5 ms·

Nice read. It’s always enjoyable setting up a new machine, regardless of the OS or platform you’re using. I’ve never used BSD or any of its derivatives - is th

Nice read. It’s always enjoyable setting up a new machine, regardless of the OS or platform you’re using. I’ve never used BSD or any of its derivatives - is the main difference between OpenBSD and FreeBSD just the focus on security?

notaplumber 8y ago
A lot more than just security-- albeit that is one of the primary focuses of OpenBSD, encompassing everything from researching new mitigations to secure coding practices. https://www.openbsd.org/innovations.html https://www.openbsd.org/innovations.html If it helps to put things into perspective, NetBSD is closest relative to OpenBSD, the latter having forked over 23 years ago. The last time FreeBSD and OpenBSD shared the same tree was at Berkeley. In fact, NetBSD, FreeBSD and OpenBSD independently merged the final release from Berkeley, 4.4BSD-Lite2 in 1995. Linux users generally don't understand what it means for each major BSD being fundamentally distinct operating systems, including separately developed kernels, drivers, userland utilities, with their own developer/user communities.
- asveikau 8y ago
  > fundamentally distinct operating systems, including separately developed kernels, drivers, userland utilities, with their own developer/user communities. A lot of stuff does get ported between them though, and many people use multiple of them.
  - notaplumber 8y ago
    Of course there is some overlap.
protomyth 8y ago
For me, OpenBSD is easier to deal with. I use FreeBSD for boxes where we need larger storage, and FreeBSD is just harder. I've had problems with upgrades and FreeBSD really doesn't document some stuff thoroughly (zfs upgrade for instance). OpenBSD does almost require you do the every 6 month upgrade, but it really isn't that much of a bother. The syspatch utility has made patches a lot easier. Packages are often delayed, but if it has what you need its pretty simple.
- sureaboutthis 8y ago
  Otoh, I've never had a problem with FreeBSD upgrades and doing an upgrade is only 'freebsd-update upgrade -r [version]' followed by 'freebsd-update install', reboot and it can't get much easier than that.
  - ams6110 8y ago
    OpenBSD is about that easy. Download the new version install image, boot into it, select Upgrade, and let it go. I typically upgrade a couple of months after a new release comes out. That way there's been time for any post-release issues to be shaken out and patched. (There rarely are any, but I'm usually not waiting on any new features, and prefer to be a little conservative). The project supports the current release, and the prior release, so you're not at risk of missing any critical updates with that strategy.
  - protomyth 8y ago
    Yeah, that doesn't always go so great, but I have most of my problems once you do the pkg steps. Plus zfs upgrade needs a bit of documentation on boot code.
    - sureaboutthis 8y ago
      What do you mean by "pkg steps"? Again, I have never had any issues whatsoever with any of this.
      - protomyth 8y ago
        I’ve had pkg fail bad on version upgrades even when forcing it to reinstall everything.
JdeBP 8y ago
No. Don't fall into the trap of this trite and superficial way of classifying the BSDs that tends to be circulated. * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17586058 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17586058
- eljimmy 8y ago
  Consider me enlightened, thanks for the info!
mruts 8y ago
I would say that OpenBSD focuses on correctness (security being a subset of correctness) and documentation while FreeBSD focuses on performance. Personally, I find OpenBSD much nicer and simpler. The performance isn't impressive though.
h1d 8y ago
The amount of users really makes a difference. While I'd like to use OpenBSD on my hobby server, tools just don't work like they used to on Linux or that prebuilt binaries aren't available and you have to complile from sources but since the author hasn't tested on OpenBSD, you can get errors and without decent patience, you may need to give up on a few things you used to have. FreeBSD, I feel it mostly works like Linux if you can absorb some minor differences. I wish OpenBSD drop supporting desktop and focus on stuff that matters that are server based usage to fix all the little edge cases.
freshm087 8y ago
Choice between Open, and FreeBSD is mostly a matter of personal preferences. In principle, O. invests more into security, while F. tries to be more inventive, but when used as a desktop you won't feel much practical difference. It's about small things like how uprgrades are done, what packages available etc. After using both in parallel I settled with FreeBSD mostly due to ZFS, and the fact that I prefer some of my software compiled with very specific settings (OpenBSD discourages compiling ports), but OpenBSD is fine too. I'd like to note that all of BSDs have less money, manpower, and visibility, and it means producers of software, and hardware care about them even less then about Linux. E.g. there's no official Electron for *BSD. I heard some people succeded in building it with some hacks on FreeBSD, but anyway nothing Electron-based is available for quick and easy installation.

