7 ms·

Why isn't OpenBSD more widely used? I only know what I read about it, but: * If I was building a system where UI and broad hardware and software compatibility

Why isn't OpenBSD more widely used? I only know what I read about it, but: * If I was building a system where UI and broad hardware and software compatibility weren't an issue (for example, if I were building an appliance or IoT device), an exceptionally secure, stable, reliable, open, well-maintained and well-documented OS would be wonderful. * If I was building a Unix server with those specs, why not? * Why aren't Google's, Amazon's, Yahoo's, etc. server farms running on OpenBSD? How about iOS? (Android needs broad hardware compatibility.) Are there essential power or system features that Linux or FreeBSD has and OpenBSD lacks? As it's not that widely used, I suspect there are considerations or problems I'm overlooking, or maybe the advantages aren't as large as I think. It's hard to believe it's all politics or personality conflicts.

zdw 11y ago
I've been deploying OpenBSD in production since the 2.x days (late 90's, an example machine was a recycled 486 with a PCI and ISA 10Mbit/s ethernet cards). While it's possible to use OpenBSD as a general purpose server or desktop, that's not where it's strength lies. It tends to excel as a firewall or router for the under 1Gbit/s crowd that has Unix sysadmin experience - basically, appliance applications where it would function in the same role as a Cisco or Juniper router device. OpenBSD's leadership has a goal of pushing the security envelope, and force positive change on the rest of the Unix ecosystem, which it's succeeded in doing in many ways.
- ams6110 11y ago
  I've used it as my main work desktop for years.
  - geofft 11y ago
    What web browser are you running, and what's its security story?
    - ams6110 11y ago
      Chrome and Firefox. I also play with Xombrero (based on Webkit), but though I like it a lot from a feature standpoint, it's the least stable of the three. None are as stable as their Linux or Windows counterparts.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- rhabarba 11y ago
  OpenBSD's leadership focuses on clean and correct code, not necessarily on security. Of course, that leads to security though.
  - vog 11y ago
    This is incorrect. Security is definitely a first-class goal for them, not "just" clean and correct code. That is, they do not only fix code, but try hard to ensure that code which doesn't match their quality goals can't do much harm. And this is security. The topic at hand (vmm) is the best example for that. At a first glance, this is about creating a clean and correct hypervisor. But what is this good for? To be able to run less secure systems within OpenBSD without them doing too much damage. Another example is pushing hard to enforce W^X on all kinds of applications, even browsers: http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/now-or-never-exec http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/now-or-never-exec This doesn't fix any existing bugs, but it actively mitigates the damage that a bug may have (ideally, it prevents a buffer overflow bug from being actually exploitable). From their website: http://www.openbsd.org/security.html http://www.openbsd.org/security.html | Our aspiration is to be NUMBER ONE in the industry for security Sure, security by clean and correct code is their main measure to increase security. They call it "proactive security". But there's tons of stuff in OpenBSD which is "merely" mitigation.
    - krylon 11y ago
      > This is incorrect. Security is definitely a first-class goal for them, not "just" clean and correct code. I get the impression that the dominant attitude among OpenBSD developers is that if you have to choose between simplicity and security, your basic approach is flawed and should be reconsider. This line of thinking - that you don't make things more secure by making them more complicated - also results in a simple yet powerful system. So unless I am mistaken, "clean and correct code" and "security" are not two different goals, in a way they are two faces of the same coin.
- jrcii 11y ago
  What problem does pf have after 1Gbit/s?
  - chrissnell 11y ago
    Back in the day, it was the limitations of PF under SMP. I don't think that's been an issue for a few years now, though.
    - justincormack 11y ago
      You don't need SMP for much work up to 10Gb/s on modern hardware. Not sure if OpenBSD has 10Gb driver support or not (although FreeBSD and NetBSD do).
