LibertyBSD

Don't tread on my freedom to pick up one of every item at the free market without payment! After all freedom means I can do all!

If you bomb your neighbor over noise their security contractors are going to bomb you

You have freedom to the property you own, you have no right to do as you wish with others property.

So the end game of freedom is nuclear war. Fantastic.

No because who is fucking crazy enough to bomb their neighbor over noise. Bombing your neighbor for noise is definitely not something your security contractors will back you up on. You will get fucked for doing it, and the world will go on.

That's kind of how proprietary software works. The software is running on my computer and I'm supposed to submit to you just because you happen to be the distributor? That isn't freedom. You can't be the distributor of proprietary software and ask your users to promise submission and claim that's freedom.

If I lend you my car then you have to agree to my terms. If you agree to those terms you accepted the restrictions.

Freedom includes the ability to constrain itself. Don't people have the right to kill themselves?

That's all fine and dandy about cars but software is a different matter. The reason why I, as the user, am forbidden to study the source code of your proprietary software is because you feel the need to withold it from me. Whoever controls the software controls the computer so if you withold the source code to the software running on my computer, you are witholding my right to control my own computer. You political act of asking me to promise to respect your control over my computer is not a matter of freedom. The only way I can have freedom is to reject your promise of subjugation and remove the software from my computer.

You accepted running the binary on your computer that I gave you. I am not forcing you to do anything.

If you require to source of a program before you will run it then just don't run proprietary code. I don't have to give you the source to my software just because you demand it. If I want to give you access to some derivative of my property but not the root that is my business.

Now if you reverse engineer the binary I give you and we don't have a contract saying you won't attempt that, we have a different story :^)

The force is in the fact that you asked me to make a promise to you. This promise means that my computer is under your control. The fact that users can choose to rescind the promise at any time does not change the fact: the user is under your control while they accept the promise. That can never be freedom. Freedom can only return when the user chooses to reject your proprietary software. Now you can say, "I refuse to give you access to the source code" but you cannot distribute proprietary software and call it freedom.

Reverse engineering binary software is not a solution. It is a completely impractical method of working.

There is no initiation of force when you voluntarily accept the terms of the license I present you.

Yep

Making it illegal for a person to kill themselves, or making it illegal to sign yourself into slavery is not freedom.

Freedom includes the ability to bind itself. If it cant bind itself you don't have freedom.

I am exercising my freedom to sell you software. You are exercising your freedom not to buy it.

If reverse engineering binary software was not a solution then DRM would work. DRM always gets broken.

So you believe that voluntarily signing yourself into slavery is a form of freedom...

And I suppose being able to kill yourself is also not freedom? Not free to do much after you are dead.

I believe in the freedom to kill yourself. I also believe that with freedom comes with responsibility. So if you kill yourself, you had better be responsible for the proceeding consequences. In the case of voluntary slavery, responsibility goes out the door.

Consequences? You mean being dead?

I don't have to be responsible with my own property. If I have a rare doll collection and I want to throw them all in a fire that is my business.

...

I have never had a reddit account, and have never posted on reddit.

In this case lets call it Latex spacing.

Consequences include the cost of body disposal. If you have life dependents, they need someone to care for them. This means they will need money to keep them living for as long as they remain dependent. It is wrong to move these burdens to the rest of society when they are your responsibility. If you have freedom, then you also have responsibility not to harm others.

Your freedom to throw your dolls in a fire doesn't necessarily harm the rest of society. If those dolls were made with lead, then you have the responsibility to make sure that the consequences of burning the lead dolls do not harm the environment in general or society.

If you sign yourself into slavery those responsibilities become the responsibilities of whoever owns you.

Apparently you never used LaTex either.

my nigga

Voluntary slavery means there is no mutuality, the slave cannot act to enforce anything owed to him by his master. Thus voluntary slavery can never be freedom. Freedom only happens when the slave leaves it, not in the act of agreeing to it and not during the term of the slavery.

Most things cant be enforced. If someone decides to go on a killing spree and kills 20 people nothing will bring those people back alive. At best the killer can be arrested or executed.

If you want something to be enforced go find an enforcer with a good reputation and contract with them to enforce the particulars of your enslavement.

paragraphs brah

remember to ignore the license tards whose job it is to derail every BSD thread

they are actually Microsoft employees who wish to create friction, they are Indians, and they shit in the street like animals

almost, but not quite, worse than the kikes they emulate with their subversion

Actually they work for the NSA, who fear OpenBSD. They've completely subverted Linux, now they're trying to SHUT IT DOWN.

Choosing to act in mass murders cannot be considered freedom, that would be an example of injustice.

The fact that you find a trustworthy enforcer to justly enforce the terms of slavery doesn't change the facts: the slave cannot have freedom by voluntarily choosing slavery even with the support of the trustworthy enforcer. The fact is that the slave can only have freedom when the slave has completed the term of slavery and is no longer a slave.

I slave is not free. A free person has the ability to become a slave.

A free person can chain themselves to a rock and throw the key far away. A non free person is banned from chaining themselves to a rock.

I can agree with this. Choosing to bind yourself to a rock doesn't necessarily harm your agency. It will restrict your physical movement but that's not the same thing as slavery. Slavery is different because the slave's agency belongs to the master, not the slave.

And a free person is able to give up their agency, by killing themselves, cutting out parts of their brain until they are retarded, becoming a slave, etc.

I don't believe that choice and actions necessarily means freedom. You can have choice without freedom.

The slave that gets to pick the type of food he eats has more freedom than the one that only gets oat meal.

I can't agree that people with more choice implies having more freedom.

why

read Jean-Paul Sartre.
e-ir.info/2013/01/23/jean-paul-sartre-existential-freedom-and-the-political/

The capability to make choices has no meaning without freedom. Let's take a computer program that chooses between three choices through the mechanism of a random algorithm. It doesn't matter what is the outcome of the three choices, the computer's capability of making a choice doesn't imply that the computer has freedom. Likewise, a conscious slave actively considering to make choices out of many options still doesn't have freedom. Freedom only happens when the slave is no longer a slave.

Fine get reductionist. Freedom and choice do not and can never exist. Human "choice" and human "freedom" is no different than a computer clunking away.

I believe freedom exists in humans because of Descartes's philosphy: I think therefore I am.

You have no idea of what you're talking about, "brah".
y o u h a v e t o g o b a c k

I think therefore I am only applies to you no one else, the "in humans" part does not follow.

...

I would have thought, "I think therefore I am" universally applies to all thinking people. Living people who otherwise cannot think are a different class of people, they don't do this by definition.

People that are not you are observably equivalent to computers and animals, I don't think you understand the point of the statement at all.

Please exercise your freedom to suicide at your earliest convenience

okay kiddo go smoke a weed

I understood it to mean, "I definitely exist as a consequence of being able to think".

Which does not apply to anyone else

I don't understand why you would say this. "I think therefore I am" proves what is stated from my point of view. Are you saying that all other living beings that look like humans are not necessarily "I think therefore I am"? That I could be the only sentient being in my own personal universal simulation?

You based a previous part of your argument providing the example of a computers decision procedure. Humans are equivalent when examined at this level to computers.

I think therefore I am is not a consciousness proof of other people.

I understood "I think therefore I am" as a consciousness proof of other people. Apparently, this is wrong. I don't understand the equivalence of humans to computers that you're stating here. I understand that humans are not equivalent to computers because I understand humans are conscious while computers are not conscious.

Consciousness is not an observable property. Humans are observably machines.

I think therefore I am is interesting because it is consistent despite the potential for your own determinism.

In that case, I would define consciousness as living beings that exhibit the same consciousness as me. I have no rational basis for this, it's my intuitive guess about people who are not me.

