs. re-write unix philosophy, lower attack profile, systemd, less social politics (therefore greater project stability.)

Occasionally I install the latest whiz bang linux to see what's new. Always feel like a kid when I do it. They are definitely pretty and there is no question the app support is better.. can play a lot of games.. but shit, in today's computing environment, especially post vault 7, I feel undergunned/irresponsible with anything but OpenBSD.

I think that last comment is a bit unfair, Alpine Linux does a lot of work and I would feel safe with it.

Your first point is dead on though, the minimal politics on the mailing lists and their thoughtful approach to configuration is pretty god tier.

It's an odd feeling when a manpage actually gives you what you're looking for.

...

>web.archive.org/web/20060603230017/http://kerneltrap.org/node/6550

OpenBSD (as any other major BSD, and Linux as well) doesn't have any binary drivers indeed,
but BSD people insinuate a different meaning for the term 'blob', allowing it to not be used for other binary components of the distribution.
They don't consider binary firmware as blobs, thus they ship them to users.
Their reasoning is that firmware is part of a hardware, not a software, so it's not up to them to maintain it.
Taking in account the current trends with AMT, hardware DRM and so on, this position is utterly retarded.

Also even if a FLOSS firmware is available, they prefer to use a proprietary one, because "it should be better" and "having dialogue with the vendor is important". For example,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_open_source_wireless_drivers

So OpenBSD isn't 'blobless' from a wider point of view.

Also Theo de Raadt and his team are known for their autistic screeching, you can get a taste of it here
openbsd-archive.7691.n7.nabble.com/Real-men-don-t-attack-straw-men-td55042.html

Seems like a great compromise

The firmware runs on separate microcontroller. It's not up to the OS to manage that stuff. You could theoretically have separate open source project for every firmware-using device, but those will still run independently of whatever OS you use. They're not part of the OS, and are instead their own separate mini-OS.
Drivers are different. Those are actually part of your OS kernel. OpenBSD doesn't allow any closed-source stuff there.

Also, Linus Torvalds, RMS, Terry Davis, the cat-v.org guy, etc. are known for their autistic screeching. Look, you either learn to deal with that or just pay for Windows or OS/X. But then you'll have to put up with much worse things. Anyway the fact that you're shitposting on a chan is the ultimate proof that you're no stranger to autistic screeching yourself. pot->kettle->black

2 rupees have been deposited into your account

It does (though it's a oversimplification), but it can perform malicious operations against you nevertheless, especially if it's a firmware for a networking device.
The keyboards might run proprietary microcode too, but they are less relevant since the surface for attack is much smaller and its code is usually trivial.

Well, you can say it. But the installation mechanism is part of the OS, and it's the problem.
It's about the same policy Fedora and Debian have.

Theo's position is quite less appealing and there're many different forms of autism, not all of them are equally good.
OpenBSD people prefer deal with problems by word-twisting (like this 'blobless' claim) and calling names.

Holy shit, this was debunked like seven posts above yours. Kill yourself.

I didn't get any firmware for my laptop during install though. Now my video camera and wifi don't work, but I don't care (prefer to use wired LAN). You can even block firmware.openbsd.org in your DNS, if you're worried of installing those firmware by mistake one day.

libertybsd.net/

>libertybsd.net/
The key word was 'actively-developed'.

I thought "(or BSD period)" meant non active was fine

Whenever someone gets into a serious discussion on the BSDs, I always like to redirect them to this: aboutthebsds.wordpress.com/

Say, how's their FSF endorsement coming along?

lol that site is shitty as hell, the amount of hatred and grammatical errors is enormous

lol that site is awesome as hell, the amount of butthurt and neet salt is enormous

Running -current, can I just export /usr/src to a group of machines and use that one, updated repository for kernel/userland updates on all the other machines?

Seems like a no brainer YES, but I thought I'd see if there are any problems with this.

I guess you'll have to export /usr/obj too, unless you want to build the tree on every machine.

does anybody know what is the status of ZFS and support for SSD TRIM on openBSD?

Good man, thank you. Long live OpenBSD.

I don't think they're moving off 4.2BSD ffs anytime soon. It's a pretty good simple vs with a relatively maintainable codebase. ZFS support is half the LOC of the FreeBSD kernel so I don't think Theo would want to add that complexity to his OS

reposting from another thread

Is this place infested with angry gnucucks now? cuckchan invasion?

Yes

You might have different archs

Nothing new.

ZFS is not wanted.
tedunangst.com/flak/post/ZFS-on-OpenBSD

Anyone here ever put openbsd onto a synology? I can find no references to this ever having been done. I have one, and I want obsd on it.