      - 4ad 11y ago
        Of course OpenBSD has 10GbE.
        feld 11y ago
        But which? Mellanox, Intel, Solarflare, QLogic?
        4ad 11y ago
        http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man4/pci.4?query=pci&sec=4&arch=amd64 http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man4/...
        feld 11y ago
        I have no idea which driver names are 10gbit and I certainly don't go to a store and ask for hardware by its device ID or chip family name.
        4ad 11y ago
andrewchambers 11y ago
The advantage of not being used as much as something like Linux is you can avoid external pressure to add fad features and bloated crap to the system. With regard to business's using openbsd, I am currently using openbsd for my private server on Digital Ocean, and have thought it would be a good platform for a small business to use.
superuser2 11y ago
It's sort of reasonable to find sysadmins who really understand Linux and its intricacies and how to deliver performant and reliable services on top of it. People with similar command of less popular OSes are even harder to come by.
- kev009 11y ago
  I disagree, in my experience as a OS engineering manager it is both cheaper and more effective to hire BSD people. There are a lot _more_ mediocre Linux people, probably even in smaller cities, but the really good ones are highly contested and you have a hard time getting them. Sweet spot is to go remote with BSD people.
lobster_johnson 11y ago
OpenBSD is lagging behind in terms of "power features." I believe there is no ZFS, no D-trace (or any similar probe-based kernel trace tools), and that SMP performance is not as good as FreeBSD or Linux.
- ams6110 11y ago
  There is no journaling filesystem of any kind. BSD Fast File System (FFS) is what you get. fsck can take a while if your systems goes down hard.u
  - protomyth 11y ago
    The response in the OpenBSD FAQ is that "We use a different mechanism to achieve similar results called Soft Updates. Please read FAQ 14 - Soft Updates to get more details." http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq8.html#Journaling http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq8.html#Journaling http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq14.html#SoftUpdates http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq14.html#SoftUpdates
    - ben_bai 11y ago
      Also, somebody is porting WAPBL for FFS from NetBSD to OpenBSD. [Edit] add a link: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=144561370912073&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=144561370912073&w=2
      - mrweasel 11y ago
        You just have to love that name: WAPBL.
      - wapbl 11y ago
        Bitrig already did the work. We will see if it ever gets accepted.
      - protomyth 11y ago
        There was some GSOC work on porting part of HAMMER to OpenBSD https://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/project/details/google/gsoc2015/jorisgio/5713964361056256 https://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/project/details/google/g...
nickpsecurity 11y ago
The popular perception is that they build it for themselves with what they want in an OS and don't give a shit otherwise. Hence, a significant gap between what most want and what it is. It's mostly a difference in focus and philosophy that won't win a popularity contest. There are technical limitations as others have noted. The attitude and focus, though, I think is what kept OpenBSD in their own niche.
- morganvachon 11y ago
  Indeed, OpenBSD is great at what it does and like Slackware on the Linux side, it isn't for everyone but it certainly is awesome in its own right. The only technical limitation I've run into as far as using it as a daily driver OS, is that it can be a bit slow even on very fast hardware. It's simply not optimized for desktop use, though it is certainly usable with a few tweaks. It's great for older hardware too, where the speed issue is relative. In fact, I've found it to be a perfect fit for a couple of old laptops in my collection.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    It has many technical limitations that I'm aware of. Large TCB, less fault-tolerance, supports less COTS hardware than Linux, less automation software, less multicore, desktop as you mentioned, weaker in virtualization, no mandatory controls on apps, less integration with cutting-edge security tech (eg CheriBSD, SoftBound)... could be more but that's off top of head. Harder to say whether it's easier to bring OpenBSD to where competition is on these or to bring competition's code to where OpenBSD is, esp as some safety/security tech makes that less relevant. Hard to say... Regardless, it's a high-quality UNIX that's worth having around. I'm glad to see them improving in areas where it's weaker while not throwing away strengths like some projects would.