Exhibiting this behavior still makes your comments about "choices" a computer makes wrong.

So you're telling me a computer that was programmed to pass through one of three logic gates as a consequence of a random algorithm isn't making a choice?

I am saying it ISSSSS,
are you a different person?

I'm not a different person, I'm just clarifying. Now I am restating that just because the computer has made a choice doesn't imply that the computer has freedom. I will also restate that a person making conscious choices does not imply the conscious person having freedom. I think that a free person who has no choice but to wear one shirt still has more freedom than a slave who has the option to pick and choose from a million unique shirts.

Only because you have valued other things above having a million unique shirts. A middle class person that is a wage cuck with a criminal record in modern America has many more things they can do than a perfectly unconstrained totally free person 10 thousand years ago.

I don't agree with the implication that a "wage cuck with a criminal record in modern America" is less free than the free person from 10 thousand years in the past. Having a criminal record may mean fewer options but I think you can have freedom with the record. Choosing to submit to the daily wage to pay for whatever might mean you have fewer options but I think you can have freedom in that scenario. I don't believe the poor economics of your specific scenario affects your freedom. It is your ability to act in your own accord without harming others that determines your freedom.

I am saying the modernist is more free

Indeed you were. Anyway the point about all this freedom is that people who distribute proprietary software do not promote freedom, instead they promote subjugation. Users who choose proprietary software will only get their freedom back when they choose to reject the proprietary software.

you are free to not use proprietary software if you do not agree to the restrictions. No one is holding a gun to your head.

Likewise, some people will not accept the restrictions of the GPL. They are free to do so. Calling them a "cuck" because you think they should restrict themselves to your favorite licensing terms is childish and makes you a bit of a little bitch.

most likely case. It's probably the next most widely used OS that hasn't been subverted.

I am perfectly fine with permissively licensed free software on the basis that they're free software. What I don't like is people who distribute proprietary software then claim this is freedom. This is subjugating the freedom of willing users.

Users who promote the GPL do not promote freedom they promote subjugation. They demand any labor / changes you do involving the code you use be distributed by you to the world.

GPL is anti freedom.

cucked license, no thanks

...

...

Here comes the GNUSSR revolutionary, spamming all BSD threads again. Hey faggot, don't you have some means of production to seize?

Replace all those things on the left with communism which is the opposite of liberty and destroyer of freedom. GPL is strictly limits your freedoms compared to BSD.

Yeah, no.

Corporations are users of software just like everyone else. The GPL restrict the freedom ALL users not just companies. Nothing in a BSD license makes a person a slave.

...

boards.4chan.org/g/thread/64545111#p64545960
Designated

In buttcoin.

Every software have to be free. It's that dead simple.

That's not how the GPL works.

The ability to distribute proprietary software isn't freedom. If you ask people nicely to join your walled garden and respect your control over the garden, that isn't freedom either.

Microsoft, Google, Kikebook, etc all give back to OpenBSD.

openbsdfoundation.org/campaign2017.html
openbsdfoundation.org/contributors.html

BSD != Walled garden

So, Microsoft is a user of Windows "just like everyone else"?

And, here I thought Microsoft were the designers of that software, had full control over it and its design, while users had none, and could make unilateral decisions about its privacy policies.

But it literally is, you fucking retard.

Frankly, I don't think you have the mental abilities to understand what the BSD license does in the grand scheme of things and no rules doesn't equal total freedom but very often the absence of (in this case software user) fundamental freedoms.

When Apple uses *BSD to create an operating system that is closed off from its users and abuses that power of the licensing allowed by BSD to subjugate them, then that is hardly freedom. Especially salient when a lot of *BSD stuff derives from GNU/Linux.

BSD is the pot-smoking kid in your high-school that has gadsden flag in his room and is ""totally" anti-rules" but drinks Coca-Cola, goes to Starbucks and has an Ipod.

Then don't use the derivatives that are not BSD retard.

BSD != Walled garden

GPL is every communist high school kid that says "communism has never been tried" or "that was not real communism"

He's also most likely to be the only one to have read parts of the constitution and understands that freedom is not the outcome of "no rules", otherwise the founding fathers would have not bothered, but are gained and defended through some binding set of laws.

That's not always true. Something licensed under the BSD license isn't inherently free. You must judge each specific title and version of the licensed software to find out the status of that title and version.

Asking people to submit to your control over their lives means the don't have freedom, it means they are subjects to your control.

Unrelated

Something BSD licensed is inherently free. The only *check* you are doing is if the software is all under the license. Same thing you do with everything.

BSD does not ask that

Freedom is gained from nuclear weapons and tanks. Law is secondary.

Nothing in the constitution says a person MUST do a thing. The constitution is a document that sets limits what the Government can do the person. Rights are not granted by the government. They are granted by "God". The constitution's sole purpose to keep the Government in check. That is it.
Comparing the GNU & communism to the constitution makes no sense.

That's false. Did you know that people are allowed to fork free BSD licensed software into proprietary BSD licensed software. The BSD license doesn't change during the fork, it remains under the BSD as before.
What does change is the fact that the software is no longer free software.

BSD actually permits this. There is no requirement for BSD licensed software to be free software. For example, Comodo Dragon was forked from the liberally licensed Chromium. Comodo Dragon hasn't changed its licensing from that but it is now proprietary software.

So it's literally never going to work with AMD GPUs or Intel wifi. Great fucking job, retards.

It's open source, check it yourself. Protip: yes. Protip: they tried hard to hide it by redefining the word blob to mean driver even thoug heveryone else in the entire world has always, does and will always use it to mean any binary of unknown content. When properly confronted with it, they at least have the decency to admit it, though, but they of course damage control like crazy. Jewgle it.

Enjoy your placebo security.
media.ccc.de/v/34c3-8968-are_all_bsds_created_equally#t=415
Reminder that your one and only line of defense is auditing, and the openbsd team are not even able to do that right as shown above. Not to mention you can't audit the binary blobs.

...

t. the "butthurt about actual security" rat

Couldn't you make me a Jew at least instead of some nobody?

t. the "if I fix privilege escalations in CVE-less commits, that means this security flaw never existed" rat

What are you even talking about, nigger? I had to double check this wasn't /sudo/.

Niggertalk be gone.

Please can we stop the tech religious wars. It's kind of funny how all these words terms are referring to the same thing:
- Linux operating system
- GNU operating system
- Linux distro
- Free software distro
I just consider free software to be a single operating system. BSD and Linux shares the same packages and runs 99% of the same code in practice, making them pretty much the same operating system aside from kernel, compiler and libc. 3 small things. Arguing over licenses is a form of political correctness. Corporations will fuck people no matter what software license you use; If Clang wasn't BSD license then they'd just shove a proprietary equivalent down peoples' throats.

Have you tried increasing your IQ past the freezing point?

Absolutely wrong. The proprietary bits are not BSD licensed. It's like you have no idea how derivatives works.

False.

Derivative proprietary code of BSD code is not BSD code.

This is why the notice is mandatory with binary release too? Sure.

Derivative work of BSD that is proprietary is not BSD. It's really fucking simple. If it WAS BSD code then when OSX source code leaked it would be free software and I could go give away OSX copies (minus trademarks) without worry. But it is not BSD, it is proprietary software. Learn the difference.

The pieces of code that are BSD are still under the BSD license. The derivative work is not under the BSD license. If you add two proprietary files to an existing BSD project you must still obey the terms of the BSD license for the BSD code. The proprietary / derivative code is NOT BSD licensed.

That's not right as you can't call it your own work and the notice has to come with the binaries. This is why the minix guy wanted a notification about intel amt (aside internet points).

Wow you are a smart one let me repeat that for you again.

