3 ms·

It sounds like he needs an OS built on "default deny" principles. The best one for that is OpenBSD, and he recommends porting over three or four packages from O

by sverige 10y ago

It sounds like he needs an OS built on "default deny" principles. The best one for that is OpenBSD, and he recommends porting over three or four packages from OpenBSD. Really, he'd be happier running that, I think. I know I was when I first started exploring the BSDs. I tried FreeBSD, PC-BSD, and DragonflyBSD before settling on OpenBSD. Default deny makes the most sense if you are interested in security. Sure, it can be a PITA to set up .conf files at first and get the packages you need, but once past the learning curve, it's the simplest thing to maintain. FreeBSD reminds me a lot of various flavors of Linux I've tried in the (distant) past. All kinds of stuff running by default, old packages for compatibility, etc. Security may not be important for many people till it's too late, but it's one of those things that pays dividends in what doesn't happen. Hard to sell if you've never been pwned.

jlgaddis 10y ago
Don't quote me on it, but I'm pretty sure TJ is an OpenBSD developer.
micro_softy 10y ago
You never tried NetBSD? If you are suggesting NetBSD has more things enabled by default than OpenBSD I would bet that is incorrect. I have tried a lot of different projects and NetBSD is the best I have seen for not enabling anything. It forces you to figure things out. Whenever I read OpenBSD mailing lists or blogs, they often seem more aggressive in trying to make their users adhere to the default system provided. That's fine, but NetBSD generally does not do this. Users are not assumed to be idiots and are not discouraged from experimentation. The BSD projects share more similarities than differences. None of them require anyone to use the entire base system or the defaults. Users can compile their own kernels, write their own configs e.g., based on examples provided, and cherry pick utilities.[1] In my opinion this is made just a tad easier than with Linux. 1. But if you do this with OpenBSD and advertise it, I think you may draw some criticism. Frankensystem, etc. They are not encouraging experimentation, they are encouraging conformity.

by sverige 10y ago

jlgaddis 10y ago

Don't quote me on it, but I'm pretty sure TJ is an OpenBSD developer.

micro_softy 10y ago

You never tried NetBSD? If you are suggesting NetBSD has more things enabled by default than OpenBSD I would bet that is incorrect. I have tried a lot of different projects and NetBSD is the best I have seen for not enabling anything. It forces you to figure things out. Whenever I read OpenBSD mailing lists or blogs, they often seem more aggressive in trying to make their users adhere to the default system provided. That's fine, but NetBSD generally does not do this. Users are not assumed to be idiots and are not discouraged from experimentation. The BSD projects share more similarities than differences. None of them require anyone to use the entire base system or the defaults. Users can compile their own kernels, write their own configs e.g., based on examples provided, and cherry pick utilities.[1] In my opinion this is made just a tad easier than with Linux. 1. But if you do this with OpenBSD and advertise it, I think you may draw some criticism. Frankensystem, etc. They are not encouraging experimentation, they are encouraging conformity.