TrueOS to Become Core Operating System reddit / BSD ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2018-06-06 17:11 I don't know. I tried TrueOS and I wasn't impressed. It was FreeBSD with more shit piled on top ( and FreeBSD currently is already overly bloaty to begin with ). I forsee in the future a FreeBSD install image will exceed 1GB. I know they have their heart in the right place, but FreeBSD is on it's way to becoming another linux clone basically IMHO. OpenBSD is the future of real unix-like computing with modern, cutting edge coding and structure. OpenBSD install image is what, 250 mb? And I think it's shrunk a bit over the years too. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Michaelmrose · 2018-06-06 17:26 What are the factual negative consequences of 1GB vs 250MB install imagine. Its obviously not the storage consumed so can you explicate your point? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2018-06-06 17:52 Good news! Finally, finally they realized that their target userbase can't and will never be the same as Ubuntu's. They're target instead is mostly power **BSD/Unix (Linux/macOS secondary) power users** looking for a pre-configured, BSD-licensed, modern UNIX desktop, with a neat BSD-licensed DE, the hardware support and features of CURRENT, while possibly staying more stable than it, with desktop facilities (OpenRC, packages compiled with desktop-oriented flags, better default sysctl/kernel tunables, net- manager, life-preserver, zmanager, AppCafe, the firewall configurator I can't remember the name of..) I'm glad they're intriducing new features which make it appealing against a vanilla FreeBSD installation; I'll consider trying it again, also in light of the new improvements introduced in Lumina since 1.4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2018-06-06 18:05 > OpenBSD is the future of real unix-like computing with modern, cutting edge coding and structure. then good luck with it Personally for my powerful modern desktop I will stay with FreeBSD CURRENT and enjoy ZFS+beadm(or UFS2 with SU+J, snapshots, and TRIM support), mirable SMP and CPU scaling with great performance, GEOM, Wayland, Vulkan, libinput, bhyve, Virtualbox, wine, Linuxulator, jails, powerdxx, poudriere (or Gentoo's userland), an extremely wide software availability including KDE5 Plasma and LXQt, a BSD-licensed DE with a BSD-like phylosophy designed to run on top of it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- daemonpenguin · 2018-06-06 18:47 A couple of thoughts on this: 1. When TrueOS went to a rolling release it become hugely unstable and we had to stop using it in my office (we moved to FreeBSD). The blog announcement says 6-month releases, but not if they are rolling or fixed. 2. GhostBSD just moved from FreeBSD to TrueOS for its base. I wonder if this will make them switch back? Or is GhostBSD going to ride the new TrueOS base? 3. TrueOS/PC-BSD seems to shift gears quickly and without warning. From being all about PBI, to being a KDE-focused desktop FreeBSD, to being desktops neutral, to running Lumina primarily, to becoming a rolling release, to this new downstream fork. They don't seem to settle on anything for more than a year or two. 4. This has got to confuse users and be hurting their brand. Not many people want to install a system that might disappear or completely shift focus in twelve months. It makes me wonder why the team is jumping around so much. Are they just working on what interests them, are they getting direction from iXsystems, are they doing this based on user input? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- i_like_superman · 2018-06-06 19:15 I think my biggest question is your #4. When I think of TrueOS I think of FreeBSD with a DE. Now that it's changing directions again, I really have to wonder what the point is. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2018-06-06 19:17 I'm not saying that FreeBSD doesn't have it's perks. I tripleboot Void Linux, HardenedBSD and OpenBSD on one old-ass Thinkpad. OpenBSD and FreeBSD's performance are basically the same OpenBSD just seems to be more streamlined and smaller. However, OpenBSD is terrible on battery usage. Linux smokes both of them in performance and battery. Linux does tend to overheat my CPU on a heavy load more than the BSDs. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2018-06-06 19:20 Also FBSD needs to clean up it's dependancy trees, seriously. Just the program mpv and it's dependancies require 1 GB of hard drive space so I can play a .mp4 file. THAT is UNACCEPTABLE for any OS I don't care. And XORG was like almost 2 GB it's too much... Maybe people with brand new desktop computers with a 2TB hdd don't care but us laptop users are f**ked. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- vendion · 2018-06-06 19:22 I might be wrong in this, but IIRC at least one of the GhostBSD developers works at iXSystems, so that may be part of the influence for them to switch to TrueOS for their base. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2018-06-06 19:29 It is the storage consumed. That really does matter to some people. Also bloat = inefficiency, lazy programming, and more attack surface and less security. But some people don't care about these things, I do. The litmus test on engineering does involve the size (and other things too). Code cleanup, reduction, and optimization are all good signs of professional software engineering. Some guys over in Europe wrote an OS in assembly language that could fit on a floppy disk. So some people have no excuse, however they just put more layers of bloat on top of bloat until you're stuck with something like Windows 10 that needs a beast computer just to run normally. Linux has the same problem (system d, pulseaudio, kde, etc) and ALOT of Linux's problem children are being ported over to the BSDs (like it's shitty DRM stack sandwich). Don't get me wrong, they function and work. But there is a massive amount of code cleanup, optimization and debugging that needs to be done. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2018-06-06 19:42 >OpenBSD and FreeBSD's performance are basically the same OpenBSD Are you joking? Perhaps to open a LibreOffice or Firefox instance on a 2-core laptop. Which is fine, I've had OpenBSD on legacy laptops, the difference comes unnoticed But if you take a Intel Core i57600 with 16Gb RAM on M.2 SSD, like in my PC desktop, and try accomplishing parallel software builds, launching multiple browser instances, games with full specs, Virtual Machines, 4k blue Ray DVDs, massive backups, etc...OpenBSD could never bear the comparison There are clear technical differences behind this and I suggest you to check those out >However, OpenBSD is terrible on battery usage. Linux smokes both of them in performance and battery. This is utterly true, support is dissppointing, but it's also true that most BSD beginner fail in realizing BSDs are not configured for power saving by default, thry're configured for Servers,where power usage doesn't matter; it'sup to the user to make the required tweaks. There was a thread on FreeBSD forums just yealsterday with a guy comparing battery life on Thinkpad X11 Carbon 6th gen: 5h on FreeBSD against 11h on Linux. He received some good tips following which he managed to boost the battery life to 9h. Illumos on the other hand was a true suprise for me in regard of power management. The `svc:/system/power` SMF service is very versitile and allows a fine control: my old Samsung Laptop passed from 45min with Void Linux and TLP enabled to 1h15min on OpenIndiana Hipster ---------------------------------------------------------------------- CommonMisspellingBot · 2018-06-06 19:42 Hey, MaxPayneNoir, just a quick heads-up: **suprise** is actually spelled **surprise**. You can remember it by **begins with sur-**. Have a nice day! ^^^^The ^^^^parent ^^^^commenter ^^^^can ^^^^reply ^^^^with ^^^^'delete' ^^^^to ^^^^delete ^^^^this ^^^^comment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- daemonpenguin · 2018-06-06 19:45 I think at least one of them does indeed work for iX. Their blog post said most of the reason for the move though was OpenRC and other changes GhostBSD users wanted. It will be interesting to see if TrueOS still provides the base GhostBSD needs to complete their mission. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2018-06-06 19:52 Well your on that stuff more than me bro. But I will admit that all OSes behave differently on different hardware schemes so unnecessary bias will occur. I know for a fact though that vanilla FBSD lacks ALOT of security features that even the Linux kernel has. I was also proven that capsium can be exploited too https://youtu.be/bT_k06Xg-BE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- CommonMisspellingBot · 2018-06-06 19:52 Hey, freedman1611, just a quick heads-up: **alot** is actually spelled **a lot**. You can remember it by **it is one lot, 'a lot'**. Have a nice day! ^^^^The ^^^^parent ^^^^commenter ^^^^can ^^^^reply ^^^^with ^^^^'delete' ^^^^to ^^^^delete ^^^^this ^^^^comment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2018-06-06 19:53 >Also FBSD needs to clean up it's dependancy trees, seriously. Just the program mpv and it's dependancies require 1 GB of hard drive space so I can play a .mp4 file. THAT is UNACCEPTABLE for any OS I don't care. And XORG was like almost 2 GB it's too much While FreeBSD kernel and userland are relatively heavier, and less neat than OpenBSD's and NetBSD's, which results in FreeBSD being slightly heavier on requirements (though this is largely the result of ZFS if you use it) and disk usage, 3rd party additional software on FreeBSD can be made as light as you want it to be. A truly in-depth compile flags handling allows building minimal systems perfectly suitable for embedded devices (runs really well on my Rpi3). So, don't want crappy Pulseaudio, as you prefer bare OSS or sndio? disable