That means when BSD code is used it must be attributed.

The DERIVATIVE code AKA additional files and modification, etc. Can be under whatever license the author wants, proprietary being one of them.

So if I write a program with BSD code, I must attribute that the BSD code is used, the code I WRITE is not forced to be BSD though.

It's really not complicated brah

And your solution is what, exactly? Run Linux instead of OpenBSD? Get real, faggot. Linux has more holes than swiss cheese.

The solution is to run an operating system with a non-cucked license.

If Linux was as insecure as you say, it would not run on 99% of servers and super-computers.

...

Also, remember :

"permissive" = submissive.

...

BSD > GPL
Here's why.
I can use BSD code on Android, iOS and WP7 without resorting to linked libraries, GPL cannot.
Linked libraries are banned on Android, iOS and WP7, BSD code isn't.
Many people contribute back to BSD projects rather than fork them into proprietary code.
The best examples are FreeBSD, LVMM/Clang and Minix3.
Also people can use your code with minimal fuss, and you are required by law to be acknowledged for your contribution.

The freedom you're talking about is the BSD-style "anarchy freedom", that includes everything including taking away that freedom from others, because, "hey, it's freedom". "If I can't have slaves you're treading on muh freedom." "If I can't take code developed by others and put my name on it and change it and sell, you're treading on muh rights."

Freedom is gained through a fundamental act of declaring it. Cf. Constitution of the USA and pretty much any other constitutional text ever written

Yeah, no.

Wrong

GPL is dependent on corporate style intellectual property a very non free concept.

The license terms do not magically only apply to corporations, GPL terms apply to corporations and individuals all the same. GPL restricts the freedom of everyone.

Freedom is gained from nuclear weapons and tanks

The license doesn't have jack shit to do with how secure the OS is. This whole license talk is used to derail threads constantly, that's all it's good for. It's probably some cianiggers trying to get people brainwashed into conforming into their carefully controlled system of thinking that doesn't allow for any real individuality since it always places the herd before the individual. My freedom is simple: I do wtf I want to, fuck you.
Aside from that constant distraction, the entire focus of Linux is on performance, having lots of features, and stuff like desktop environments. You get bloated junk like systemd deployed everyfuckingwhere. OpenBSD has an entirely different focus, with predictably different results. If you can't figure out why OpenBSD ends up more secure, then you just don't understand how actions map to consequences.

But without SystemD how does OpenBSD boot?

Only if you ignore DoS attacks.

Except that's false if you configure it properly.
If you are still brianwashed and have to delude yourself into thinking any bsd is even remotely as secure as the most open linux setup, go for freebsd which at least has many layered mitigations to contain such problems.

And privilege escalation, and arbitrary execution via buffer overflows which can be done remotely if an ssh session is available "but that's not a remote execution bug therefore it doesn't count" -t. the rat.

FreeBSD doesn't have as many mitigations as OpenBSD.
Also, I used to run Linux servers and it was a PITA having to do everything manually that OpenBSD was already doing by default. Fuck that, I'll never touch Linux again. It's not worth my time.

...

The only mitigations openbsd has are wishful thinking and that's the problem. The entire security model is based around the assumption that you only run code that is correct, except there is no tool to prove that the code is correct, packages in ports are not actually audited, and base packages have severe, very old (decade, decade and a half) critical security vulnerabilities that have not been addressed.
You don't need 20 thousand mitigs in one layer that can be bypassed altogether. You do need layers of mitigs so that every mitig, not just one, needs to be bypassed. That's why but linux and freebsd are infinitely more secure than openplacebo. Due to the pax patchset, linux has more mitigs, at the base, than openbsd anyway, if setup. If not setup, just the fact that most distros have apparmor or selinux enabled by default is a significant increase in security alone that cannot be claimed by openplacebo.

Linux is not worth your time if security is not worth your time. Or if software availability is not worth your time. Or if performance is not worth your time. Or if you don't care about 99% of server setups. Or if you're paid to claim so.

Source?

Permissive = Submissive
OpenBSD = RatBSD
de raat = The Rat
BSD = B$D

media.ccc.de/v/34c3-8968-are_all_bsds_created_equally#t=415

I watched the whole thing earlier and it said OpenBSD was the best.

I fucking knew it. This is the pax guy. Nobody else in this galaxy is that butthurt about OpenBSD that they'd spend so much time kvetching in every BSD thread.

Just show me the bug

This is a live demo of decade-old bugs in an up-to-date 2017 openbsd (and other bsd's)

Only with regard to attack surface on the base system. For example the exploits demonstrated here could have 0 practical impact on the FreeBSD system due to further mitigs whereas all demonstrated exploits on OpenBSD give you the keys to the kingdom on account of no further mitigs being available. That's the point: so long as you have even just ONE exploit open for even one second, the entire OpenBSD system MUST BE CONSIDERED COMPROMISED whereas you don't need to make such assumptions in FreeBSD. Not to mention if you use ANY software in OpenBSD chances are your system is already wide open, again due to no mitigs. The reason why this presentation is particularly relevant is because OpenBSD proponents just can't stop spouting the nonsense claim that the base system is perfectly secure and bugfree because it's being audited. Humans are imperfect and there are severe security bugs (as demonstrated here) which have been there for a very long time without anyone noticing, thus even a basic OpenBSD install IS PROBABLY VULNERABLE to remote execution as long as ANY network-facing service is open.

Not an argument.

Also, increased attack surface is not the same thing as increased vulnerabilities, but it is the same thing as increased likelihood of vulnerabilities.

Nice, now we also know who keeps repeating this matra incessantly. You're making yourself easy to spot. It's almost to the point where you might as well be a tripfag.

Name these "further mitigations" you are referring to.

Obviously SOME bugs exist, every usable operating system has bugs. This does not mean it is not more secure than alternatives.

Do you even watch the talk?

You've managed to say a whole lot of shit without actually giving any information

Is ASLR only for base? No
is RETGUARD only for base? No
Is W&X only for base? No.
Is Xenocara only for base? no

I could go on but there are plenty of ways OpenBSD is hardened for ALL programs, I amazed that when they say at the end of the day they're only responsible for the code they write others take that and assume third party apps are going to just be more insecure because.... reasons?
openbsd.org/papers/bsdtw.pdf

You could at least watch the video instead of being butthurt that someone hurt your precious security by wishful thinking OS. Then again you actively hate security so that's to be expected.

It does, because every alternative has a security model that entails bugs except for openbsd. There are bugs in all non-trivial software (and even a lot of trivial software). Other OSs assume this to be true and include ways to contain or mitigate exploits based on those bugs. OpenBSD says "nope, bugs don't exist, everything is perfect, mitigations are bloat". You need to have brain problem to think that's a more secure approach and as seen in this presentation it's a practical fact it's less secure as a result.

We did. Can you fucking read? Did you fail to at all comprehend the content?

OpenBSDs claim to fame is mitigations for everything by default, are you retarded? Your argument can only come from misreading or not understanding the claims made.

Name those mitigations you are referring to. OpenBSD has a long list of mitigations.

MAC/ACL and seccomp are very obvious ones.

Yes, openbsd has lots of mitigations. That get pwned all at once if there's any bug on any software, based or not, anywhere in the system, which is demonstrated to be the case. Not to mention they stole those mitigs from PaX group in the first place. Might as well have nothing at all.

And by the way, PID randomization is a huge security flaw, it's no mitig at all.

The absolute state of openbsdtards.

Is English your first language? PaX never claimed their mitigations were stolen, their claim was that they had the mitigations first. OpenBSD however were the first to have them turned on by default.

You claim they get pwned but have yet to cite anything.
I think you're just a butthurt FreeBSD fag or a purposeful troll.