I should not be allowed near a computer

You guys hear about Stack Clash, a privilege escalation bug in the BSDs? OpenBSD seems to handle it alright.

arstechnica.com/security/2017/06/12-year-old-security-hole-in-unix-based-oses-isnt-plugged-after-all/

Is there still no way to have security updates without compiling them from ports? It's kind of a pain in the ass to have to manually check for security problems for all of my installed software and then compile each one from ports individually. Apparently the reason they don't have a security update system like Debian is because of a lack of resources.

syspatch

my bad, can't read.

For the base OS, syspatch works for amd64 and i386. For ports and packages, you are best off running -current and updating your packages the same time as you update the OS. In practical terms, that means your update procedure would be to boot to ramdisk, update OS, boot to OS, pkg_add -u.

You can run /usr/ports/infrastructure/bin/out-of-date to get a list of ports that need to be updated. I wrote a script built around out-of-date that crudely attempts to and mostly succeeds in automating port updates for one of my non-x86 boxes that doesn't get timely package updates even on -current. I don't consider it a finished product, but it is functional, and I can post a copy if you want to look at it.

does it support zfs?

No. See

Currently browsing this thread with it
Bretty cool OS, prolly the best protection against CIAniggers at the moment.

Holy shit.

...

ARRRGH NOW I NEED TO FRICK AROUND IN BIOS AND FIDDLE WITH xf86 BECAUSE oh no we can't release the actual microcode, here are the specs for the driver but don't ask too much of us, don't look a gift horse in the mouth GOSHDARNIT ATI YOU PICKLED STICKS

Just curious, what would be the most secure desktop environment? I run XFCE pretty much all the time, is that a problem (I know about KMail and all that garbage, but what about others?)

use a window manager like waycooler

Basically they all sacrifice security for features and being "user-friendly", so it's the wrong direction to go if you want to focus on maximum security. Try a small WM instead, and choose your software carefully.
But X itself isn't that safe, even though Xenocara (OpenBSD's fork) is better than the rest. Watch the CCC 2013 video "X Security: It's worse than it looks" to get an idea (link below). If don't mind sacrificing GPU, you can even run the Vesa X server with machdep.allowaperture=1 in /etc/sysctl.conf, which happens to be one of the questions he gets near the end of that talk. I was able to run this way fine on a Thinpad T30 a few years ago, but with my new laptop this doesn't work (X just refuses to start). Surprisingly Firefox was even usable this way for the kind of browsing I do, which doesn't include watching videos or playing games or other stuff I can better do outside of the browser. Stuff like 3D games will also be out of the question, but I don't care about those.
Of course if you can ditch X entirely that's even better! Then you can create different users for all the network clients you use, and run them on a separate console. That's usually how I run stuff like ircII and rtorrent. And if you have a working framebuffer, you can probably even use Links or w3m in graphical mode, and any other graphics stuff that doesn't require X.

media.ccc.de/v/30C3_-_5499_-_en_-_saal_1_-_201312291830_-_x_security_-_ilja_van_sprundel

The Linux kernel at this point is pretty much unauditable. The inherent increase in the size of the attack surface, in and of itself, puts OpenBSD on top of any Linux distro,

Should I just learn how to use cwm, seeing as its included in base?
Gotta say, superkey search on xfce whiskermenu is kinda comfy

Good software, too bad there's some non-free software in it.
The worst point is the license.

This

You don't see how it affects your life.
Hum..
Let talk about android.
They purged every piece of GPLv3 software a,d locked the shit out of it.
And if you think of using replicant good luck because HW manufacturers where so happy with their MIT/BSD drivers that they didn't share the source of it and you can't make work the WLAN or GPS or 3D acceleration or any sensors.

Lets talk about apples.
Apple like Windows is non free software but at least they can integrated permissive piece of software.
Apple use the Mach kernel which is under a MIT license and oh shit you can't do anything with it it's locked from everywhere.

Let talk about intel.
Intel's ME runs under the MINIX3 micro kernel which is under a BSD license and shit it's basically implemented has a worldwide backdoor and you don't have fucking control over it.
You don't have control over a fucking piece of software that was made to be shared and modified by everyone.

Not the user you responded too.
It doesn't matter to who his the copyright.
The MIT/BSD allows anyone to make a copy and not having to share the modifications or to execute a modified version of it.
Meaning that if you buy hardware like an android phone you don't own it.
You have temporary rented it and it will have to be dumped at some point because the "open source" software that is android is locked.

BSD, MIT and other permissive aren't bad if companies and corporations plays fair.
But they don't play fair, they never play fair you have to stop being naive user.
Being naive is what has brought SJW in the computer world.
Being naive has cost us the freedom we had on the clearweb.
Being naive is what brought worldwide datamining.
It has brought centralization.