  - krylon 11y ago
    > In fact, I've found it to be a perfect fit for a couple of old laptops in my collection. I recently inherited an old-ish laptop (I don't know the exact year it was built, but it has a Windows Vista sticker on it, so 2007-2009, I guess) and decided to install OpenBSD on it, mainly because I have always wanted to give it a try on real hardware as opposed to a VM. I was pleasantly surprised to find that all the pieces I care about (sound, video, wifi, ethernet, ...) Just Worked(tm). That was nice. More heavyweight applications like Firefox or Clementine slow the system down substantially, but otherwise it runs nicely.
david-given 11y ago
To hazard a guess, in no particular order: * proprietary software. Yes, sometimes you need to run it. It's built for Linux but not for OpenBSD. * hardware support. OpenBSD is better than it used to be, but it's still not as good as Linux. * apt/dpkg. There's just so, so much more prepackaged software available on Linux. (I miss Debian/kFreeBSD...) But primarily, I think, it's solely due to Linux network effects --- people learn Linux because Linux is everywhere so people learn Linux. There's just more people and more knowledge around. Which means that if you're porting an OS to a new platform, you go with Linux because you know that the skills are available, and probably a lot of the functionality is already there, and there's a bunch of different userland stacks that will already just work on it, etc, etc.
weland 11y ago
> Why isn't OpenBSD more widely used? For many of the scenarios you listed, it really boils down to peer pressure. People who make decisions know that Linux is Good (TM). Convincing them that there is a better alternative for <this particular project> requires them to grasp technical concepts that they simply don't grasp. And then you have a lot of programmers who know that <this operating they used> is Good (TM). Convincing them that there is a better alternative for <this particular project> requires them to have some broader, often theoretical understanding understanding of things, so that they can compare approaches and judge which one is better for a particular task. A lot of them don't have it; it goes against their belief that there is an operating system that is Good (TM). In fact, they'll go to incredible lengths to ensure that any operating system is like their Good (TM) operating system. As far as IoT goes, though, hardware and software compatibility is always a problem. Most of them are built on tightly-closed SoCs. You're stuck with whatever the manufacturer wants to support, and that's usually Linux. I guess that partly boils down to the fact that, back when manufacturers started looking into this free operating systems niche, fitting Linux in 4 MB was a lot easier than fitting any BSD. But at the moment, why they'd jump (often imperfectly) through GPL's hooks is beyond me. > It's hard to believe it's all politics or personality conflicts. You poor soul :-).
- joombaga 11y ago
  Why are you typing "(TM)" after "Good"? I've seen other examples of this. Phrases like "A Good Thing! (TM)" or "Good (TM) Distribution". What does it mean?
  - ics 11y ago
    It "sloganizes" the phrase before it to prop it up as somehow official/authoritative (as though it were trademarked), often with ironic intent. In this case, "People who make decisions know that Linux is Good™" indicates an idea with mindshare and hints at an underlying dogma or cliché.
  - weland 11y ago
    Yep, what ics said :-). Basically, I think OpenBSD is a good operating system. It has a clean architecture, great code quality, and I am fond of its engineering principles. I don't think it's Good (TM) -- there are things that other operating systems do better, and I don't think its engineering principles apply everywhere. I admire its design, but I don't try to emulate it in any system I build.
devit 11y ago
Less features than Linux, still written in C with the same Unix security model and thus not fundamentally more secure. There is of course the advantage of being more obscure and thus less likely to be exploited, but most people probably consider desktop Linux obscure enough and companies usually don't care about such security mitigations.
