FreeBSD full-time

I wonder if the cuck license spammer is the same fag who shill rust in every thread. I hope so, because it will mean we have fewer idiots here than it would appear.

FreeBSD linux compat layer is getting better and better, they just introduced 64bit binary support in 11, jails can be run as a linux OS.

OpenIndiana and SmartOS have good linux compat as well via lxzones.

Dragonfly are the first to get new CPU and chipset support, FreeBSD seem to be the largest with wifi.
OpenBSD is still the best by far for laptops though.

Clang is a crap as much as GCC. Arguably, it's even more crappy because it was rewritten with the very same pitfalls GCC has gathered for decades.
The "superiority" is noticeable only when you benchmark older versions of GCC against the most recent versions of Clang, and they always do it this way to get more appealing results.
Clang will probably be the next default compiler but not for its quality, but rather because corporations like Sony and Apple shill for its adoption, and the reason for it is .

Wrong.

Why?

systemd is under GPL, but nobody bats an eye.

But hey, there surely must be that_good_license_that_creates_magical_good_software!

Enormous corporate C++ mess.

In the free software movement, we campaign for the freedom of the
users of computing. The values of free software are fundamentally
different from the values of open source, which make "better code" the
ultimate goal. If GCC were to change from a free compiler into a
platform for nonfree compilers, it would no longer serve the goal of
freedom very well. Therefore, we had to take care to prevent that.

(See gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
for more explanation of the difference between free software and open
source. See also thebaffler.com/past/the_meme_hustler for
Evgeny Morozov's article on the same point.)

The Clang and LLVM developers reach different conclusions from ours
because they do not share our values and goals. They object to the
measures we have taken to defend freedom because they see the
inconvenience of them and do not recognize (or don't care about) the
need for them. I would guess they describe their work as "open
source" and do not talk about freedom. They have been supported by
Apple, the company which hates our freedom so much that its app store
for the ithings _requires_ all apps to be nonfree. (*)

The nonfree compilers that are now based on LLVM prove that I was
right -- that the danger was real. If I had "opened" up GCC code for
use in nonfree combinations, that would not have prevented a defeat;
rather, it would have caused that defeat to occur very soon.

For GCC to be replaced by another technically superior compiler that
defended freedom equally well would cause me some personal regret, but
I would rejoice for the community's advance. The existence of LLVM is
a terrible setback for our community precisely because it is not
copylefted and can be used as the basis for nonfree compilers -- so
that all contribution to LLVM directly helps proprietary software as
much as it helps us.

The cause of the setback is the existence of a non-copylefted compiler
that therefore becomes the base for nonfree compilers. The identity
of that compiler -- whether it be LLVM, GCC, or something else -- is a
secondary detail. To make GCC available for such use would be
throwing in the towel. If that enables GCC to "win", the victory
would be hollow, because it would not be a victory for what really
matters: users' freedom.

If you think we ought to "compromise" on this point, please see
gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html.

The only code that helps us and not our adversaries is copylefted
code. Free software released under a pushover 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. I invite those working on
major add-ons to LLVM to release them under GNU GPL
version-3-or-later.

If you want to argue for changing the goals of the GNU Project, the
proper place to do this is [email protected]/* */ Please move this
discussion there.

* If a binary is made from published source code, but you can't
install your binary of a modified version of that source code, the
binary is proprietary even if the source code is free. (See
gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.) A binary in Apple's
app store may be made from published free source code, but under
Apple's rules and Apple's DRM, the binary can't be free.

there is literally nothing wrong with pure autism

what about hardenedBSD, it is basically freeBSD but hardened hardenedbsd.org/content/easy-feature-comparison

I had it installed on a flash drive and later moved it to a small hard disk, I travel a lot and am often near other peoples computers that I can use, but I don't want to use their OS and mess with their files, I just need their hardware, so I boot off my personal install instead. It works well for that and I've never run into compatibility issues myself.

Outside of that I use it to host a number of personal services at home for me and my friends, web, voip, ftp, etc.

The main draw for me was the separation of OS and third party software, combined with the fact they have 2 separate systems for package management, ports for building from source and pkg for binary packages. This is fantastic for me, I only have to learn 1 OS, for every system I'll use, I can use ports on the server and pkgs on the desktop, I can even set up my own cross compiling package system for using pkg on weird architectures.