It doesn't, it only limits and we know that.
The GPlv3 is the best limiter of that.
Wut ?
The gnu/linux communities are numerous you can't just say that all of them are X.
The FSF has been unfortunately infiltrated but RMS has the last point and freedom will always prevail.
The linux kernel community was infiltrated by SJWs and CIA nigger who tempted multiple honeypot runs on Torvalds, fortunately it didn't succeed
esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6907
You should see the work of ESR about the hacker communities it's pretty darn good.

cwm is fucking god tier, user. you should absolutely try it out.

You should try all the ones in base first (cwm, fvwm, twm), since it's one less package + dependencies to install, and they also have been veted to a greater extent than the stuff in ports.

Honestly I've never used tiling wm's before and don't like FVWM's click weirdness
Also, pretty sure you mean packages because I'm not using any ports right now

It's basically the same thing. Packages are all built from the ports tree. In most cases you can just grab a package, but some ports don't have one. For example: amiwm. Also I guess stuff like dwm is pointless to package, even though they did.
BTW, twm is not a tiling WM, it's a really old stacking WM from the 80's (by Tom LaStrange) that's quite different from modern stuff. Some later WMs forked its code, which makes sense since it's pretty simple and straightforward, but its focus doesn't quite behave like a more modern WM would, and you can't change that without modifying the code.
In contrast, fvwm is insanely configurable, but the price to pay for that is increased complexity, and a much bigger man page and config file. You can set the focus policy to whatever you want though.
This site has screenshots + example config files for lots of WMs:
xwinman.org/

I'm kind of rocking the windows-esque functionality in xfce, with the whiskermenu functioning as a start menu, the "pinned"/favorite programs as a quick launch bar, and the windows 7 search functionality (super+search term). It works quite well; I haven't the autism to mess with tiling WMs, that shit pisses me off a little.

what are you bringing up tiling WMs for? all the default openbsd WMs are floating.

cwm is floating? it doesn't even have titlebars

In 2014, the OpenBSD developers closed the aperture for Intel and ATI GPUs running under KMS. I can't comment on what issues you see with your particular hardware, but it works fine for me on both 2006 ATI and 2012 Intel GPUs.

undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20140223112426&mode=expanded

what the fuck do titlebars have to do with whether its floating or tiling?
ok, you really need to at least play with fvwm or cwm just to be less retarded about this, user.
cwm has a launcher which will 'search'(display opssible completions of what youve entered already) available commands to be run, with C-S-? by default, btw.

BSD GOT ENRICHED
github.com/johalun/echo

IceWM > FVWM

FreeBSD has some random SJW make a third party kernel module in Rust.

Meanwhile none of the other BSDs have users who would even attempt it.

Either way not pozzed... yet.

I think CWM can have some very basic tiling enabled.

it has two commands that make the windows tile.
they're still floating windows, its just a hotkey that rearranges the windows.
personally I dont use it but I dont really care about the keyboard controlability of it either and people usually seem to mention that as its selling point.

How are windows manipulated by the mouse in cwm if there are no titlebars?

You can still use Alt+leftclick to move screens around.

I just use alt+[hjkl] to move around(add shift to move around more)

dmesg | tail
# mkdir /mnt/usb
mount /dev/sd[whatever] /mnt/usb
cd /mnt/usb

Not all Linux systems have GNU, you autistic foreigner.

The only major GNUless Linux-based operating system is Android, which I think wasn't being discussed. GNU/Linux is much more precise in this context than Linux, even if it's not entirely correct. What term would you use? POSIXy Linux?

Just Linux is enough, this way you don't exclude the Linux systems without GNU. And no, I wasn't talking about Android.

But "Linux" may give the impression Android is included, while "GNU/Linux" typically makes it clear enough that you would also include, say, Alpine.

Alpine is one of the few GNU free distros(minus gcc), how did you manage to choose the worst examples?

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. I picked it as one of the rare cases where GNU/Linux wouldn't be an accurate term. What I meant to say was that when people talk about "GNU/Linux" it's usually clear that they'd also include distros like Alpine, even if the term technically excludes them, but when people talk about "Linux" it's not as clear that they would exclude Android, even if the term technically includes it. "GNU/Linux" is more useful than "Linux". I would welcome a third, better term, that excludes Android and properly includes Alpine, but I don't know one.

How can one person be so fucking retarded? No, and nobody thinks you mean "windows phone" when you say "windows" either, and nobody thinks you mean Mac OS when you say "BSD".
Nobody talks about Android without using the word "Android". If anybody is talking about the Linux kernel, almost universally they just say "kernel".

corection

I agree but it's not like Gnu software isn't in 99% of them.