- pjmlp 11y ago
  While I agree 100%, they at least try to review all C code and provide safer APIs instead of the usual ones For example they clearly state that one should use fgetln() instead of fgets(). http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man3/fgets.3?query=fgets&arch=i386 http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man3/... Of course, that won't fix the issues with using C, but the mentality at least is more security oriented. What we really need is something like Midori reaching production. It would surely cost less money than all the Windows Phone restarts.
atmosx 11y ago
GNU/Linux is considerably easier to use for non-professional administrators. Especially well battle-tested distributions like Debian and derivatives. For example, if you want to deploy a Rails application, you can find working ‘init’ files for Debian & Co. easily. If you use FreeBSD, you have to write your own init files. It’s not hard but might be one or two hours of work for someone familiar with *BSD before you get them to work correctly. Then you have docker on linux. FreeBSD added docker support in June 2015 and according to their website is not production ready. OpenBSD doesn’t support docker. For small dev teams supporting their products or for bigger teams which work with micro-services docker is heaven-sent. It allows you to run the exact same configuration on the server, out of the box by just mapping a few ports. Likewise, there are many tutorials, howto’s, etc. which make it trivial to setup a HA-Proxy under Linux. But if you need to setup CARP+HAST under FreeBSD you have to go through the official documentation - which is top quality material - and find your way from there. It’s not a 10-minute copy/paste thing. Add to that a rather elitist culture e.g. BSD is designed, Linux is grown - roughly translated as ‘we are engineers, you are hackers’ which in many cases is not far from the truth and you have an explosive mixture which renders BSDs obsolete. That said, I find strange the fact that so many corporations choose to support GNU/Linux over BSD in terms of driver development or funding, given that the BSD license is way more permissive. This was the reason Linux picked-up early on and became way more popular than BSD among hacker, but when corporations jumped-in, they didn’t choose BSD, they went with linux. I am not sure if this was a data-driven decision or it was just a matter of technical people in decision-making positions have a lot more sympathy for Linux than BSD. At this point in time, GNU/Linux has clearly won the race. However, if someone would ask me to setup a ‘secure’ mail-server, file-server, whatever without specific requirements (e.g. docker, LVM, etc.) I’d probably go with BSD.
- antod 11y ago
  > That said, I find strange the fact that so many corporations choose to support GNU/Linux over BSD in terms of driver development or funding, given that the BSD license is way more permissive. This was the reason Linux picked-up early on and became way more popular than BSD among hacker, but when corporations jumped-in, they didn’t choose BSD, they went with linux. I am not sure if this was a data-driven decision or it was just a matter of technical people in decision-making positions have a lot more sympathy for Linux than BSD. Linux was already showing a bit better momentum by the time corporations starting contributing. Also I suspect some of it came down to legacy Unix vendors (IBM, HP, SGI, Sun etc) deciding that if they were going to contribute to open source projects, GPL was actually preferable to BSD. IBM didn't want their contributions ending up in Solaris and Sun didn't theirs ending up in AIX etc. Maybe the same with competing hardware vendors and drivers too.
wooger 11y ago
From my usage: * There is no supported upgrade path from stable release to stable release. * If you want regular updates to to packages, you need to be running current. * It has much better driver and power management support than FreeBSD, but not as good as Linux, and is painfully slow in some contexts due to the various areas where technology is lagging: - SMP - Filesystems * They've done the work to make the latest version of Gnome Shell run, but it doesn't perform well, and is not close to the experience on Linux with identical hardware.
- throwaway2048 11y ago
  You can upgrade from -stable to next -release, then to -stable, ive done it for years. https://stable.mtier.org/ https://stable.mtier.org/ offers package and base binary updates for the present release.