it. Don't want to install lang/rust as dependency for Seamonkey? disable rust extension support; don't want database servers' support cause it's yseless on desktop? get rid of it; binary packages are compiled with servers in mind, IMHO they're not suitable for desktop usage. I have not my desktop at hand, but with more than 800 ports installed my SSD is practically empty ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2018-06-06 19:58 Hey it's you again, spelling nazi-bot. The website is so fucking lame but I can't find a suitable alternative :( ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2018-06-06 20:08 FreeBSD is far less secure than OpenBSD, that's a matter of fact.Here's why HardenedBSD. However,don't think Linux is more secure than FreeBSD because it's untrue. That video is a misleading demonstration on how to write a rootkit for a non-secured FreeBSD system, from one who's been working on FreeBSD for his entire life and knows perfectlly beforehand how the target machine is set up. It's like seing a Red Hat core security developer creating a rootkit for the RHEL Bugzilla server. If you happen to come in contact with a UNIX hacker, ask him/her how hard is it to hack FreeBSD. Also check out how many CVE vulnerabilities have been officialy discovered since FreeBSD first release, and compare this count with Linux',taking note of the average frequency of critical ones. Finally, go find and link a single example in history when a Brute force attack on FreeBSD, or a FreeBSD-based system were successful and some info was leaked or a server corrupted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Michaelmrose · 2018-06-06 20:16 >Some guys over in Europe wrote an OS in assembly language that could fit on a floppy disk. An interesting exercise to be sure but not many environments are so constrained that this is needed or useful. It also leads one to wonder about things like hardware support, stability, features. Its a hard sell to give up 90% of useful things to save half a percent of your storage budget to optimize for only one dimension. Also if you are really really storage constrained you can keep most of the features of freebsd/openbsd with linux for a lot less than 500mb alpine linux can do 5MB. We can either conclude that alpine linux is a lot simpler and therefore better designed than any bsd environment or conclude that size isn't always a fantastic proxy for simplicity. In fact pretty much all bsd/linux are very capable OS that don't need massive resources to run. The bloat and resource wastage normally lies in the gui layers we put on top of these OS. Moving on to security stuff like simplicity and attack surface boils down to trying to arrive at a chance of getting compromised by looking at the composition of the OS. In reality for most peoples use cases the chance is small with any bsd/linux stack increasing as the admins skill decreases. In summary openbsd is smaller and may be simpler and more secure by default but the difference may not be meaninful in a lot of use cases. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2018-06-06 20:20 Well, that fact that he proves that it can be done, means that it can be done by someone else too; and we need to make it so that no one can do it in the future. That dude is a serious Unix hacker. Sometimes I don't know what to think though, there is so much conflicting info on the net. But I'll be openminded. I love BSDs and am confident they will all share code and only continue to improve over time. My gripe with FBSD is that dependancy structure, if they'd fix that I would be sooo happy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2018-06-06 20:25 You make a compelling point, touche. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2018-06-06 20:32 Yah I was just doing a super basic install with HardenedBSD and with fluxbox, file manager, web browser, mpv, mupdf, gimp and feh I'm already pushing 6 gb xD. I notice because the partition is only 10 gb. But I understand rebuilding these systems to be smaller, just the time involved and learning curve to do so are a high price to pay when some OSes already do it out the box. Not mention an old thinkpad is not ideal for compiling anything bigger than a couple megabytes. So basically you approach FBSD with a Gentoo-like administration, and that's cool. My hope is that if I can ever afford a new desktop I'll do the same basically. