5 ms·
Openbsd has consistently scored towards the bottom in all performance benchmarks that I've seen in the last few years, when compared to FreeBSD and various linu
by _ofdw 5y ago
Openbsd has consistently scored towards the bottom in all performance benchmarks that I've seen in the last few years, when compared to FreeBSD and various linuxen.
I would personally never use it for a laptop.
- anthk 5y agoIf you cared about actual security, you would use it in a laptop thanks to bioctl and full disk encryption.
- ranger_danger 5y agoOpenBSD is not really as secure as people make it out to be: https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/openbsd.html https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/openbsd.html And plenty of other OSes have FDE and everything in-between.
- nix23 5y agoReally good to see hardenedbsd is being mentioned, thanks for the link.
- na85 5y agoI don't think OpenBSD's reputation for security is warranted. Their vaunted claims of only two remote holes in the default install is useless because if you're using it for a daily driver you're going well beyond the default install.
- doublepg23 5y agoI would have to agree with with your assessment, referencing the link in the above tree and this isopenbsdsecu.re . Not to imply I don’t like OpenBSD, I love their first class support of old architectures.
- wowtip 5y agoScores are one thing, using it is another. I ran OpenBSD on a Thinkpad T450 for over a year, but recently switched to OpenSUSE Tumbleweed, not because of lack of speed, but some missing applications and blutooth support. Given I don't run a heavy desktop environment, rather just StumpWM, but still I did not in any way feel OpenBSD was slower than Linux, using the same applications. OpenSUSE is the most solid Linux I have used so far, but OpenBSD was more to my liking setting up and maintaining. It is well thought out, simple, and... just makes sense.
- _ofdw 5y ago>Scores are one thing, using it is another. Indeed but I ran it on my Thinkpad and it was a sluggish mess.
- doublepg23 5y agoWhen I ran it on my X200 it was simply unusable with GNOME, which isn’t giving it a fair shot yes, but it’s fine with GNOME on Trisquel and Arch.
- t-3 5y agoOpenBSD has way better ACPI, power management, and less setup hassle than FreeBSD, and way cleaner and nicer out of the box than any linux distro. You don't generally have to hack on anything to get basic laptop functionality working, and the small loss of performance from mitigations, disabling SMT, etc. is really not as big a deal for me, because my laptop is used for ssh and web browsing, not compiling huge projects or playing games.
- ndiddy 5y agoEven using it for web browsing, I found that Firefox was much slower on OpenBSD than it was on either Linux or Windows on the same hardware.
- tcmart14 5y agoIt depends on where you fall in trade-offs. OpenBSD also tend to be proactive in security and will choose security over performance enhancements. FreeBSD aims for performance. If you need a super performant desktop that is running a BSD flavor, FreeBSD is the choice. If your focus is having a secure desktop, OpenBSD is probably more up your alley. It is the age old question, you want speed, quality and quantity, but you can only choose 2, so which 2? Neither is a lesser system, they just have different priorities. For BSD, I have a preference for NetBSD, mostly because I value portability. I can take pksgrc and use it on my MacOS machine or my Linux box.