zdw 11y ago

I've been deploying OpenBSD in production since the 2.x days (late 90's, an example machine was a recycled 486 with a PCI and ISA 10Mbit/s ethernet cards). While it's possible to use OpenBSD as a general purpose server or desktop, that's not where it's strength lies. It tends to excel as a firewall or router for the under 1Gbit/s crowd that has Unix sysadmin experience - basically, appliance applications where it would function in the same role as a Cisco or Juniper router device. OpenBSD's leadership has a goal of pushing the security envelope, and force positive change on the rest of the Unix ecosystem, which it's succeeded in doing in many ways.

ams6110 11y ago
I've used it as my main work desktop for years.
- geofft 11y ago
  What web browser are you running, and what's its security story?
  - ams6110 11y ago
    Chrome and Firefox. I also play with Xombrero (based on Webkit), but though I like it a lot from a feature standpoint, it's the least stable of the three. None are as stable as their Linux or Windows counterparts.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
rhabarba 11y ago
OpenBSD's leadership focuses on clean and correct code, not necessarily on security. Of course, that leads to security though.
- vog 11y ago
  This is incorrect. Security is definitely a first-class goal for them, not "just" clean and correct code. That is, they do not only fix code, but try hard to ensure that code which doesn't match their quality goals can't do much harm. And this is security. The topic at hand (vmm) is the best example for that. At a first glance, this is about creating a clean and correct hypervisor. But what is this good for? To be able to run less secure systems within OpenBSD without them doing too much damage. Another example is pushing hard to enforce W^X on all kinds of applications, even browsers: http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/now-or-never-exec http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/now-or-never-exec This doesn't fix any existing bugs, but it actively mitigates the damage that a bug may have (ideally, it prevents a buffer overflow bug from being actually exploitable). From their website: http://www.openbsd.org/security.html http://www.openbsd.org/security.html | Our aspiration is to be NUMBER ONE in the industry for security Sure, security by clean and correct code is their main measure to increase security. They call it "proactive security". But there's tons of stuff in OpenBSD which is "merely" mitigation.
  - krylon 11y ago
    > This is incorrect. Security is definitely a first-class goal for them, not "just" clean and correct code. I get the impression that the dominant attitude among OpenBSD developers is that if you have to choose between simplicity and security, your basic approach is flawed and should be reconsider. This line of thinking - that you don't make things more secure by making them more complicated - also results in a simple yet powerful system. So unless I am mistaken, "clean and correct code" and "security" are not two different goals, in a way they are two faces of the same coin.
jrcii 11y ago
What problem does pf have after 1Gbit/s?
- chrissnell 11y ago
  Back in the day, it was the limitations of PF under SMP. I don't think that's been an issue for a few years now, though.
  - justincormack 11y ago
    You don't need SMP for much work up to 10Gb/s on modern hardware. Not sure if OpenBSD has 10Gb driver support or not (although FreeBSD and NetBSD do).
    - 4ad 11y ago
      Of course OpenBSD has 10GbE.
      - feld 11y ago
        But which? Mellanox, Intel, Solarflare, QLogic?
        4ad 11y ago
        http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man4/pci.4?query=pci&sec=4&arch=amd64 http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man4/...
        feld 11y ago
        I have no idea which driver names are 10gbit and I certainly don't go to a store and ask for hardware by its device ID or chip family name.
        4ad 11y ago

andrewchambers 11y ago

The advantage of not being used as much as something like Linux is you can avoid external pressure to add fad features and bloated crap to the system. With regard to business's using openbsd, I am currently using openbsd for my private server on Digital Ocean, and have thought it would be a good platform for a small business to use.

superuser2 11y ago

It's sort of reasonable to find sysadmins who really understand Linux and its intricacies and how to deliver performant and reliable services on top of it. People with similar command of less popular OSes are even harder to come by.

kev009 11y ago
I disagree, in my experience as a OS engineering manager it is both cheaper and more effective to hire BSD people. There are a lot _more_ mediocre Linux people, probably even in smaller cities, but the really good ones are highly contested and you have a hard time getting them. Sweet spot is to go remote with BSD people.

lobster_johnson 11y ago

OpenBSD is lagging behind in terms of "power features." I believe there is no ZFS, no D-trace (or any similar probe-based kernel trace tools), and that SMP performance is not as good as FreeBSD or Linux.

ams6110 11y ago
There is no journaling filesystem of any kind. BSD Fast File System (FFS) is what you get. fsck can take a while if your systems goes down hard.u
- protomyth 11y ago
  The response in the OpenBSD FAQ is that "We use a different mechanism to achieve similar results called Soft Updates. Please read FAQ 14 - Soft Updates to get more details." http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq8.html#Journaling http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq8.html#Journaling http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq14.html#SoftUpdates http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq14.html#SoftUpdates
  - ben_bai 11y ago
    Also, somebody is porting WAPBL for FFS from NetBSD to OpenBSD. [Edit] add a link: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=144561370912073&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=144561370912073&w=2
    - mrweasel 11y ago
      You just have to love that name: WAPBL.
    - wapbl 11y ago
      Bitrig already did the work. We will see if it ever gets accepted.
    - protomyth 11y ago
      There was some GSOC work on porting part of HAMMER to OpenBSD https://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/project/details/google/gsoc2015/jorisgio/5713964361056256 https://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/project/details/google/g...

nickpsecurity 11y ago

The popular perception is that they build it for themselves with what they want in an OS and don't give a shit otherwise. Hence, a significant gap between what most want and what it is. It's mostly a difference in focus and philosophy that won't win a popularity contest. There are technical limitations as others have noted. The attitude and focus, though, I think is what kept OpenBSD in their own niche.

