No official Blender support, and no CUDA or OptiX support for GPU rendering.
pufferfish wit da big ass lip
>>109056216Zip it, Khazarian-Turk hybrid.
>>109056071they should port wine so I can be a secure gaymer
>>109056071I went to their openports site and the security certs were expiredso I never bothered, horrible first impression
>>109058407VGA+SB for the VM would be even better.>>109058410it's not even theirs lol, that's like saying you went to a site about mcdonalds but it no longer exists and therefore don't like the fillet o' fish, it makes no sense
>>109058420then it doesn't have the software I use, won't bother
I don't see how it's more secure unless it supports capabilities as first class citizens. Their hole security model is "we take it more seriously", but it's still a Unix system giving full access to programs.
>>109058444>capabilitiesWhy is this more secure and how is more secure than traditional users, groups, SUID, SGID, and chroot?You can't say why or how because it isn't.
>>109058590It is more secure because the default is that a program doesn't have access to anything, except it's little pond where it can maybe store its own files and even then for some programs that shouldn't be the case. With users and groups best you can hope for is that program has access to whatever user has access to. So the focus is on users, not programs. Technically, In a capability OS, users don't even need to exist, but if they do, it's more of a convenience (as in, have separate desktops and home folders on the same machine) than a necessity.I actually tried to set up a system for myself with FreeBSD where every program would run under its own user and it's a major pain in the ass because of how inconvenient it becomes to manage this. Containers and flatpaks solve this somewhat, but very clumsily. The point of capabilities as first class citizens is that not only you get no access by default, but that managing access (capabilities) is paid more attention to and is thus, natural and easy. Of course no one has implemented it yet to my knowledge, but then aren't things no one's done are the ones worth doing?
it's just a simple secure operating system and it doesn't pretend to be accessible to the common customer. that's good enough for me
>>109058744>It is more secure because the default is that a program doesn't have access to anything, except it's little pond where it can maybe store its own filesWhat is pledge / unveil?You are framing this as if "it is compliant to certain standards" is the only way things can be secure.This has been solved at the OS level without changing the user / group model.
>>109056071the ugly bastard os
>>109058744As the other anon said, OpenBSD uses pledge to make it so every application has to specify what syscalls it plans on using at the start of the program and it can only limit it instead of increase it. It also has unveil to limit directory access for difficult applications, so FireFox can only see Downloads + whatever folders it uses for its own data. It has strict rules about which directories can write and which can execute, with /usr/local being the one exception where both can occur. They also randomize the IDs of everything on reboot and did some mumbojumbo to prevent ROP attacks by making the return addresses available in RAM not have any valuable data by default. Their whole shtick is making Unix more secure using simple but effective methods rather than fundamentally changing Unix or using containers for everything everything. I might be describing it poorly as I'm mostly reciting from memory after watching some talks on the matter, but overall I'm quite impressed with OpenBSD. FreeBSD has Capsicum which might appeal to you more. Really any BSD is a good pick for either a server, router, or a computer you don't plan to do anything crazy on. I use FreeBSD for my server because I like jails more than the different Linux options I've tried (Qemu is better than Bhyve still imo), NetBSD has Qemu and ZFS but is not as polished compared to FreeBSD. OpenBSD is very nice and old school + only takes 100MB of ram on my laptop, which is pretty amazing to me since Alpine Linux took 300MB even with just a TTY. DragonflyBSD is there if you want an underdog with some neat features, otherwise I'd stick to the main 3.
>>109056095Blender doesn't support my hardware lol
>>109056071I refuse to even consider using an operating system that can't do something as basic as trim an SSD and keeps network passwords in a plain text file.
>>109056071is this even usable as a desktop?
>>109056071>No hardware support>No software supportBecause I like my computer to work
>>109056071why is the license just a blank sheet of paper? too lazy for beurocracy?
>>109060308I do think, even with myself being anti-copyright, that it does make sense to impose some restrictions so that if others take it, they can't just sneak it about
>>109056071I am, which is why I don't use openplacebo
>>109059370The best thing about the openbsd model is that they guys who develop it are all expected to know the whole system. They don't work on bits independently like Linux. You submit your code to Theo and he reads it, and a bunch of other wizards read it, and they decide if it goes in and talk about the system as a whole.As the whole OS has to fit in a single human mind, that naturally places a limit on how complex it can be, which is a good thing.
>>109058590OpenBSD is secure as a base system but that does not mean it's actually more secure than other options.What it means is if you use it to set up a router it will be secure.frankly speaking linux has better and more advanced security options like selinux.Personally I just like openbsd because I the system once you get over the learning hurdles.But I'm still only a few months into using it having used linux as a normie user for a decade, I threw myself into trying to set up openbsd myself because it was just something I've wanted to do for a while.
>>109062439>The best thing about the openbsd model is that they guys who develop it are all expected to know the whole systemThe OpenBSD community is really into the idea of dogfooding.https://wiki.ircnow.org/pmwiki.php?n=Debate.DogfoodingThat you must use whatever you make.They use to mock freebsd devs for using macs to emulate freebsd instead of using it a a daily driver
>>109062492Wow, you must be a unicorn.The only sane person in the world who likes openbsd.
>>109058590>chrootThat's not a security mechanism you fucking retard
>>109062673It's got a really straighforward installer. you can hit defaults for most of everything and be done in less than 5 minutes.Simplicity is one of the strengths of their system, confusion and oversight are killers.What I'm not so happy about is the somewhat limited package libs compared to other vendors.If something goes a little wrong you're mostly on your own.ffs2 is okay as a filesystem but lacks the features of something like zfs, apparently this is because they tried using something more complex but it was a nightmare to maintain. Ease of maintenance trumps performance for them.
>>109059370> FreeBSD has CapsicumI'm not sure about OpenBSD, but capsicum on FreeBSD requires software to be capsicum aware and if it's not then it's just not going to work.
>>109056071cuck license