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2018-06-06 20:47 >Well, that fact that he proves that it can be done, means that it can be done by someone else too Sure, but I don't know if you got the real intentions/message behind that video; that's why I said it's misleading. Just to make you realize, here's a [Linux rootkit](https://github.com/nurupo/rootkit/blob/master/README.md). And you can find many others online. My whole point was: If you're so worried about about Security why do you use Linux? It's not more secure than FreeBSD, Solaris or NetBSD. Why don't you use OpenBSD exclusively if you're that sure it's so better secured? You should also throw your smartphone in the trash can because that one is the least secure of all. Finally do you really think that if De Raadt wanted to write a rootkit for OpenBSD he couldn't? Moreover, naturally when you set up a server you tend to secure things up. Many of the things which are default choices in HardenedBSD are naturally adoptedby people at the moment of building a FreeBSD server >there is so much conflicting info on the net. Well pure Linux users, even experienced ones, even developers and admins, tend to scorn FreeBSD and tell it's insecure without actually knowing a thing about it and even without having ever used it once. There are a lot of common places around FreeBSD in the Linux community. Curiously this doesn't affect Windows ans macOS communities too. I believe that's because it still represents some sort of minor competition to estinguish. But ask yourself,if it were that insecure, would What'App, Netflix, Sony, Duck Duck Go, and tons of smaller companies still entrust people's data to it? OpenBSD on the other hand is very secure and often regarded as a masterpiece of software engineering in terns of code tidiness, but outside firewalls, mail servers and some few sites it's not adopted by many companies in enterprise level (imho,complicit the performance debate of which above and the lack of a serious new-gen file system) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BumpitySnook · 2018-06-06 20:55 delete your account ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BumpitySnook · 2018-06-06 20:56 delete ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BumpitySnook · 2018-06-06 20:56 > FreeBSD is far less secure than OpenBSD, that's a matter of fact. No it isn't? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BumpitySnook · 2018-06-06 20:57 That video does not demonstrate what it or you claim. Shawn doesn't actually enable the capsicum sandbox and proceeds to demonstrate that the process is unconstrained, *as totally expected by the API*. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2018-06-06 20:59 yeah, you got my point perfectly. For me on low specs, especially laptops, it's NetBSD, OpenBSD or Tribblix (lightweight minimalist Illumos distro supporting UFS2). NetBSD also on embedded ARM (where it rocks), with FreeBSD as a second choice if one can afford cross compiling from x86_64. OpenBSD on Thinkpads, Dell and XPS laptops since has the best hardware support on those brands. Moreover I'd put OpenBSD on a firewall server and NetBSD on a router. NetBSD naturally goes on legacy archs, especially SPARC, VAX,m68k, Amigas, while OpenBSD is better on PowerPCs. On a powerful desktop, a new generation expensive laptop (like that guy's Thinkpad with a i78600k...by the way how can people afford those things?), a workstation or a general purpose server, I'd put FreeBSD, DragonflyBSD or Illumos (OmniOS/OpenIndiana/XstreamOS) albeit FreeBSD is better for desktop usage. For virtualization definitely Illumos, with FreeBSD as second choice, NetBSD as third. Obviously, all of this excluding Linux, which being realistic, fares well in all those use cases outside legacy archs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- icantthinkofone · 2018-06-06 21:28 >FreeBSD currently is already overly bloaty to begin with I believe you have just shown you don't have a clue what you're talking about. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2018-06-06 21:29 well if you compare the huge mismatch in quantity of code, the default use of OpenSSL in FreeBSD, the current version of FreeBSD's PF against OpenBSD's PF, the lack of ASLR and PIE, the overal default system hardening...a difference can be noticed and is widely recognized. Probably "far less secure" is an exageration, but the fact OpenBSD is more secure by nature is hard to deny. This does not mean FreeBSD isn't secure. I mean the relative focus on security, high quality of kernel's and userland's code, the firewalls, GELI, arc4random, capsicum, strlcat, jails, the non-executable stack for memory exploits, SSP Stack Protector, blacklistd, MemGuard, the default NULL page mapping, and many other things make FreeBSD a very secure OS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- icantthinkofone · 2018-06-06 21:30 Yep. Now I'm positive you don't know what you're talking about. