3 ms·
i would say that openbsd is the better tool for the job in my opinion. pf is just much nicer and simpler to set up and configure than linux iptables, and openbs
by kebolio 10y ago
i would say that openbsd is the better tool for the job in my opinion. pf is just much nicer and simpler to set up and configure than linux iptables, and openbsd is hardened which is important for a machine that is always facing the internet.
- Mister_Snuggles 10y agoAnother thing that's nice about the BSDs is that they are whole systems, not different sets of kernel+utilities packed up by third parties. Generally speaking, that means that there's one canonical way to do something instead of a bunch of different ways like in Linux (think 'ifconfig' vs 'ip'). Of course, FreeBSD ships with three different firewalls[0], so that's not always true. There are downsides, of course. A freshly-installed BSD has a lot less stuff than a freshly-installed OpenSUSE/Ubuntu/Fedora/etc. [0] https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/firewalls.html https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/firewalls.html
- kebolio 10y agoi don't think that the minimalism of the default install (i am talking about openbsd mainly, since i have little experience with the other three) is too much of a problem. in the default install is practically all the tools and components one needs to set up and configure a router. any extra components can be grabbed from ports and packages as shown in the aforementioned tutorial, where the dnscrypt client is installed for encrypted dns queries.