They DO implement them faggot

The absolute state of openbsdtards

OpenBSD's only security is security by wishful thinking, are you retarded? Your argument can only come from misreading or not understanding the facts laid out.

This is some real schoolyard bullshit.
I gave you a list of mitigations that work on all programs along with a pdf for citations, you have given no refutations or citations.
Finish English class.

The absolute state of openplacebotards everybody!

This is laughable. The number of Linux servers with SELinux enabled and properly configured is miniscule. It creates a lot of extra work and puts the burden squarely on the shoulders of sysadmins who are usually overworked to begin with. Contrast that with the OpenBSD equivalent (Pledge) which is enabled by default and needs no tuning because the OpenBSD devs take care of all necessary integration with the base system (which on its own includes a decent number of network daemons), and they've been starting to apply it to various ports.
But hey, if you want to do it all manually in Linux, go ahead. Not my time you'll be wasting.
Pledge talk here:
youtube.com/watch?v=FzJJbNRErVQ

You can't spell BSD without BS.

hint hint

Pledge is to selinux what openbsd is to a potato.
(Hint: the potato actually has uses, and it does not have software exploits).

...

...

The absolute state of openbsdtards. If plege is improperly or not implemented in some software, it has full system access whereas if a software is not excepted from a mac rule, it is fully restricted. Exactly the opposite paradigm. This means you can run poorly programmed software (such as openplacebo software) without fear of the system exploding (unlike on openplacebo where any security flaw anywhere means a hosed system and pledge does literally nothing to even remotely address that)

...

Your butt sore needs looking after, if it grows any further it might become the nerve center of your being.

"I am good goy and enjoy eating shit my corporate masters allow me to use."
False.
Intel used Minix for Intel ME on billions of CPUs and Andrew Tanenbaum didn't even know about it. Not a single contribution back from a multi billion dollar corporation that used his software to take control away from people.
Corporations LOVE permissive licences, because they give them competitive edge over others and enable them to not be transparent at all. Every now and then they throw some crumbs. Just like Trickle-down economics, made by jews to fool goyim. Not that I mind that :^)

This isn't false, it's just misleading. Many people do contribute to BSD projects, and many people, and many large corporations, do fork them into proprietary code. The two aren't mutually exclusive. The person you're replying to omitted that even if "many people contribute back to BSD projects", that doesn't mean that the big corporations aren't using it for their proprietary projects without returning a single line of code or paying a dime. I'm sure it was just a (((coincidence))) that he (((merely forgot))) to mention that :^)

Go and watch the video that was linked.
Following your previous posts this is exactly what selinux does. Now as soon as your program doesn't work in selinux you give it an exception. After this the program is not limited at all, whereas in openbsd if a program doesn't implement pledge() it still has to go through all the other mitigations.
Of course you have already been told this multiple times you just continue to ignore it.

Yeah that is true, but they do it because it is easier and cheaper (in long term) to dump some quick patch and let BSD people to maintain their code for them. Maintaining their fork costs money and corporations that do fork usually don't keep up with upstream at all. But still the end result is the same, the user/consumers are fucked by greed. If any real monetary opportunity arises to compete with upstream they will fuck you in the ass. BSD people are only relying that people won't compete with them because kernel dev is a necessary money sink, not profitable.

I haven't seen such a retarded post since I quit going to cuckchan. Truely placebotards are in need of assistance

That's not how the BSD works. The BSD derivate never stops being under BSD. It is now BSD licensed proprietary software. If you were allowed to relicense the BSD code, then you would be allowed to use the code without attributing the copyright holder of the BSD code!

You are not changing the license of he BSD code, you are setting the license of the derivative code. I can only assume english is not your native language.

That's correct that the BSD code remains BSD code. The problem is that the BSD code is now proprietary software. This is the meaning of proprietary BSD licensed software.

No the BSD code is still open source and the license must be obeyed, there just happens to be some other code in the executable with a different license.

By this logic GPL code can become proprietary because it allows dynamic linking with proprietary code. The difference between dynamic and static linking is minimal in this context.

WE MUST STOP ALL THESE PROPRIETARY GPL APPLICATIONS.,

I posted a typo *lgpl

There is no requirement in the BSD license for the distributor to distribute the source code to the BSD program!

In order to distribute LGPL software, the distributor must also distribute the source code to the LGPL software. The fact that the software is linked with proprietary software doesn't change the requirements of the LGPL software. This is not true for BSD licensed software; there is no licensing requirement for the source code to BSD licensed software to accompany the software.

The company got the source code from somewhere the user can go get it from somewhere else too. Your reservation is that they don't have to mirror a repository lollololololol.

Anybody who distributes BSD licensed software without the source code, that software is BSD licensed proprietary software. That's what I've been saying all along. BSD licensing does not imply the software is also free software; you have to check on every instance of the software whether it is BSD licensed free software or BSD licensed proprietary software.

Wrong BSD is an open source license. Software being open source does not mean I have to give you a copy when you demand it.

BSD is an open source license. BSD is also a proprietary license. There is no requirement for BSD licensed software to be free software.

Software being open source does actually mean you have to give me a copy when I demand it. The reason why open source exists is right there in the name. protip: you open the source of the software in open source software

Wrong

Wrong. It means when you obtain a copy you are free to do what you want with it. Compelling action is fascist and anti freedom.

There is nothing forbidding users to distribute a computer program under the BSD license without source code. This is completely allowed. This means that this program is BSD licensed proprietary software.

You also misunderstand the purpose of open source. Open source exists because the people of open source wants everybody to access the source code and improve it. Open source exists because the people of open source wants to promote the open source method of developing software.

Wrong
Open source exists to respect peoples freedom, not fascistly compelling them.

Who is fascistly compelling anything? This is irrelevant to anything.

You are forcing users to take actions this is authoritarianism.

I agree.

fascism has no place in software

...

take that nazi cock up your ass

I'm not the cuck

cluck cluck cluck cluck

>>>Holla Forums

...

>>>Holla Forums

leftypol is fascist which is why they support the GPL

>>>Holla Forums

please leave

Premium autism

>>>/4chan/

You got the link now you just have to click it

>>>/4chan/

One little click, that's all it takes for you to be where you belong.

Speaking of 4chan, look what I found on /g/ this morning. Same baldfaced lies, same vocabulary, same video link (that ironically discredits everything he says). But even the 4chan crowd isn't falling for his stupid shit.
Thread in pic is here:
boards.4chan.org/g/thread/64561001

Looks like cuck chan is overrun by GPL shills too. You should stay with your own kind.

That's right my 4chan friend. Please go back to 4chan.

...

...

nice one newfag

I can read the comma.

The comma means that Juniper took something that was originally open source and made by volunteers (FreeBSD) and because that something has a cucked license, Juniper then transformed it into their own, mostly closed source (proprietary) product.

No it means there is proprietary code, and there is BSD code. The proprietary code does not change the license magically.

The proprietary portions are not BSD licensed.

The BSD licensed poirtions are proprietary. Users are not allowed to access the source code to the BSD portions.

Wrong.

Can users audit, improve JunOS and give to others the audited and improved result?

No.

The fact remains that *BSD is routinely used by corporations like Juniper to create closed products, such as their routers and switches, on top of software that was only made possible by the free collaboration and reviewing of volunteers ; ironically annihilating what made it all possible in the first place.

BSD is a cucked license. Everyone who believes in free software - the idea that there are such things are fundamental rights for software users (like there are fundamental rights for citizens) - should stay far away from BSD software.

Can you show me the source code to the BSD portions of Junos OS?

Sure thing: github.com/freebsd/freebsd

I didn't ask for the FreeBSD code. I asked for Junos OS BSD code.

