31–40 of 229 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>They should take a page out of Microsoft's book here Yeah NO. OpenBSD is the opposite of backward compatibility by design. You should have known that before installing at your customers site en masse. That's probably one point why PFsense is based on freebsd and OPNsense on hardenedbsd.
^^ The wording of this response represents exactly why many people don't choose OpenBSD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>They should take a page out of Microsoft's book here Yeah NO. OpenBSD is the opposite of backward compatibility by design. You should have known that before installing at your customers site en masse. That's probably one point why PFsense is based on freebsd and OPNsense on hardenedbsd.
^^ The wording of this response represents exactly why many people don't choose OpenBSD.
Any BSD fans out there wish to persuade a happy Debian desktop user to take a BSD for a spin?
This link is for OpenBSD but I have the most experience with FreeBSD. Reasons to try out a BSD, even FreeBSD: 1. ZFS -- by far and away the best filesystem there is. (A hella partisan take but try it out and you'll likely fall in love like the rest of us did) 2. The handbook. The handbook is gold. It's up there with some of the best documentation available. 3. Less fragmentation. The BSDs have 3 main derivatives: Net…
My main use for OpenBSD is as a firewall/router, and they frequently make breaking changes to the pf rule syntax so I had to abandon it. Last breaking change when I checked was July, but it's been going on for many years. If you have one firewall no big deal, but if you set them up for customers all over the place it's a nightmare. They should take a page out of Microsoft's book here.
Any BSD fans out there wish to persuade a happy Debian desktop user to take a BSD for a spin?
You’re obviously curious and want to try it, or you wouldn’t have posted that, so why not go for it? You have nothing to lose. For me the coolest thing about OpenBSD is it’s the simplest OS that is still of practical use (i.e., not counting ones that are purely for research or education). So if you’re curious about how any part of the system works, it’s easy to just dive into /usr/src and figure it out. It’s also ent…
Any BSD fans out there wish to persuade a happy Debian desktop user to take a BSD for a spin?
BSDs are very tightly integrated. The entire OS is very consistent and 'correct', down to the tiny and pedantic details like putting things under /usr that are usually installed in /bin, because that's the way it's supposed to be. (Ex. `/usr/local/bin/bash`)
Think of it like reading Wikipedia, no matter which page you read it seems like it was written by the same person. That's the kind of consistency that OpenBSD intends to create.
Any BSD fans out there wish to persuade a happy Debian desktop user to take a BSD for a spin?
Linux systems are made by dozens of disparate teams, and it shows. Every command has a different syntax - just think about how "help" could be -h, --help, -help, -? etc BSDs are very tightly integrated. The entire OS is very consistent and 'correct', down to the tiny and pedantic details like putting things under /usr that are usually installed in /bin, because that's the way it's supposed to be . (Ex. `/usr/local/bi…
The base shell, ksh, is at /bin/ksh.
You probably know that but I just felt like being pedantic this morning :).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The song is the important stuff, if there is no song you should jump that release.
For generations the people of the artwork have been at war with the people of the song.