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BumpitySnook · 2018-06-06 22:19 > the default use of OpenSSL in FreeBSD [Latacora: Cryptographic Right Answers](http://latacora.singles/2018/04/03/cryptographic-right- answers.html): > there was a dark period between 2010 and 2016 where OpenSSL might not have been the right answer, but that time has passed. OpenSSL has gotten better, and, more importantly, OpenSSL is on-the-ball with vulnerability disclosure and response. You said: > the current version of FreeBSD's PF against OpenBSD's PF This is a feature distinction, not a security one. The native FreeBSD firewall is ipfw. > the lack of ASLR It's ready to commit, but held off by a combination of complaints by HBSD and the total lack of any security ASLR provides. ASLR is broken by numerous cache sidechannels that are impossible to prevent in software. Novel ASLR side channels are a common undergrad or masters thesis topic. It just does not meaningfully improve security. > the fact OpenBSD is more secure by nature is hard to deny. Again, it's not a fact, and I am disputing it. There are security tradeoffs with both; neither is a clear winner. (On the other hand, I don't think it is disputed that FreeBSD offers better performance.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- zinsuddu · 2018-06-06 22:24 For the point go straight to the source...[The TrueOS Git Repo](https://github.com/trueos/trueos). The TrueOS operating system really differs significantly from FreeBSD, as an operating system aside from what DE is put on top of it. Another place to look is [More on TrueOS](https://www.trueos.org/more-on-trueos/). It seems that the change in organization of the projects makes clear that TrueOS is an enhanced version of FreeBSD, and you can put any DE on top of it from ports, or pre\-configured like GhostBSD (mate and xfce) and Trident (lumina) will now do. TrueOS Differences: In what ways does TrueOS differ from stock FreeBSD you may be wondering? Read on for a list of the distinctions in no particular order: * Bi\-Annual Release Cycle \- TrueOS follows traditional FreeBSD HEAD and cuts new releases on a 6 months schedule which includes OS and Ports. * GitHub \- TrueOS uses Git/GitHub as the "Source of truth", Pull\-Requests welcome! * CI \- Our [Jenkins build cluster](https://builds.ixsystems.com/jenki ns/job/TrueOS%20-%20World%20CI/) is constantly building [new versions] (https://builds.ixsystems.com/jenkins/job/TrueOS%20- %20World%20CI/job/trueos-master/) of TrueOS for testing. * [LibreSSL](https://www.libressl.org/) \- Replaces OpenSSL in the base system with one far more secure. * [dhcpcd](https://github.com/rsmarples/dhcpcd) \- dhcpcd has been integrated directly into base, allowing more advanced IPv4 and IPv6 network configuration * [OpenRC](https://github.com/openrc/openrc/) \- This replaces the legacy rc.d scripts with OpenRC's init.d subsystem, allowing faster boots, as well as a host of other service improvements. * [JQ](https://stedolan.github.io/jq/) \- Because working with JSON files using SED and AWK isn't exactly ideal... JQ allows using JSON in shell and other utilties in the base system. * Package Base \- TrueOS is installed and based on using Packages for the Base OS. * [pkg in base](https://github.com/freebsd/pkg) \- To go along with using base system packages, TrueOS has also integrated PKG directly in the base system. * Root NSS Certs \- Since it really is a bummer to not be able to use HTTPS out of box... * Custom Installer \- TrueOS includes its own [pc\-sysinstall](https://github.com/trueos/trueos/tree/trueos- master/usr.sbin/pc-sysinstall) installation system, along with [text\-based](https://github.com/trueos/trueos/tree/trueos- master/usr.sbin/pc-installdialog) front\-end. This allows a wide variety of ZFS\-based installation options, as well as scriptability. * [JSON Build Manifest](https://github.com/trueos/trueos/tree/trueos- master/release/README.md) \- TrueOS supports a customizable JSON manifest for building. This allows TrueOS to run poudriere and assemble installation images for a variety of use\-cases. * Full clang functionality in the base system (FreeBSD uses a limited version of clang). This enables the full range of compiler flags and optimizations that clang supports (such as openmp support). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2018-06-06 23:18 >Latacora: Cryptographic Right Answers That's some very interesting pieve of writing. However I remember a [LibreSSL presentation](http://www.openbsd.org/papers/libtls- fsec-2015/mgp00005.html) where OpenBSD would claim OpenSSL is insecure. Obviously those records depend also on how widely used each SSL is used. By the way, I just saw HBSD is indeed [falling back to standard OpenSSL again](https://hardenedbsd.org/article/shawn- webb/2018-04-30/hardenedbsd-switching-back-openssl) >This is a feature distinction, not a security one. The native FreeBSD firewall is ipfw. you're right; to be honest,on FreeBSD,I use IPFW, because I damn like it and find its syntax clearer. However, oddly enough, everytime I mention I'm using IPFW I'm always either ignored or regarded as a silly noob who's playing with an obsolete toy by other users. surely it seems ipfw hasn't received many commits in the last 2 years, bu to me it seens pretty solid >ASLR is broken by numerous cache sidechannels that are impossible to prevent in software. Novel ASLR side channels are a common undergrad or masters thesis topic. It just does not meaningfully improve security. makes sense, doesn't harm