Yep and BSD has more personal fundamental rights, you DONT have a right to others work unless they want to give it to you.

You asked for the BSD portions, there they are.

You have shit reading comprehension. I asked for Junos OS BSD code. FreeBSD is not what I asked.

You asked for the BSD portions of Junos OS, I linked you to them.

You still have shit reading comprehension. Thank you very much for you high level trolling. It was very subtle.

You asked for the BSD licensed portions of Junos OS, I linked you to them.

...

hahaha cucked GPL fanboy

He can't give you the portions you're asking for because the BSD is a so-called "submissive" license, which means that seme alpha male corporations can have their way with BSD.

Which is actually was has happened with MacOS and Juniper and countless others.

hahaha GPL cuck letting corporations use your software without them paying you for it

...

high IQ ones here I see

Keep working for free on your "open source" aka free for corporate use GPL shit.

You do all the work while all those corporations use your software and make billions. Look at how much money they have made on the back of Linux.

The absolute state of openbsdtards everybody.
This is not normal. But on openbsd, it is!

cluck cluck cluck cluck keep serving your corporate masters GPL boiiii while google and amazon fuck your wife making billions off your hard labor

Most Linux kernel developers are paid for their work (unlike b$d cucks)
It also does not surprise me that openplacobotards cannot even imagine that a person might pursue higher aspirations, like end-user freedom, and not just muh money. GPL achieves their goal.

All you can do is lie on imageboards. If you actually had any brains, you would find exploits for OpenBSD and then make a name for yourself in the security community. But you're just another GPL zealot who has no skills to speak of. Not only that, but your outright toxic personality is turning people away from GNU.

aka getting cucked by corporations

As a user I want the freedom of public domain software, as a developer I want the control selling my own proprietary software.

BSD is more free than GPL for users. For developers GPL is is more cucked than proprietary, but not as cucked as public domain.

This the sole purpose of submissive licenses.

I'm sure you also want the control of owning slaves. You stomping and whining that you want something does not mean it is just, lolbert. But apparently there are morons who you can convince to license their cuckware under BSD.

Wrong. BSD code can be proprietary, GPL code not. Ask Appletards.

>For developers GPL is is more cucked than proprietary, but not as cucked as public domain.
So you agree that submissive licenses like BSD are ultimate cuckoldry.

Great, they should be added to the FSF's RYF OS page.

1 BSD is not proprietary. 2 GPL is cucking for corporations. 3 you have no right to anyone's labor.

No public domain is, proprietary being the least cucked.

What you're describing is the BSD license.

If corporations use GPL stuff, by which they're bound to make open their modifications/improvements and let others modify/improve those changes, how is that "free" for corporations?

They're not giving back the labor of their salaried staff to the community ergo me and you and everyone else.

In a BSD scenario, those corporations do changes/improvements and keep them to themselves, while having profited from volunteer work.

May favourite part of that video is when Theo btfos the rustnigger. Happens at about 36mins

You mean the rat?

BSD is almost the same as public domain, they just use it because their are problems with putting things into pd.

It can be. If it is not, then surely you can give me the source to the BSD licensed OS running on my CPU?
>2 GPL is cucking for corporations.
Wrong, it is neutral to them. They have the same rights as the end-user and can contribute like him to the collaborative work that benefits everyone.
But I do. I can legally take BSD cuckware, make modifications and keep everything to myself and sell the "new" product to everyone without giving them the rights I was given, including to the original authors who did most of the work.

I watched the video.

Basically, he goes full autistmo mode and repeats an article he wrote in 2014 and basically just starts to become really tense and asks :

"O-ok, where is grep and where is sort and where is "

Someone should have shouted to the rat :

"What is github? The website where companies that use BSD don't republish their code"

Because, if he knew, he'd know that most of the things he talked about HAVE been re-written in Rust.

Shouldn't be surprised coming from someone who went to a tier-4 uni

Sure thing: github.com/Stichting-MINIX-Research-Foundation/minix

Wrong

They gave it to you, if they don't want you to have it you have no right.

They still have all the rights dictated by the BSD license, they just have to get a copy source, which they have no right to force you to send them. I am sure they can find the source with the original author who so nicely gave it to you though.

BSD license is the same for users and corporations. A corporation has no more right to demand the source code be uploaded than any other user.

Wrong something with the same name has been written but its not the same thing. If I write a thing that prints out "hello world" and call it firefox its not firefox. The applications written in rust do not follow the standards and do not have the same functionality. You cannot just replace utilities that people have depend on for decades with an alternative that has a 10th of the functionality and is not compatible.

Which Rust re-writes do you specifically mean?

Any core utils.

Still here GPL dick sucker

Do you mean the GPL licensed core utils or which ones?

Not rust core utils are compatible under any license, proprietary, GPL, MIT, BSD, etc.

*No

You're talking about uutils, the ONLY attempt that isn't even finished or production ready and has had no attempt to run on OpenBSD.

Theo goes more into detail here:
marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=151233345723889&w=2
rustc won't even compile on 32 bit archs, you can even find a rust contributor defending Theo in a HN thread (steveklabnik):
news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15843631
Rust, the closest thing to replacing C can't even pass the test of "base builds base".

Rust also only has tier 1 support for x86
forge.rust-lang.org/platform-support.html

Come back to the OpenBSD guys when you have more than a toy, not just bitching to the devs to do work for your magical fantasy.

If only rust fags knew how shitty their system is

The Rat asked where is grep, implying the absence of such a tool written in Rust.

Who would want their software to run on a cucked software like RatBSD?

There is no compliant grep utilities written in rust. Any rust implementations of any of these utilities are missing 90% of the features.

Can you specify, where grep is concerned, which grep specifically you mean : GNU Grep perhaps?

Yes, where is POSIX grep? I can see ripgrep, not compliant, I can see haskell cgrep, not compliant.
All these tools want to do something different from stock grep and that's okay but don't parade them as replacements.

Why are you bringing it up at all then?

pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/grep.html

GNU grep, OpenBSD grep, pure posix grep, any of the important ones.

"All these tools want to do something different from stock grep and that's okay but don't parade them as replacements."

ripgrep is a pattern-matching search tool like Grep.

Ferrari's (ripgrep) and normal cars (grep), aren't the same, but they're all cars and will fulfill the same function of taking you from A to B.

No you are replacing your fully featured truck that you use to haul shit around with a motorcycle that cant turn left.

Stay away from OS development

I've never heard of this one and it does hardly qualify as important by any human standard

man.openbsd.org/grep.1

GNU Operating System
Development started : 1984
Linux
Initial release date: September 17, 1991
OpenBSD
Initial release date: June 1, 1997

I'm pretty sure anyone can figure out where this so-called "OpenBSD Grep" came from.

BSD started it 1977

which is when the cuckery started.

Thankfully UNIX came before.

Keep on going GPL devs while corporations make billions using your software and 99% of you beg for money.

ITT: masturbating monkeys and butthurt GPL3tards

This was already answered. Stop projecting BSD's flawed licensing terms' effects onto other licenses.

The GPL binds corporations by making it impossible for them to take code and modify it without publishing the modifications and allowing others to modify/improve those changes.

Meanwhile, the BSD does exactly the contrary by making code available and leaving corporations free to close off their modifications afterwards, without giving anything back, which they happily do.

It is truly a cucked license.

Corporations make have to contribute changes they make but 99% of corporate users contribute nothing and make billions. Even when they do contribute they are the ones exploiting your labor for the bulk of the code.

From themselves, they initially had GNU Grep and replaced it with their own POSIX implementation.
Your ability to move the goalposts is impressive.
We were talking about "safe" POSIX utils implementations, remember?

