4 ms·

What would be the draw of OpenBSD on a consumer laptop over, say, FreeBSD, or even Linux?

asveikau 9y ago
The "consumer" you're talking about is a very technical user for starters. Something doesn't have to carry all the traits of "consumer" software for it to be useful to someone. I used openbsd on a laptop some years back until that hardware died and my replacement didn't have some driver I wanted. It was a joy to use if you appreciate a light, no-nonsense Unix. Only pain point is that upgrades are very manual. Now a decade later I have a different machine running freebsd which has a pretty similar feel, and I do appreciate the easier upgrades. I thought for a while in the recent past obsd had more up to date Intel graphics drivers but that was remedied in my use case by freebsd 11. As for "why not linux", I feel like the BSDs as a desktop have a lot of the "on your own" feel that linux used to in the late 90s. Some people I suspect will loathe this. I like it.
- ams6110 9y ago
  Upgrades and patches in modern openbsd are much improved from years back.
- _jal 9y ago
  > As for "why not linux", I feel like the BSDs as a desktop have a lot of the "on your own" feel that linux used to in the late 90s. Some people I suspect will loathe this. I like it. Ditto that. Especially post- (dare I say it) systemd, Linux distros seem intent on going the commercial model of dictating how the "experience" should work, and I find I don't live in any of their target niches. Fedora is probably the closest, but is way too RHEL, and I kinda hate the way they do a lot of things. The BSDs are by and for unix folks. If you're (for want of a better phrase) "culturally unix", they're a better fit.
  - djsumdog 9y ago
    and no SystemD. I like that part. :-P
- keithpeter 9y ago
  Upgrades can be less manual these days if you follow the release (not current): syspatch will apply binary patches for the errata. If you are prepared to trust M:Tier, they provide a script called openup that will also patch packages for the current stable release. But each to his/her own.
- na85 9y ago
  OpenBSD performed so abyssmally poorly on my old X220 that I simply couldn't tolerate it. Debian on the same hardware was significantly more performant, so for me that answered the "why not Linux?" question
djsumdog 9y ago
Why try Linux? Why try FreeBSD? We try different operating systems to drive development and to try new and different things. Why climb a mountain? Why cycle a 90km trail? Why travel the world? Because it's there and we can.
- AdmiralAsshat 9y ago
  Curiously, if you read my original comment, I never used the word "Why". The question you're answering seems to be "Why would you put OpenBSD on a laptop?" But the question I specifically asked what advantage is has over other comparable distros.
clarry 9y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14734527 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14734527 OpenBSD doesn't suffer the terrible churn and break-and-change-everything syndrome that makes the Linux UX so miserable. I can't compare it to FreeBSD, but I think OpenBSD can be more attractive for its focus on the head of development.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
nickpsecurity 9y ago
Secure-by-default, reliability, consistency, and good docs. There's lots of people who would appreciate that even if they weren't technical experts. From there, you have the split of who would be interested in it as-is versus who would use it if someone set up the UI, apps, and so on for them. Mac OS X is probably the ultimate example of layering a great UI for lay people with "just works" mentality over UNIX. I bet something like that on OpenBSD would have significant, even if single percent, market.
- lafytahoe 9y ago
  And the lack of Bluetooth makes it soo much safer.
rmusial 9y ago
At least in my experience on several Lenovo laptops and even a 2012 MacBook Pro, OpenBSD has a much better GUI experience than FreeBSD, down to things like suspend and resume working with no tweaking required.

The "consumer" you're talking about is a very technical user for starters. Something doesn't have to carry all the traits of "consumer" software for it to be useful to someone. I used openbsd on a laptop some years back until that hardware died and my replacement didn't have some driver I wanted. It was a joy to use if you appreciate a light, no-nonsense Unix. Only pain point is that upgrades are very manual. Now a decade later I have a different machine running freebsd which has a pretty similar feel, and I do appreciate the easier upgrades. I thought for a while in the recent past obsd had more up to date Intel graphics drivers but that was remedied in my use case by freebsd 11. As for "why not linux", I feel like the BSDs as a desktop have a lot of the "on your own" feel that linux used to in the late 90s. Some people I suspect will loathe this. I like it.

ams6110 9y ago
Upgrades and patches in modern openbsd are much improved from years back.
_jal 9y ago
> As for "why not linux", I feel like the BSDs as a desktop have a lot of the "on your own" feel that linux used to in the late 90s. Some people I suspect will loathe this. I like it. Ditto that. Especially post- (dare I say it) systemd, Linux distros seem intent on going the commercial model of dictating how the "experience" should work, and I find I don't live in any of their target niches. Fedora is probably the closest, but is way too RHEL, and I kinda hate the way they do a lot of things. The BSDs are by and for unix folks. If you're (for want of a better phrase) "culturally unix", they're a better fit.
- djsumdog 9y ago
  and no SystemD. I like that part. :-P
keithpeter 9y ago
Upgrades can be less manual these days if you follow the release (not current): syspatch will apply binary patches for the errata. If you are prepared to trust M:Tier, they provide a script called openup that will also patch packages for the current stable release. But each to his/her own.
na85 9y ago
OpenBSD performed so abyssmally poorly on my old X220 that I simply couldn't tolerate it. Debian on the same hardware was significantly more performant, so for me that answered the "why not Linux?" question

djsumdog 9y ago

Why try Linux? Why try FreeBSD? We try different operating systems to drive development and to try new and different things. Why climb a mountain? Why cycle a 90km trail? Why travel the world? Because it's there and we can.

AdmiralAsshat 9y ago
Curiously, if you read my original comment, I never used the word "Why". The question you're answering seems to be "Why would you put OpenBSD on a laptop?" But the question I specifically asked what advantage is has over other comparable distros.

clarry 9y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14734527 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14734527 OpenBSD doesn't suffer the terrible churn and break-and-change-everything syndrome that makes the Linux UX so miserable. I can't compare it to FreeBSD, but I think OpenBSD can be more attractive for its focus on the head of development.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

nickpsecurity 9y ago

Secure-by-default, reliability, consistency, and good docs. There's lots of people who would appreciate that even if they weren't technical experts. From there, you have the split of who would be interested in it as-is versus who would use it if someone set up the UI, apps, and so on for them. Mac OS X is probably the ultimate example of layering a great UI for lay people with "just works" mentality over UNIX. I bet something like that on OpenBSD would have significant, even if single percent, market.

lafytahoe 9y ago
And the lack of Bluetooth makes it soo much safer.

rmusial 9y ago

At least in my experience on several Lenovo laptops and even a 2012 MacBook Pro, OpenBSD has a much better GUI experience than FreeBSD, down to things like suspend and resume working with no tweaking required.