either though. I mean, though it won't obviously shield against something like Spectre, still it adds a level of security against potential software-level kernel faults. In this regard, give a look at [NetBSD's ASLR](https://blog.netbsd.org/tnf/entry/the_strongest_kaslr_ever) >Again, it's not a fact, and I am disputing it. There are security tradeoffs with both; neither is a clear winner. Fair, since my direct knowledge of OpenBSD is close to zero (practically all "2nd-handed", mediated by others' tales+ little personal experience), I take your words for true until proven wrong, escpecially in light of the clearly huge gap in competence between you an me (with being me the noob here) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- VENTDEV · 2018-06-07 00:37 Skipping all the OpenBSD vs FreeBSD dick waving going on this topic. I wonder how long before IXSystem switches FreeNAS/TrueNAS to TrueOS? I imagine this set of direction changes were pushed more for the needs of enterprise server and NAS systems from IXSystems and not really the focus of noobie/lazy-FreeBSD users. (And don't take that as an insult, lazy OS's are fine.) Constantly rebranding and switching directions of PCBSD is really annoying. I'm just happy I don't use any IXSystem systems. It's frustrating just reading the constant barrage of changes every few months. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- daemonpenguin · 2018-06-07 00:49 I think (hope) FreeNAS learned their lesson last time they tried to leap ahead and got burned. Having a faster, more experimental development cycle really caused them problems (with Corral) and forced them rollback quickly. Jumping to TrueOS would likely introduce similar problems. I'm hoping this time they stick with tried and true FreeBSD. When it comes to enterprise level storage, boring is good. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- VENTDEV · 2018-06-07 01:18 While I agree with you they shouldn't, I believe that they will. This move sounds to me as if they want to move TrueOS ahead of FreeBSD. Obviously. The only logical reason to spend all the extra money/man power to do this is for business purposes. iX's bread and butter is its FreeNAS/TrueNAS products. From a business standpoint, getting the full stack of the base OS in your control and making it exactly how you want it would lead to a better product. In theory anyway. Similar to how Red Hat tries to wrap as much of the Linux userland under their control via systemd. I think we might see a switch from FreeBSD to TrueOS for the NAS products after TrueOS is stabilized somewhat. From what a friend tells me (who uses FreeNAS semi professionally) they've got several issues with FreeNAS 10. Does iXsystems think they can solve these issues through more in house development? They specifically renamed PCBSD to TrueOS and didn't rename TrueNAS to PCNAS for a reason. ;) Anyhoo doesn't effect me. Much like you, I like my work to be boring. Both my commercial servers and my workstation are on basic, ports compiled with minimal depends, vanilla FreeBSD... *Snore* ---------------------------------------------------------------------- daemonpenguin · 2018-06-07 01:41 One nice thing that might come out of this is if TrueOS fully embraces LibreSSL, their work might help HardenedBSD. The Hardened team recently said they had to transition back from LibreSSL to OpenSSL due to a lack of resources; they couldn't keep up with LibreSSL's faster development/changes. If TrueOS can pour resources into making ports work with LibreSSL that effort could allow HardenedBSD to embrace LibreSSL again. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Yharnam_FM · 2018-06-07 01:53 Just to clarify, alpine is 5mb (docker image) without the kernel. It’s actual install image is ~100-150mb for standard and 350-400mb for the extended version. I would argue that you could use something like Gentoo to get something even smaller (my kernel is only 10mb for example) but you’d have to make something very similar to alpine - musl libc, busybox instead of coreutils and so forth. I’d imagine this would take quite a significant effort; as you’d be starting with a stage 1 instead of a stage3. The main difference being that you could compile everything unnecessary out in Gentoo, whereas with alpine lots of dependencies are compiled in. It’s still light as hell though for a binary distro! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2018-06-07 05:22 > OpenRC - This replaces the legacy rc.d scripts with OpenRC's init.d subsystem, allowing faster boots, as well as a host of other service improvements. You don't get to call a system legacy just because you stopped using it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2018-06-07 05:39 > It's ready to commit, but held off by a combination of complaints by HBSD and the total lack of any security ASLR provides. ASLR is broken by numerous cache sidechannels that are impossible to prevent in software. Novel ASLR side channels are a common undergrad or masters thesis topic. It just does not meaningfully improve security. Those side channels rely on being able to execute arbitrary code. If you don't have that, ASLR is helpful. it doesn't help enough to be justified with a privilege escalation or a javascript web browser, but it does make sense for my network daemons. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- vermaden · 2018-06-07 15:16 I got similar expression about PC-BSD/TrueOS. They made big annoucements but the product is never ready and when it is close they chenge their mind. The only real production ready system from them is FreeNAS applaiance, the 9.x tree and current production release 11.x tree. Of course they had little problem with 10.x (CORRAL) but I assume that these kinds of problems can hit anyone. Check this thread for example: https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/trueos-anyone-using-it-on-a- laptop.63746/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2018-06-07 16:59 Well just go throw yourself a party then cause you're just soooo awesoome, (we're not worthy) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2018-06-07 17:01 Ya'll tech nerds are a sad sorry bunch of punks, the only guy here who is actually nice and doesn't talk down to me is MaxPayneNoir. It's okay, I find better tech forums, reddit is dead to me. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- phessler · 2018-06-07 18:40 Can you stop trolling people and giving OpenBSD a bad name? We don't need help in that department. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2018-06-07 21:10 Hey, my first post was an opinion. Then I had a nice intellectual conversation with maxpaynenoir. These other bozos put there two cents in where it didn't belong. I really don't see how this your business either? Just because you're an OpenBSD dev does that mean you own OpenBSD? No, it's free, and the users own it and we can talk about however we like. Go back to your hackathon where you belong buddy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- icantthinkofone · 2018-06-07 21:28 Now that's the smartest thing you've said in this thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Kernigh · 2018-06-08 18:11 Yes you do: a "legacy" thing is just an obsolete thing from the past. For example, FreeBSD and TrueOS stopped using the legacy pkg_add because they have pkg; but NetBSD and OpenBSD still use pkg_add. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Kernigh · 2018-06-08 18:18 My OpenBSD/amd64 machine has so much bloat, with 5.5G of packages in /usr/local. Even if OpenBSD's base install is smaller than FreeBSD's, it doesn't prevent bloat. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- icantthinkofone · 2018-06-08 20:09 A lot of things in /usr/local/ are things you would have put in there yourself cause you want them and has nothing to do with openBSD. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2018-06-09 03:01 - NetBSD and OpenBSD were not using the same code as you used to. - They make improvements to their codebase independent of you - They occasionally think your "newer, non-legacy" tools are worse. Just because it has the same name doens't mean it's the same tools. How about, "TrueOS still uses legacy ifconfig, whereas linux uses the newer non-legacy ip"? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ydna_eissua · 2018-06-09 11:36 >several issues with FreeNAS 10 They should move off FreeNAS 10. IxSystems recognised what a dumpster fire it was and withdrew the release in favour of the 9.10 codebase. Which was then upgraded to be based on FreeBSD 11 and released shortly as FreeNAS 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- VENTDEV · 2018-06-09 17:05 No idea what or which version of FreeNAS he/they are running now. I'm not employed by the company he works for, so it's just trivial knowledge from past conversation. I'm sure they've already fixed their issues. However, the point was that iX may view issues like what they had with FreeNAS 10 solvable via maintaining more of the OS stack on their own. My two bits anyway. :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- bee_man_john · 2018-06-11 16:03 what "games with full specs" are you running on freebsd ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [deleted] · 2018-06-11 16:15 0ad, Nexuiz, NeverWinter Nights, Xonotic, Quake IV, Doom III, Arx Fatalis, Morrowind, Return to Castle Wolfenstein natively + Medieval II/Empire Total War, Age of Empires III, Max Payne 3, Skyrim, Half Life 2, Starcraft II, Team Fortress II, CS GO, Tomb Raider Legend, Fallout III, Unreal Tournament III, The Witcher, Civilization IV and others on wine. Some Play Station 3, PSP and Nintendo Wii games under emulation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ben_bai · 2018-06-12 09:09 So true. OpenBSD had an patched up apache web server, then went to nginx, then went to a relayd rewrite, and the binary was always simply called httpd.