All early code originated from NetBSD. I don't know what grep they used, but it would be odd for them to want something different than BSD license. Even SunOS had its own core tools, rather than the bloated GNU shit.

No, we were talking about rat's claim that there was no grep tool written in Rust, which was shown to be false.

This is how stupid you sound.

The claim is there are no compatible grep tools written in rust (which there are not) way to misquote. Can't replace grep with a shitty alternative missing all the features.

you were the only one who came up with the POSIX stuff out of nowhere, which had no part in rat's autistic outburst answer.

In the video (that you didn't watch) he says there's not *exact* replacement. No fool except yourself is going to want to introduce random changes into production systems.

When talking about replacing a POSIX utility with one from a different language its not a random detail. You will break every script written in the past 30 years.

ripgrep is not grep, his claim is true.
You can't just call "pattern matching"
I watched the video and gave you the mailing list where Theo expands his point.
Theo asks if ripgrep is POSIX compatible at the 36:35 mark: youtu.be/FzJJbNRErVQ?t=2191

*can't call "pattern matching" grep

Really perl has pattern matching lets just get rid of grep and alias perl to it. I am sure perl has more features than ripgrep. This wont break anything for sure.

Fucking christ my shitpost drowned in all the retardation. Get your shit together guys.

In the video, that I stopped watched when he mentioned the 10th utility that wasn't re-written in Rust, even though it was re-written in Rust then, the person that asked the question mentions Redox (an operating system written in Rust) and ripgrep (grep written in, surprise, Rust).

Then, The Rat, does what every schoolboy does when he finds himself rebuked :

"But can it play AAC 128kbps encoded MP3s in my car? So, it's not the SAME car!!"

That's what you get when you let someone who attended a German expressionist university write an OS.

"Does its manual page have exactly all the options that Grep has?"

Haha, you can't even make that shit up.

OpenBSD, Linux, FreeBSD, wont replace their grep with a shitty rust grep that is not compatible, the rust version does not have the features needed, it would break tens of thousands of pieces of software.

So, you mean ripgrep, which is faster than all other grep tools?

Obviously its faster when it has 1/10th of the needed features and is only optimized for one CPU type. You want a utility that breaks the thousands of scripts using grep, and cant be compiled on arm, sparc, risc, etc.

what scripts?

...

any script that uses grep features

This is literally a requirement for every POSIX OS.

For the thousandth time, ripgrep is not grep, it is like grep but is not grep.
Look at ripgreps own site
" (N.B. It is not, strictly speaking, a "drop-in" replacement for both, but the feature sets are far more similar than different.)"

You're ignorant of your own sources, you admit to not even viewing the full exchange, how are you confident in any of your opinions if they are so clearly not based on any facts?

I think its just one guy making every fucking rust post on this board

In some ways it's better than grep.

The rat asks "where is the grep ... of Rust", which doesn't imply any kind of 1:1 identity/relationship.

The whole POSIX business, as I said earlier, only comes once the rat is being rebuked when the person mentions Redox/ripgrep.

If it's the kind of scripts I think you mean, the world will not lose much if they're being re-written for a safe/fast/modern grep.

Lots of things would *benefit* from being rewritten. It would just take an absolutely incredible amount of time. And is not worth the effort just so you can have your shitty rust grep.

On a POSIX OS grep sure as hell does imply POSIX compliance. Linux, BSD, OSX, Solarius, etc are all mostly compliant POSIX systems.

How about you keep your non compliant ripgrep in Redox then and stop trying to shill it for everything else.

Yes it does, Theo is the head of a POSIX OS, his question of ripgrep being grep compatible happens BEFORE your quote of "does the man page have the same options", thank god OpenBSD keeps people like you away from them, Rust can have you.

Here's a fun thing to do, browse the openbsd util (ls, cp, grep etc.) man pages and look at the STANDARDS subsection, you will see a lot of things like "The utility is compliant with the IEEE Std 1003.1-2008 (“POSIX.1”) specification."
That is important.

Meant for

I had a look at ripgrep's options and compared them with POSIX :

-E x
-F x
-c x
-e x
-f x
-i x
-l x
-n x
-q x
-s x
-v x
-x x

x means the same option is found in rg

pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/grep.html

github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep/blob/master/doc/rg.1.md

Thoughts /g/?

Thanks, but I'd prefer to stay on my comfy GNU operating system/Linux

It is POSIX compliant from what I could gather or very close, but I'm awaiting thoughts from /g/ Holla Forums

The requirements listed there are the minimum for POSIX compliance. You are missing many many additional features of for example GNU grep that make it impossible to replace with ripgrep on Linux.

beyondgrep.com/feature-comparison/

If by shitty you mean everything that OpenBSD isn't : fast, modern, safe, then I'd prefer that and forego sysadmin scripts

ergo it is POSIX compliant.

Then stay with GNU/Linux and don't comment on OpenBSD because you're unwilling to view a 3 minute Q&A segment and an email to understand OpenBSD's point.
I don't go around shitting on Dostoyevsky because I haven't read his books, you should do the same.

Do those flags cover POSIX BRE? I don't know, ripgrep hasn't said it's POSIX

Having the same flags is not enough for POSIX compliance. It is missing POSIX BRE

github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep/issues/542

Not to mention the many more features needed for it to replace grep on linux / bsd.

By shitty I mean missing basic features

It has 90% of features of Grep as prescribed by POSIX standards.

"Philosophically, I very much dislike BREs. They feel like a legacy to me, and from my own personal experience and from hearing about the experience of others, have led to a lot of confusion. At least conceptually speaking, I'd rather support one syntax instead of one syntax and one legacy syntax that is almost-but-not-quite-like the other syntax.

Motivation wise, ripgrep was never, is never, and will never be a drop-in replacement for any of the standard Unix tools like grep or sed. While there's a lot to be said for keeping behavior similarish because it corresponds to what people know, I'm generally not in favor of adding things to ripgrep just because that's how some other tools does it. I think the features need to stand on their own."

I, personally, know that if I were to create a new tool, I would want it to be its own and not recreate 1970s memorabilia all over again.

Then it's not grep and will never be grep.
That's fine, that is okay! But that "1970's" stuff is running the planet right now and if you want to go your own way then replace POSIX with those tools in your own life.

Redox, uutils and ripgrep might be the future, but you actually have to you know... use them.

POSIX is the bare minimum and it does not even meet that.

OpenBSD supports more hardware platforms than Rust does. It also cares more about POSIX compatibility than GNU or Linux. So this halfass Rust program isn't going to cut it, it just doesn't meet the high standards of OpenBSD. Only some of the dankest Linux distros might consider it acceptable.

...

...

Nice toy language / utility. Come back when it supports more than x86, and can deal with trivial POSIX compliance.

And no cross compiling does not count as a solution

...

GPL devs cuck away as corporations use the software they write for free making billions of dollars

Here's a question for all of you autistic motherfuckers. Why do you have to make EVERYTHING about politics? Why can't we talk about our preference of operating system to use? GNU/Linux and the BSDs are all free software. If oyu wanna talk politics, then it should be mentioned that the people here who are wanking off about real world applications of these licenses without being in the industry themselves sound like a bunch of Green Party nut-jobs. God damn niggers there's more important shit to worry about in the world like starving children in Venezuela and the communist takeover of 1st world countries.

...

...

Open source discussions will generally devolve into licensing discussions.
Interestingly this only ever comes from GPL people.
This rustfag is especially cancerous however as he is calling everything a cuck licence while promoting Rust, which is permissively licensed.