morganvachon 11y ago
Indeed, OpenBSD is great at what it does and like Slackware on the Linux side, it isn't for everyone but it certainly is awesome in its own right. The only technical limitation I've run into as far as using it as a daily driver OS, is that it can be a bit slow even on very fast hardware. It's simply not optimized for desktop use, though it is certainly usable with a few tweaks. It's great for older hardware too, where the speed issue is relative. In fact, I've found it to be a perfect fit for a couple of old laptops in my collection.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  It has many technical limitations that I'm aware of. Large TCB, less fault-tolerance, supports less COTS hardware than Linux, less automation software, less multicore, desktop as you mentioned, weaker in virtualization, no mandatory controls on apps, less integration with cutting-edge security tech (eg CheriBSD, SoftBound)... could be more but that's off top of head. Harder to say whether it's easier to bring OpenBSD to where competition is on these or to bring competition's code to where OpenBSD is, esp as some safety/security tech makes that less relevant. Hard to say... Regardless, it's a high-quality UNIX that's worth having around. I'm glad to see them improving in areas where it's weaker while not throwing away strengths like some projects would.
- krylon 11y ago
  > In fact, I've found it to be a perfect fit for a couple of old laptops in my collection. I recently inherited an old-ish laptop (I don't know the exact year it was built, but it has a Windows Vista sticker on it, so 2007-2009, I guess) and decided to install OpenBSD on it, mainly because I have always wanted to give it a try on real hardware as opposed to a VM. I was pleasantly surprised to find that all the pieces I care about (sound, video, wifi, ethernet, ...) Just Worked(tm). That was nice. More heavyweight applications like Firefox or Clementine slow the system down substantially, but otherwise it runs nicely.

david-given 11y ago

To hazard a guess, in no particular order: * proprietary software. Yes, sometimes you need to run it. It's built for Linux but not for OpenBSD. * hardware support. OpenBSD is better than it used to be, but it's still not as good as Linux. * apt/dpkg. There's just so, so much more prepackaged software available on Linux. (I miss Debian/kFreeBSD...) But primarily, I think, it's solely due to Linux network effects --- people learn Linux because Linux is everywhere so people learn Linux. There's just more people and more knowledge around. Which means that if you're porting an OS to a new platform, you go with Linux because you know that the skills are available, and probably a lot of the functionality is already there, and there's a bunch of different userland stacks that will already just work on it, etc, etc.

weland 11y ago

> Why isn't OpenBSD more widely used? For many of the scenarios you listed, it really boils down to peer pressure. People who make decisions know that Linux is Good (TM). Convincing them that there is a better alternative for <this particular project> requires them to grasp technical concepts that they simply don't grasp. And then you have a lot of programmers who know that <this operating they used> is Good (TM). Convincing them that there is a better alternative for <this particular project> requires them to have some broader, often theoretical understanding understanding of things, so that they can compare approaches and judge which one is better for a particular task. A lot of them don't have it; it goes against their belief that there is an operating system that is Good (TM). In fact, they'll go to incredible lengths to ensure that any operating system is like their Good (TM) operating system. As far as IoT goes, though, hardware and software compatibility is always a problem. Most of them are built on tightly-closed SoCs. You're stuck with whatever the manufacturer wants to support, and that's usually Linux. I guess that partly boils down to the fact that, back when manufacturers started looking into this free operating systems niche, fitting Linux in 4 MB was a lot easier than fitting any BSD. But at the moment, why they'd jump (often imperfectly) through GPL's hooks is beyond me. > It's hard to believe it's all politics or personality conflicts. You poor soul :-).

joombaga 11y ago
Why are you typing "(TM)" after "Good"? I've seen other examples of this. Phrases like "A Good Thing! (TM)" or "Good (TM) Distribution". What does it mean?
- ics 11y ago
  It "sloganizes" the phrase before it to prop it up as somehow official/authoritative (as though it were trademarked), often with ironic intent. In this case, "People who make decisions know that Linux is Good™" indicates an idea with mindshare and hints at an underlying dogma or cliché.
- weland 11y ago
  Yep, what ics said :-). Basically, I think OpenBSD is a good operating system. It has a clean architecture, great code quality, and I am fond of its engineering principles. I don't think it's Good (TM) -- there are things that other operating systems do better, and I don't think its engineering principles apply everywhere. I admire its design, but I don't try to emulate it in any system I build.

