OpenBSD Finally Has USB 3.0 Support

[DanL]

Man it took them 6 years to implement some trivial thing.

Trivial? Die, troll, die! https://github.com/torvalds/linux/bl...sb/host/xhci.c

The funny thing about the BSD hater(s) is that they complain about the BSD code being inferior, and then in the next thread, they will say that those coders are wasting their time and should be working on GPL stuff. Logical inconsistency...

[Ardje]

The biggest plus about OpenBSD is that they don't have systemd.

On a side note: who wants to bet that this thread gets at least 30 systemd remarks?

[nanonyme]

The biggest plus about OpenBSD is that they don't have systemd.

On a side note: who wants to bet that this thread gets at least 30 systemd remarks?

Yeah, it's funny how easy it is to derail threads with offtopic crap these days

[DanL]

Phoronix really needs some heavy-handed moderation, at least temporarily. Then, when people start arguing about licenses, they could move those posts into a dedicated licensing flamefest thread. Same thing thing for systemd. I was fairly pleased with the recent topics on pulseaudio and .NET. They could have been a lot worse...

[LightBit]

Man it took them 6 years to implement some trivial thing.

The funnies part is USB 3.0 has been super-seeded with USB 3.1. This want happens when projects use the BSD license rather then the GPL.

This was rather quick for OpenBSD.

The funniest part is I don't own any USB 3.0 device.

[lolnope]

Bsd suxxx!!!111one

Why is this forum like full of license trolls?
Both BSD and the GPL license have its uses. Neither of them are bad.
Let me clear up some misconceptions:
1. BSD is NOT dead. Inspite of what people would like you to believe, the BSD community is alive and thriving. The FreeBSD foundation is well on its target of 1 million $ this year, with Google and Netflix having donated heavily last year.
2. BSD allows companies to take code from them to create great products. If it had the GPL license, companies wouldn't have touched it. But because it is under the BSD license, companies can take the code and upstream changes which makes things easier to maintain. Like Sony upstreamed a few patches. This may or may not help the open source project but it helps the whole computing industry. Ixsystems is a company which has helped the development of BSD immensely, much like Redhat in the Linux world.
3. Linux has a lot of advantages. Albeit code quality and security isn't one of them. OpenBSD is great in this regard. ZFS is the only solution atm if you want a reliable filesystem which can prevent against bitrot and BSD is the better choice here, since the version on Linux lags behind and is quite slow. Pfsense is a great router software based on FreeBSD. BSD's network stack is excellent for pushing high throughput traffic with low cpu usage.
4.The whole of internet relies on BSD. ICANN's root servers run on BSD, Whatsapp runs on BSD, Netflix serves a lot of traffic through BSD storage clusters.
5. Ironically BSD's end products are much more open and better. eg; Pfsense is completely free to use. However alternative Linux firewalls are mostly paid(unless you want a lot of features missing). FreeNAS is a great product which no other Linux alternative can match. The best commercial distributions of Linux(RHEL and SUSE) are paid. And there are people calling the GPL more open.
I'm not saying that 'x' license or 'x' OS is better or more open than 'y' license/OS. I'm just saying that everything has a usecase and a place. Before typing out a shitpost on say BSD, download a copy of PC-BSD and give it a spin. I'm sure you'll be surprised by how powerful it is. BSD lacks a lot of stuff like proper graphics or a nice init system like systemd, but it does do a lot of things right.

[Ardje]

5. Ironically BSD's end products are much more open and better. eg; Pfsense is completely free to use. However alternative Linux firewalls are mostly paid(unless you want a lot of features missing).

Actually all expensive firewalls use BSD. It doesn't make them good, because they use their own packet filters, not that of BSD.
All linux firewalls I know are open and free. Specially since firewalls are a kernel functionality. I don't know of any open and free BSD variants, only expensive non-free.
So there, you have it.
Point is: you must use the firewall you know. Networking is too complex, and most "commercial" firewalls only limit your system in the possibilities.
If you can't handle tcpdump, you shouldn't be maintaining a firewall ;-).

BSD lacks a lot of stuff like proper graphics or a nice init system like systemd, but it does do a lot of things right.