We should empathize with all victims of Communism. If we don't speak out for them, noone will speak out for us when our countries are being invaded (as they are now).
I've never posted on Reddit in my life. I use GNU/Linux you pussytext nigger. It doesn't mean I have to be an elitist cocksucker about it. Most of the problems with BSD threads are from the GNU autists.

There's no problem with this. The problem i that there's not even a grasp of air available for actually talking about the operating systems themselves in ANY of these cancerous threads.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed.

Yeah, you need to go back to reddit
The problem with bsd threads is that they exist at all. Go be a cuck somewhere else

More like victims of oligarchic USA.
mintpressnews.com/us-led-economic-war-not-socialism-tearing-venezuela-apart/218335/
You think Syria is communistic or what?
Also nice job at not making it about politics, genius.
Yeah, you are blind on your right eye. Look at the FSF bitcoin donation thread and tell me there are no ratBSD cucks shitting it up.

hahahahahaha

Holy shit you actually outed yourself as a commie. I didn't think you were actually that stupid.

Fuck off gommie

hahahahahahahahaha

No wonder you are so anti freedom. Go starve somewhere else because of your retarded policies.

Ah huh.
Jesus Christ how can one person be so broken? You can't even read your own sources, you don't even reference your own videos, you don't understand ripgrep isn't grep and now you think communism is an acceptable political ideology.

I feel bad for your parents.

Thank you for confirming it, Holla Forumsroaches.

This is the official sponsor of mint press news

In elementary school I learned about how evil Hitler was, how martin Luther king was the greatest man ever, how evil corporations enslaved poor children and almost destroyed the country in the 19th century, and how evil the USA was. I went to a normal public school in a republican state.

This guy get it.

For the sake of the thread, I wanna talk about OpenBSD. I use Slackware currently, and have been for quite a few years. I've experimented with the BSDs before and I believe them to be superior systems as far as KISS goes. How hard is it to get LaTeX up and going on OpenBSD?

Literally kill yourself. Communism has failed. It has failed every single time it has been tried. Communism has killed over 105 million people in the last century alone, not to mention the proto-Marxist doctrines of yore that plagued their spheres of influence. To abolish private property is to extinguish one of the most fundamental aspects of the human condition. Because of this, it is safe to say that communists have dehumanized themselves, placing themselves lower on the food chain. Therefore, communists are not people and don't deserve human rights.

...

Wow, this sure is a useful and insightful post that really added a lot of discussion to the thread! Thank you user!

u2

...

...

There's texlive and texworks in packages, what's your workflow?

I use TeX Live in conjunction with emacs because I like it more than anything else despite being objectively bloated as sin.
I do independent research, and I have to deal with lots of old books. The worst offender I have to deal with is old alphabets from different languages.

...

Leave thread for 2 minutes.

What is all this shit !!

because we're not a-political cucks like you, so just go back to your magical girls and Vietnamese homosexual comics

The texlive_texmf-full package should cover most of your use cases, there are more font packs in pkgs but really I am a LaTeX pleb.

...

I have posted Pinochet memes consistently in this thread. I'm not apolitical. I'm saying that you should be able to have a discussion about operating systems for at least 5 minutes before shitflinging.

Thanks bro. As long as I can get my work done I shouldn't have any problems giving it a whirl. It makes it easier since I'm not a programmer so I don't have to worry about libraries all the time if I switch to another system. Will post my results later.

This is now a W I D E thread

GNU operating system with Linux as the kernel added to it threads don't degenerate like this.

I'm down with that.
So, how is RYZEN?

Because GNU/Linux threads are occupied by GNU/Linux users who circlejerk with each other. BSD threads only go to shit because GNU/Linux fags go into them and ruin them every single time. I don't see BSDfags shitting up that many GNU threads.

...

...

...

trips confirmed BSD is cuck license

Honestly, now I feel bad, but it's hard to not discuss such a cucked license.

...

There's nothing wrong with creating something and voluntarily giving to to someone. Am I supposed to call you a cuck if you give your little sister a doll you made her for Christmas? She's free to sew on a different pair of clothes if she wants to, it's her doll. It literally doesn't matter. It's a crying shame that we can't talk about the legitimate merits the BSDs have for people who might want to use such a system.

The developers of OpenBSD including the tyrannical The Rat always claimed that their operating system OpenBSD aims to be the most secure system there is and that their code is the heavily audited. In fact, the public motto of OpenBSD is Free, Functional and Secure. The truth is that OpenBSD is none of these, in fact in some of these respects it is possibly one of the worst OS to date.

For those of you who don’t know what OpenBSD is, OpenBSD was developed in 1995 by a splinter faction of developers from NetBSD lead by The Rat. The Rat created this faction after his homosexual partner and head of NetBSD Chris Demetriou found that he have an affair with a FreeBSD developer Albert la Green (See mailing list from 1994 to 1995) and thus kicked the rat out of NetBSD. Since, the rat has been in charge of the OpenBSD project which claim to “produce some of the most secure code” while at the same time, taking GPL code to make into their own.

Contrary to what they say, OpenBSD is not free in terms of how the project is governed and whether it’s users and developers are allowed to modify their the code without the rat’s permission. Being an OpenBSD developer is very similar to being a citizen of North Korea or being an outer party member in George Orwell’s 1984. Essentially free speech and even questions are banned on the mailing list and forums. Developers are often abused by top OpenBSD officials close to the rat or even worse, by the rat himself. At meetings, people are often physically attacked for having even a minor disagreement with the rat or any of his top lieutenants. New users suffer heavily, as questions of any type are met with the words: idiot, luser, dumb, useless and most commonly f%&k off. It becomes far worse if the new user is from GNU/Linux.

OpenBSD is also not free in terms of who is allowed to modify the system. Free software allows the user to modify to code and allow others to do the same. In OpenBSD, the rat and his top officials abuse anyone who modified OpenBSD and OpenSSH code however, the rat allows proprietary companies such as Microsoft and Apple to modify their code as long as the modifications are proprietary. An example of this is when Linux developers took some code from OpenBSD and added some extra code to it. OpenBSD project accused them of stealing their code because the extra code added where GPL licensed not BSD licensed (which is allowed by the ISC license used by OpenBSD) however, when proprietary software companies take OpenBSD code and make it proprietary, the rat and his minions remain silent and sometimes even approve of it. This goes to show how unfree OpenBSD is.

OpenBSD is not functional, due to many crippling design flaws (see wideopenbsd.org/) in which The Rat was personally responsible for, OpenBSD is extremely slow (even slower then the copy of windows vista that is full of ad-ware and viruses and been running for 8 years), can’t handle even the lightest loads (which is why no one uses it for a firewall router) and is the only OS to crash when receiving a ping above 1 megabyte. There is also no such thing as 3D acceleration in OpenBSD. Plus it cannot handle KDE 4 and GNOME 3 (non-fallback mode) and crashes after 10 minutes when running GNOME 3 (fallback mode).

The biggest lie put out by the OpenBSD project is that OpenBSD focuses on security and clean code. A more precise goal of OpenBSD is that it focuses on claiming to be secure and help proprietary software companies against GNU/Linux and the FSF at the same time. OpenBSD developers wilfully hide serious security flaws and to this date claim that their system had only two remote holes even though exploitdb.com shows that there are far more, none of them were ever fixed. Worse, The Rat willing allowed government agencies and possible terrorist organizations to put back doors into OpenBSD. An example of this is shown in December 2010 when the rat allowed FBI agents to plant backdoors in OpenBSD’s Cryptographic Framework which they had taken from Linux and illegally removed the GPL license. The firewall PF which OpenBSD claimed to have invented (which in fact is a copy of iptables with most of the features stripped away and the remaining code completely mucked up) has 3 buffer overflow vulnerabilities which when combine with the fact that it is running within the kernel can be used by hackers to taken control of OpenBSD’s kernel. Finally like all BSDs, third party applications are not audited for vulnerabilities and research has show that nearly 3 out of 5 of the applications are actually trojans.

