Hacker News Reader

> Mostly I'm just tired of people claiming BSD is this amazing new thing

I don't think I've heard anybody claim BSD is new.

> Netflix, and other FAANGs, except those corps don't contribute enough back because of the license

I believe Netflix has upstreamed a lot to FreeBSD. They don't do it because the license compels them, they do it because upstreaming your changes makes maintenance easier.

> If my laptop's wifi didn't work I wouldn't just buy a usb-ethernet adapter and never bring it anywhere

I'm going to guess with this rant that you weren't using Linux in the olden days, because that's what it was like. The workaround isn't using wired ethernet by the way..you can get a USB wifi adapter or you can buy an m.2 wifi card. On on one of my machines I got a cheap m.2 Intel ax200 (just checked, about $15 on eBay) because it runs faster on FreeBSD than the one that shipped with my laptop.

>I'm going to guess with this rant that you weren't using Linux in the olden days, because that's what it was like.

I've been using Linux and BSD in one form or another since 2003, and I definitely used wpa_supplicant on the command line to connect my Thinkpad to WiFi. And you're right, it did suck. It was not a 9/10 experience by a long shot.

Regarding your wifi example. I did have to replace it with an intel one on my Lenovo because wifi would not work with something connected to Bluetooth (might have been USB . I don't recall). This is on Windows by the way. I just replaced it instead of fighting it. Same reason people prefer AMD on linux but this is changing with better Nvidia support.

Do you remember ndiswrapper?

FreeBSD actually has a similar thing, you can run Linux wifi drivers inside a VM and pass through the adapter. There's a port called wifibox that does this.

You can even forward the Unix domain socket for wpa-supplicant from the guest to host, so all the normal tools that talk to wifi cards via that socket work transparently.

If you look the table you will realize 9/10 means 9 of 10 included HW devices run. Is not a scale from 0 to 10. Is not a "out of ten" in usability scale. Just count the devices that work, vs. the ones included in the HW.

> I would get a new laptop because a laptop without WiFi is useless.

You can run Linux in a VM and PCI passthrough your WiFi Adapter. Linux drivers will be able to connect to your wifi card and you can then supply internet to FreeBSD.

Doing this manually is complicated but the whole process has been automated on FreeBSD by "Wifibox"

https://freebsdfoundation.org/our-work/journal/browser-based...

I tried it myself and it worked pretty well for a wifi card not supported by FreeBSD.

So, no need to get a new laptop :-)

is there a similar thing for GPUs? I want to build a workstation and have it work on freebsd but would prefer to use an intel arc card which has no information about freebsd compatibility online

> I would get a new laptop because a laptop without WiFi is useless.

Why would you not just replace the wifi card or use a USB one? You're greatly overemphasizing how much this matters.

Seriously. I'd rip the wifi hardware out of the laptop with a spoon if it somehow got me a laptop that handles sleep mode properly. I can't even imagine what that would be like with a Unix (aside from a Mac).

Fun fact: My old Lenovo Y50 only supports like 3 specific WiFi cards else it doesn't even POST. And I think none of them work with upstream Linux drivers (I think, have only 2 different ones and neither worked ages ago and I changed laptops a while ago and haven't retested). Actually I think one didn't have bluetooth work (the non-standard one) and the other needed the broadcom-wl package.

Paradoxically, given their otherwise positive standing, Lenovo has keept allowlists on their BIOS for specific devices on specific ports. For example, I have a T460 that has an m2 slot that only works with two specific WWAN modules.

There are modified BIOS firmware that allow any WiFi card. Good luck

I remember seeing something in that direction when I was looking but never did look deeper into it.

The post made me actually take out the laptop again and maybe use it as a server or something like that in the future and for that I'd use ethernet anyway.

Search on bios-mods for a modified whitelist BIOS firmware -> https://www.bios-mods.com/forum/Forum-WiFi-WWAN-Whitelist-Re...

I prefer not to live that dongle life.

WiFi on a laptop is table stakes. I'd rather use an operating system that works without dongulation.

Replacing the wifi card isn't necessarily easy. I'd rather not buy and use a USB dongle for it if I can just get it out of the box.