It lacks systemd! No seriously! It lacks systemd! Call it a feature, call it a deficit, it still lacks it.
EDIT: I just saw that you actually mentioned systemd. That's not nice, you took my troll!

[lolnope]

Actually all expensive firewalls use BSD. It doesn't make them good, because they use their own packet filters, not that of BSD.
All linux firewalls I know are open and free. Specially since firewalls are a kernel functionality. I don't know of any open and free BSD variants, only expensive non-free.
So there, you have it.
Point is: you must use the firewall you know. Networking is too complex, and most "commercial" firewalls only limit your system in the possibilities.
If you can't handle tcpdump, you shouldn't be maintaining a firewall ;-).

Well I was specifically referring to how restricted the free versions of Zentyal and Clear OS were as compared to Pfsense, which is entirely free and is based on FreeBSD's PF firewall. The packages provided in Pfsense are excellent and make setting up of squid proxy for blocking content, caching websites and updates, setting up of HAVP, adblocking, blocking ips and entire countries an absolute breeze. The QOS is great too. The packages provided are absolutely fantastic.
I'm neither an expert on firewalls nor a sysadmin so don't tell me to set everything up on my own using nftables
I wasn't aware about the closed source firewalls based on BSD. Can you name a few so that I can check them out?

My point was that license doesn't matter as long as it works and works well. I use Linux, not for its license but how good it is.

[Rallos Zek]

3. Linux has a lot of advantages. Albeit code quality and security isn't one of them. OpenBSD is great in this regard. ZFS is the only solution atm if you want a reliable filesystem which can prevent against bitrot and BSD is the better choice here, since the version on Linux lags behind and is quite slow. Pfsense is a great router software based on FreeBSD. BSD's network stack is excellent for pushing high throughput traffic with low cpu usage.

Bullshit! Show me where BSD code has been analyzed to the degree that Linux code has? Linux code is the 'benchmark of quality,' study concludes

The BSDs cannot compare with Linux code quality!

4.The whole of internet relies on BSD. ICANN's root servers run on BSD, Whatsapp runs on BSD, Netflix serves a lot of traffic through BSD storage clusters.

Bullshit again. You BSD sissy's cannot stop with with your thumped up lies! Google, youtube, amazon, and most of the internet runs Linux. And when you want real work done and want to use the biggest and fastest systems in the world costing millions of dollars , with thousands of CPUs and terabytes of memory you use Linux and not some crappy *BSD!

5. Ironically BSD's end products are much more open and better. eg; Pfsense is completely free to use. However alternative Linux firewalls are mostly paid(unless you want a lot of features missing). FreeNAS is a great product which no other Linux alternative can match. The best commercial distributions of Linux(RHEL and SUSE) are paid. And there are people calling the GPL more open.
I'm not saying that 'x' license or 'x' OS is better or more open than 'y' license/OS. I'm just saying that everything has a usecase and a place. Before typing out a shitpost on say BSD, download a copy of PC-BSD and give it a spin. I'm sure you'll be surprised by how powerful it is. BSD lacks a lot of stuff like proper graphics or a nice init system like systemd, but it does do a lot of things right.

And here you are with even more bullshit!

[lolnope]

Bullshit! Show me where BSD code has been analyzed to the degree that Linux code has? Linux code is the 'benchmark of quality,' study concludes

The BSDs cannot compare with Linux code quality!

Oh really? How do you explain the ugly blobs in the Linux kernel while OpenBSD does not have them?
What about the numerous security issues with Linux, while OpenBSD has had just two critical issues for the last two decades? Linux is not about security. It is about speed of development. A critical security flaw is not given priority over say any other bug.

Google, youtube, amazon, and most of the internet runs Linux.

I never denied that.

And when you want real work done and want to use the biggest and fastest systems in the world costing millions of dollars , with thousands of CPUs and terabytes of memory you use Linux and not some crappy *BSD!

Depends on the usecase. There is no Linux alternative if I want a storage cluster which can prevent against bitrot and can backup my data. BTRFS is too immature and unstable at this point in time. I never denied that if you want performance or features Linux is the way to go.

Bullshit again. You BSD sissy's cannot stop with with your thumped up lies!

Name calling won't make your arguments any more believable. The problem with the Linux community is that it is full of zealots and underage people like you.