notaplumber 8y ago

A lot more than just security-- albeit that is one of the primary focuses of OpenBSD, encompassing everything from researching new mitigations to secure coding practices. https://www.openbsd.org/innovations.html https://www.openbsd.org/innovations.html If it helps to put things into perspective, NetBSD is closest relative to OpenBSD, the latter having forked over 23 years ago. The last time FreeBSD and OpenBSD shared the same tree was at Berkeley. In fact, NetBSD, FreeBSD and OpenBSD independently merged the final release from Berkeley, 4.4BSD-Lite2 in 1995. Linux users generally don't understand what it means for each major BSD being fundamentally distinct operating systems, including separately developed kernels, drivers, userland utilities, with their own developer/user communities.

asveikau 8y ago
> fundamentally distinct operating systems, including separately developed kernels, drivers, userland utilities, with their own developer/user communities. A lot of stuff does get ported between them though, and many people use multiple of them.
- notaplumber 8y ago
  Of course there is some overlap.

protomyth 8y ago

For me, OpenBSD is easier to deal with. I use FreeBSD for boxes where we need larger storage, and FreeBSD is just harder. I've had problems with upgrades and FreeBSD really doesn't document some stuff thoroughly (zfs upgrade for instance). OpenBSD does almost require you do the every 6 month upgrade, but it really isn't that much of a bother. The syspatch utility has made patches a lot easier. Packages are often delayed, but if it has what you need its pretty simple.

sureaboutthis 8y ago
Otoh, I've never had a problem with FreeBSD upgrades and doing an upgrade is only 'freebsd-update upgrade -r [version]' followed by 'freebsd-update install', reboot and it can't get much easier than that.
- ams6110 8y ago
  OpenBSD is about that easy. Download the new version install image, boot into it, select Upgrade, and let it go. I typically upgrade a couple of months after a new release comes out. That way there's been time for any post-release issues to be shaken out and patched. (There rarely are any, but I'm usually not waiting on any new features, and prefer to be a little conservative). The project supports the current release, and the prior release, so you're not at risk of missing any critical updates with that strategy.
- protomyth 8y ago
  Yeah, that doesn't always go so great, but I have most of my problems once you do the pkg steps. Plus zfs upgrade needs a bit of documentation on boot code.
  - sureaboutthis 8y ago
    What do you mean by "pkg steps"? Again, I have never had any issues whatsoever with any of this.
    - protomyth 8y ago
      I’ve had pkg fail bad on version upgrades even when forcing it to reinstall everything.

JdeBP 8y ago

No. Don't fall into the trap of this trite and superficial way of classifying the BSDs that tends to be circulated. * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17586058 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17586058

eljimmy 8y ago
Consider me enlightened, thanks for the info!

mruts 8y ago

I would say that OpenBSD focuses on correctness (security being a subset of correctness) and documentation while FreeBSD focuses on performance. Personally, I find OpenBSD much nicer and simpler. The performance isn't impressive though.

h1d 8y ago

The amount of users really makes a difference. While I'd like to use OpenBSD on my hobby server, tools just don't work like they used to on Linux or that prebuilt binaries aren't available and you have to complile from sources but since the author hasn't tested on OpenBSD, you can get errors and without decent patience, you may need to give up on a few things you used to have. FreeBSD, I feel it mostly works like Linux if you can absorb some minor differences. I wish OpenBSD drop supporting desktop and focus on stuff that matters that are server based usage to fix all the little edge cases.

freshm087 8y ago

Choice between Open, and FreeBSD is mostly a matter of personal preferences. In principle, O. invests more into security, while F. tries to be more inventive, but when used as a desktop you won't feel much practical difference. It's about small things like how uprgrades are done, what packages available etc. After using both in parallel I settled with FreeBSD mostly due to ZFS, and the fact that I prefer some of my software compiled with very specific settings (OpenBSD discourages compiling ports), but OpenBSD is fine too. I'd like to note that all of BSDs have less money, manpower, and visibility, and it means producers of software, and hardware care about them even less then about Linux. E.g. there's no official Electron for *BSD. I heard some people succeded in building it with some hacks on FreeBSD, but anyway nothing Electron-based is available for quick and easy installation.