I remember doing those kind of things nearly two decades ago now, I don't expect to have to do that in 2026. If people want to, that's fine, but the parent comment is right here: giving it 9/10 without working wifi is ridiculous.

I replaced the wifi card on my XPS 13 (specifically to support FreeBSD, no less), and it took about five minutes and a Philips head screwdriver.

Look your complaint is valid, but I maintain that you're greatly overemphasizing its actual meaning.

If you don’t care about administrating your computer and just want to use some software on some hardware, the BSDs are not that great. But if you do, the experience is better on the BSD land because cohesiveness reduces cognitive debt.

Also I wouldn’t make hardware support an OS quality metric. Linux get by with NDA and with direct contributions from the vendors. Which is something the BSDs don’t want/don’t benefit from.

>If you don’t care about administrating your computer and just want to use some software on some hardware, the BSDs are not that great.

Yes this is my opinion also. BSD seems more suited to people for whom fiddling with the OS itself is the point, rather than the OS being a tool to get other things done.

I fall firmly into the latter camp. I'd rather chew glass than manually set flags in rc.conf

I like the word tune rather than fiddle. The BSD are very stable. You adjust some configuration, and then updates without having to change your tools or your config with every release. The config are not provided out of the box but the manuals can be very informative.

A lot of current GNU/Linux complexity have no benefits for most users and may be an hindrance when they want to slightly alter their use cases.

  sudo -> doas
  systemd -> rcctl
  nftable -> pf
  iproute2|netplan -> ifconfig|route
  alsa|pulseaudio|pipewire -> sndiod
  cgroups|podman|lxc -> jails(freebsd)*

The first column may have valid use cases, but I strongly doubt those cases include casual usage. Simple tools that work well is better than complex tools that solves everything.

* Openbsd does not like containers or being a vm host

OpenBSD doesn't have containers but does have a virtual machine system (vmm(4), vmd(8), vmctl(8)) in base.

I think what you're seeing is partly a consequence of how capable Linux has become. Linux is in a weird phase where it can still be enjoyed by hobbyists/enthusiasts/eccentric types, which were arguably its original audience, but now you can also Zoom and do work and install Steam on it, which gives it less appeal from the niche/hobby angle. The software ecosystem in Linux is also increasingly homogenizing, which helps with the "practicality" aspect, but also diminishes the niche appeal. BSDs are in a position to snap up that audience that appreciates engineering elegance/design and uses the computer as an end unto itself (not just as a means to an end). This audience isn't necessarily bothered by wonky laptop WiFi, and may even enjoy tinkering with it as a hobby project. Just my take.

I would argue that much of the mentioned zealotry is a sort of kneejerk response to cult-like behavior from some Linux adherents. It’s mostly defensive; these people want continued variety in the FOSS desktop space and feel that’s threatened by Linux.

I don't understand this. I've been running Linux for decades, and FreeBSD for decades. Love both systems.

> OpenBSD zealots claiming it's 110% secure because trust me bro

Or possibly because it has a good track record. If you'd like to point at actual vulnerabilities go ahead.

It's not so much the vulnerabiltiies as that OpenBSD's mitigations often seem targeted towards imaginary issues.

>Or possibly because it has a good track record.

"Only two remote code execution vulns in the default install" isn't saying much, because the default install has essentially no functionality. Similarly, RCE is not the only kind of vuln.

Let's just say it is not the mainstream consensus that OpenBSD is meaningfully more secure than an up-to-date linux. This may have been true in 1995, but it's generally acknowledged by people who know what they're talking about that OpenBSD's reputation for security is overstated.

> because the default install has essentially no functionality

I dunno, it's got a built in HTTP/S web server and everything needed to be VPN or router.

> Let's just say it is not the mainstream consensus that OpenBSD is meaningfully more secure than an up-to-date linux. This may have been true in 1995, but it's generally acknowledged by people who know what they're talking about that OpenBSD's reputation for security is overstated.

Yes, I've read plenty of vague aspersions that it's totally not as secure as claimed. Since those claims never come with evidence, I'm going with the traditional response: PoC||GTFO.

Ok here is one. Pledge is really good and works by default. Unlike cgroups?