The handbook has answered every question I've ever had and tought me useful things as well, it's really a great strength for FreeBSD regardless of where you intend to use it.

I hope you enjoy my blogpost, hopefully that's what you were after.

OP here, thanks a lot, although I was curious more for people who use it full-time.

BSD has no games

...

2017 has no games.

Rogue and I think a few others got kicked out of OpenBSD for lame license reasons, but probably those are still in FreeBSD.

...

Can you not.

Because it's not.

People still use that legacy compiler(gcc)?

If you read this post carefully, you'll notice it has no arguments.

Does anybody actually develop FreeBSD as a desktop? Because these autistic SJW faggots make firefox devs look conservative, from the top down:
youtube.com/watch?v=Ib7tFvw34DM

tl;dr, "we can't organize for shit or accomplish anything but at least we whiteknight for female attention whores like Randy so we can lose everything in the end with 0 pride"

#burned

People use a compiler that only supports Apple®-sanctioned platforms?

...

It's not like the systemd infestation created the devuan fork or even a fork of tails.

Same here

The argument of is

and
Stop being a biased faggot and read.

This

mail.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2017-April/084055.html
mail.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2017-April/084078.html
mail.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2017-April/084079.html
Google cache
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tCcU0NRwTnQJ:ftp://ftp.supermicro.com/CDR-X11-UP_1.10_for_Intel_X11_UP_platform/Intel/ME/Other_Licenses/Minix3_License.txt &cd=1&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=de&lr=lang_de|lang_en
mail.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2017-April/084080.html

You could've stopped here, to be honest. The whole argument of "GNU vs. everyone else" stops at this point. GNU is a political organization that wants to kill proprietary software and nothing else. Otherwise GPL wouldn't be so restrictive and everyone would just be using some CC0 written by Stallman. Besides, only a literal retard doesn't know that GNU's software is poorly written.

The superiority is really blured at this point, if we're talking about the optimization and the speed. Clang has the potential to get better, thanks to big companies contributing to the code but who knows how long will it take. The license is okay: it's some mixture of 3-clause BSD and MIT (Explat) licenses. The main point is that it's compatable with all versions of GPL, so everything else is highly subjective.
Other points are listed on their website (clang.llvm.org/comparison.html) but it's up to you whether you believe this or not:

Please give an example of how restrictive it his.
YouMustBeNewHere.jpg

Yes in the Care Bear world it is

They could have put it under GPLv2+ and it would have been compatible with all GPL too.
The majority of the drivers in the linux kernel are under GPLv2+.

Looks like you're the new one here. Go read gnu.org or something.

0 arguments, I see

Ingrate.

clang is for cucks

yup. works great on my X220.

lmao BSD confirmed cucks

How is battery life?
Is there GNU/Linux software you really miss?

I didn't mind writing it for the OP and I knew it was probably not exactly what they were asking for.

i have the exended battery. from 'acpiconf -i bat0' i get:

Design capacity: 93240 mWh
Last full capacity: 81990 mWh
Technology: secondary (rechargeable)
Design voltage: 11100 mV
Capacity (warn): 4099 mWh
Capacity (low): 200 mWh
Low/warn granularity: 1 mWh
Warn/full granularity: 1 mWh
Type: LION
OEM info: LGC
State: discharging
Remaining capacity: 32%
Remaining time: 1:44
Present rate: 15086 mW
Present voltage: 10996 mV

realistically i think i get maybe 5hrs on full charge. i use powerd to clock things way down.

i kind of miss htop, but that can be used via the linux compat layer I think. pretty much everything else I want is there for a porn/shitposting/programming laptop.

but they do, user. they even have a windows compatibility wrapper, too

How do you mean? You can still pkg install htop

Every time I hear BSD news that involves DF, it's about how they got a new graphics driver ahead of every other BSD. That being said, I can't say for sure if their WiFi drivers are as well-maintained.

The care bear world has ogres and people who lock other people in cages and try to boil them alive in vats of oil.

htop: /usr/ports/sysutils/htop
pkg install htop

www.atoptool.nl/

...