Little sisters are degenerates and deserve to hang

There would be nothing wrong with it, except my sister isn't called Intel, Apple, Sony nor Juniper.

She will not take my pillow, and re-sew it and refuse to let me use it as I please or open deathcampfactories in China.

nice copypasta faggot

[citation needed]

Computers are gay and have no place in the coming anarcho-primitive revolution

license autists are the worst

Honestly this thread should just become a cute anime girl thread.

The cucked license of BSD made any serious discussion impossible a priori.

...

...

What are some comfy anime that I can watch on my non-cucked, GPL'd laptop ?

Let's keep this discussion about anime girls

...

freedom is the opposite of communism.

With GPL, you can share recipes, with BSD you can't share recipes without leading to Intel/Apple taking them, improving them, and not contributing back to their flavor.

Did someone say anime girls

You already outed yourself as a communist now fuck off

...

There's literally nothing wrong with being a communist

this

Except the 100 million + dead and shitty economic policy that fails every time

kekekekek

...

Communists are cute! Cute!

communist cuck

Look at this adorable communist holding an ever cuter tiny communist

...

...

Excuse for not being up to your standards, unpaid Google AI trainer!

...

Comparing the GPL to communism has always been fucking retarded and I don't know how you mouthbreathers can continue to do so, especially when the big fat bearded faggot himself says, rightfully so, that the GPL is entirely capitalistically-based. Comparing the GPL to fucking unionshit is even worse. Unions would be better related to proprietary software, and your precious "rat" strawman allegorical to someone who dumps the source code of that software on the internet. In fact, wrongfully comparing the GPL to a union is the best argument in favor of using a BSD I've ever heard in my life.

Also this thread is both God- and mod-forsaken, and the fact that we can't have a discussion about the BSDs (read also: technology) is the reason this board is the laughing stock of the rest of the site, and the reason that, despite this board being set up to be the antithesis of /g/, cuck/g/ is better than this shithole by a country mile.

>>>Holla Forums
>>>/gaschamber/
>>>/anywherebuthere/

Kill yourself fucking fag

- Linus Torvalds

>(((Linus Torvalds)))

Linus "the dictator" Torvalds
another communist authoritarian
you want to take linus's seed for sure

pretty much everything

All of 20th century economics that wasn't cucked trickle-down was in some way based on Marxian economics

And it all failed

Judging by the comments, it seems like the CIA still hasn't found implemented any exploit in LiberyBSD. Bullish.
SELinux, SystemD and any proprietary blob is absent, I guess it is cheaper to derail threads and post FUD online than target LibertyBSD boxes.

Even Holla Forums manages to have better Holla Forums discussions than Holla Forums does. And lainchan. Even the other lainchan that exploded into tranny and nigger drama courtesy of Kalyx. This board sets the bar for discussion so low that it's God damn subterranean, and if you don't want to be outshined by a bunch of retards that post shitposting bait threads, maybe you shouldn't respond to regular threads asking for regular discussion with shitposting bait.

Put up or shut up, commie swine.

Ultimate LARP.

Mmm, no. Today's most influential economics still come from that strain.

What failed was the myth of the unregulated market, and that didn't fail only once recently but times over and over

shoo shoo pesky jew

The west lived while communism globally collapsed

...

Ten shekels have been deposited in your account, Moishe.

No one is talking about Communism here except you.

Justify yourself.

the GPL fags have outed themselves as communists

lel

The first post about communism was made by a BSD cuck

Your argumentation style is really abysmal tbh fam

Hang in there, Mr. Shekelberg. They pay you by the post, not by the word, and you'll get your overtime pay real soon!

...

>(((tbh)))
>(((fam)))
>>>/gaschamber/

Thank you for that quote by the way.

...

Sorry, but I'm just an anime girl right now.

No uncute talk please!

fuck off

Cute!

Man, I remember seeing a thread with cool patches in that vein posted a couple years ago. Were you there?

A license that permits copy and reuse for personal matters, but forbids commercial use and unauthorized public copying. This way it encourages contributing instead of forking. I see it as an only way to stop further balkanisation of Linux and Free Software.

thats not free though

Repost in every BSD thread

'FreeBSD'? more like 'gay std' LOL

Fuck all of you faggots.
Explain to me how it is communist. The GPL license provides equality of opportunity through the enforcement of rules regarding distribution of modified source code. That is not communism, because communism is for enforcing equality of outcome. A communist license would force you to share one source tree and would ban forking. I consider GPL to be a liberal license.
This is the epitome of projection. If a company distributes binaries which is linked against or contains GPL code, that company must distribute the source code of their own parts also. However, the BSD/MIT/ISC/whatever licenses do not have this requirement and actually let corporations do as you say.
Stop the FUD. You may not like OpenBSD personally, and that is perfectly fine, however if you try to defame the project and organization through lies and deceit, you become a total fucking faggot. Do you want to be a homosexual? You don't want to burn in hell, do you?

...

GPL is useful for keeping software free, but I like the BSD licence for keeping the general quality of software higher than it would be otherwise.

Improving the quality of all code, proprietary or not is in the best interests of everyone.

No one has anything to say about LibertyBSD? Seriously?
This distro has NO non-free binary, which means that arguing about the license is completely meaningless since it doesn't affect this distribution. It's based on a secure by design OS, it's easy to setup thanks to good defaults security and it doesn't have to be bloated or infected by the cancer of SELinux and SystemD.
I'm sure it would be perfect candidate for a very strong server if you install it on botnet-free hardware. Is there any better alternative?

Servers I always use FreeBSD. FreeNAS for GUI deployments when I help out some idiot who doesn't know how to use a shell.

FreeBSD with the hardening options enabled in BSDinstall is just fine for security. Add in some jails for services and ZFS for data reliability and backup, you're sorted.

The better OS that also has no non free binaries and that libertybsd happens to be based on, OpenBSD.
In its current state its just an attempt at the same cancer that makes linux terrible. Instead of forking and making a project that will be dead by the end of the year they could have worked on reverse engineering the firmware that they are screeching about. By the way that firmware only gets installed automatically after the first boot after a fresh install if you have an internet connection and a device which needs it is present. It is trivial to remove and by its name you can determine exactly which device won't work after you remove it.

So what's the situation on Free firmware replacements for common hardware? I know that (for example) while Intel and ATI GPUs have good quality free drivers, there are blobs needed for at least some of their GPUs.

What even needs firmware these days? Does practically every device like your SATA controller and ethernet card need to load some binary blob, or is it limited to stuff like wireless cards and GPUs?

Mhh, I like that openBSD is so much focused on security but it's true that ZFS support is lacking.

Ok, so it's not really the magic bullet that I imagined because it doesn't do anything to replace the firmware that it removes, so kinda pointless fork but we'll see what they do in the future.

I was wondering the same thing.
Even hard drives have firmware, ideally you'd be able to control every firmware in every chip.
A good solution would be to have... a stateless computer. Which means no firmware-carrying flash memory chips, all state to be kept on an external trusted device, USB or SD! blog.invisiblethings.org/2015/12/23/state_harmful.html

No, in the case of BSD, it's only in the interest of big corporations.

Yes, there is : Linux.

Not gonna happen since Richard Stallman has a personal vendetta against the BSD license, so even if LibertyBSD somehow does everything right, it'll come down to personal philosophy. Could try requesting h-node.org for special consideration. Frankly, I always thought Debian had the best approach to binary blobs - take 'em away by default, but respect the user enough to give them the option to individually re-enable any needed ones.

bump