devit 11y ago

Less features than Linux, still written in C with the same Unix security model and thus not fundamentally more secure. There is of course the advantage of being more obscure and thus less likely to be exploited, but most people probably consider desktop Linux obscure enough and companies usually don't care about such security mitigations.

pjmlp 11y ago
While I agree 100%, they at least try to review all C code and provide safer APIs instead of the usual ones For example they clearly state that one should use fgetln() instead of fgets(). http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man3/fgets.3?query=fgets&arch=i386 http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man3/... Of course, that won't fix the issues with using C, but the mentality at least is more security oriented. What we really need is something like Midori reaching production. It would surely cost less money than all the Windows Phone restarts.

atmosx 11y ago

GNU/Linux is considerably easier to use for non-professional administrators. Especially well battle-tested distributions like Debian and derivatives. For example, if you want to deploy a Rails application, you can find working ‘init’ files for Debian & Co. easily. If you use FreeBSD, you have to write your own init files. It’s not hard but might be one or two hours of work for someone familiar with *BSD before you get them to work correctly. Then you have docker on linux. FreeBSD added docker support in June 2015 and according to their website is not production ready. OpenBSD doesn’t support docker. For small dev teams supporting their products or for bigger teams which work with micro-services docker is heaven-sent. It allows you to run the exact same configuration on the server, out of the box by just mapping a few ports. Likewise, there are many tutorials, howto’s, etc. which make it trivial to setup a HA-Proxy under Linux. But if you need to setup CARP+HAST under FreeBSD you have to go through the official documentation - which is top quality material - and find your way from there. It’s not a 10-minute copy/paste thing. Add to that a rather elitist culture e.g. BSD is designed, Linux is grown - roughly translated as ‘we are engineers, you are hackers’ which in many cases is not far from the truth and you have an explosive mixture which renders BSDs obsolete. That said, I find strange the fact that so many corporations choose to support GNU/Linux over BSD in terms of driver development or funding, given that the BSD license is way more permissive. This was the reason Linux picked-up early on and became way more popular than BSD among hacker, but when corporations jumped-in, they didn’t choose BSD, they went with linux. I am not sure if this was a data-driven decision or it was just a matter of technical people in decision-making positions have a lot more sympathy for Linux than BSD. At this point in time, GNU/Linux has clearly won the race. However, if someone would ask me to setup a ‘secure’ mail-server, file-server, whatever without specific requirements (e.g. docker, LVM, etc.) I’d probably go with BSD.

antod 11y ago
> That said, I find strange the fact that so many corporations choose to support GNU/Linux over BSD in terms of driver development or funding, given that the BSD license is way more permissive. This was the reason Linux picked-up early on and became way more popular than BSD among hacker, but when corporations jumped-in, they didn’t choose BSD, they went with linux. I am not sure if this was a data-driven decision or it was just a matter of technical people in decision-making positions have a lot more sympathy for Linux than BSD. Linux was already showing a bit better momentum by the time corporations starting contributing. Also I suspect some of it came down to legacy Unix vendors (IBM, HP, SGI, Sun etc) deciding that if they were going to contribute to open source projects, GPL was actually preferable to BSD. IBM didn't want their contributions ending up in Solaris and Sun didn't theirs ending up in AIX etc. Maybe the same with competing hardware vendors and drivers too.

wooger 11y ago

From my usage: * There is no supported upgrade path from stable release to stable release. * If you want regular updates to to packages, you need to be running current. * It has much better driver and power management support than FreeBSD, but not as good as Linux, and is painfully slow in some contexts due to the various areas where technology is lagging: - SMP - Filesystems * They've done the work to make the latest version of Gnome Shell run, but it doesn't perform well, and is not close to the experience on Linux with identical hardware.

throwaway2048 11y ago
You can upgrade from -stable to next -release, then to -stable, ive done it for years. https://stable.mtier.org/ https://stable.mtier.org/ offers package and base binary updates for the present release.