Redpill me on BSD

Why is this OS so good compared to GNU/Linux?
I'm genuinely curious

Attached: freshBSD.jpg (1280x1024, 144.12K)

cvck license

Debian is free, not sure why anyone would use anything else.

that picture is infinite fucking cringe
the fact that a bsd user made it is enough to keep me from using bsd

They're not technically very different. What makes it better is . Freetards seethe, but the results speak for themselves. More organized groups (i.e. Corporations) can make better use of BSD, incorporate their own ideas on top of it without reprisals, and implement a singular vision for their end product that has a lot more polish than what the Linux world has come up with so far. macOS, PS5 and even Nintendo in the gaming realms, etc.. I have nothing against Linux, except it's lack of vision and leadership to be able to do this.

Luke Smith should follow in the footsteps of his less deranged look alike (Brian Laundrie) and kill himself

He looks like his twin brother

systemD (it's botnet)

Devuan then.

It's an actual OS, not just a "distribution" (yes, it's called the Berkeley Software Distribution, but the meaning of the word "distribution" in its name is different), which implies the software gets direct attention from the devs, and the system is a more coherent whole.
Much more secure and stable than linux, and it doesn't have a million half-broken packages that all do the same thing.

Kinda overdoing it with the "million broken packages"

Good vs bad is subjective, but here are some of the differences I can remember:

- Most BSDs are developed as OSes, which means both system software and kernel are developed by the same developers (compared to linux the kernel and e.g. gnu coreutils), this can either be considered a plus or a minus, but mostly it's better since they can just upgrade both at the same time without miscoordination issues
- Linux has Docker/Podman, systemd, good GNOME/KDE support, flatpaks/snaps ... Again this can either be good or bad, depends on what you want. BSDs have alternatives, but they're not 1:1 compatible.
- Linux package support is much better than BSD, since it's more popular, but in the sam way that Windows has better package support than Linux

The only other difference I can remember is the license (so BSD vs GPLv2).
If you want to try out a BSD, go for FreeBSD, it's the most popular. There are some derivatives that are more user friendly, but at that point why even try a BSD if you don't care about the internals. OpenBSD is probably the next most popular one.

Well, I also kinda lied. BSD has a bunch of half-broken software that you can download too. But there is a core that is actively maintained, and not just grabbed off the internet and bundled into a distro.

But isn't this the same thing as with GNU coreutils, they're not just some random packages.

But yeah, totally agree, anything randomy downloaded can break your system, no matter if it's BSD or Linux. The reason for BSD to have less broken packages can be either because packagers care more or because there are less packages in general (or the ones that are there work better since they're probably more portable).

this is what BSD does to you.

Attached: 1623057618906.jpg (1362x720, 235.86K)

>good
Yeah, no. BSD doesn't have anything even approaching full VFIO support.

It would actually make a really good base OS for virtualizing things, as BSD's tend to be rock solid stable, but right now you can't properly passthrough PCIe hardware to the virtualized OS's.

Story behind pic?
She looks underage on the left. Was she being used by BSD pedos at a BSD pedo convention, and the sexual abuse led to her growing up into a man-hatting lesbian that hates life, and will now kill herself by drinking scented bleach?

she did start up as a devil even when young so what else would you expect?

>Story behind pic?
i don't know the story behind the bleach pic, I just googled her and made this before/after BSD pic.

>"vision" and "leadership" nets you proprietary, locked-down, poorly performing, prone to breakage products designed to squeeze as much money as possible out of gullible retards
I'd rather be Free.

It's not the same, because it means you can't get a situation like with Arch Linux right now where a maintainer just leaves and a core package suddenly gets no updates for months

Attached: bsd.jpg (1280x1024, 242.61K)

Because everything is developed as a whole, from the kernel to the utilities. On FreeBSD everything fits the FreeBSD vision. On OpenBSD everything fits their vision. They share some things with one another but it doesn't interfere with the project as a whole.
I always found sound to be perfect on the BSDs, no popping or crackling. I use FreeBSD as my daily OS.

>everything is developed as a whole
except for everything that's not coreutils, of course. because freebsd fucking sucks. install plan9 if you actually give a fuck about consistency

>except for everything that's not coreutils
That's why ports are separate retard. But ports are great, it gives you the flexibility to be consistent or make liberties if you want. I use a purely OSS-only system. No pulseaudio or pipewire garbage.
>because freebsd fucking sucks
Cope.