5 ms·

The BSDs are awesome. I have been considering moving to BSD from Slackware Linux on my PC at home, but haven't yet pulled the trigger. Mostly, I cannot decide w

The BSDs are awesome. I have been considering moving to BSD from Slackware Linux on my PC at home, but haven't yet pulled the trigger. Mostly, I cannot decide which to use among NetBSD, OpenBSD, or NetBSD.

nix23 4y ago
Try FreeBSD first, more functions more ports/pkg, i had OBSD for a long time, but decided against it because of ZFS and Wine-Proton....and much more, but it's really about what you want and what you need.
- newZWhoDis 4y ago
  Can you elaborate? As an outsider I don’t know if you mean FreeBSD has ZFS or OBSD
  - xcdzvyn 4y ago
    FreeBSD has very good ZFS support; and more software support in general (as OP alluded to with Wine-Proton)
- UI_at_80x24 4y ago
  It totally depends on what you want to do/how you want to use your PC. For a 'general use' PC I'd suggest FreeBSD. There are more ports for newer programs that will offer more choices. NetBSD and OpenBSD also have their strengths, and EACH ONE can be used as a daily-driver. It just depends what you need/use. IMHO: FreeBSD = general purpose (Open|Net)BSD = more specialized
  - nix23 4y ago
    Well that's what i wrote no? > but it's really about what you want and what you need.
    - UI_at_80x24 4y ago
      Yes, I just the wrong reply link. So I'm agreeing with you!
- irusensei 4y ago
  Stopped using FreeBSD on my home servers (2 RockPro64s) because it lacks big.Little support, which results in an OS that doesn't distinct between the stronger and weaker cores. Among the BSDs only NetBSD supports it but that's too far from my comfort zone. Not only that but SSL and GNUTLS speeds were terrible at the time since it didn't knew how to use the cpu extensions (greatly impacts samba performance) I've stoped using. Meanwhile Linux is a breeze. Faster, more responsible pulling 650MB/s on AES cryptsetup benchmark. BTRFS is actually quite good and LXC replaces jails. Transfers can easily saturate my gigabit connection. Don't think I'm going back so soon.
  - nix23 4y ago
    Yeah sorry i don't like the idea of weaker stronger cores, i think it's one of the most stupidest ideas.
    - Sirened 4y ago
      Do you like...not believe in the idea of power efficiency? Heterogeneous SoCs are one of the biggest reasons why we can have incredibly powerful smartphones that still last all day—you can't run the big cores at full throttle all the time because they just use too much power.
      - nix23 4y ago
        No i think having identical cores who can slow down and deactivate features on-demand or deactivate itself is a better use of space. >you can't run the big cores at full throttle all the time because they just use too much power. Yes you don't do that...not even on servers (sometimes).
        Sirened 4y ago
        >having identical cores who can slow down and deactivate features on-demand or deactivate itself is a better use of space With a take like that you're either a CPU micro-arch engineer working at the bleeding edge of research in this area or you have no idea how this actually works. One of the major ways we power optimize a core is by just making all the variable size structures smaller. That is, fewer/narrower execution units, smaller ROBs, smaller caches, less deep predictors, etc. Less hardware running means less leakage, which is the knob we're talking about controlling with little cores. Now, in theory you can partially power gate a cache to turn, say, a 6-way cache into a 4-way cache, but doing so is extremely complicated from a correctness perspective and is really not something anyone is actually doing today. And, anyways, fwiw: area is not really the a concern for modern SoCs at this point, it really is an issue of power/thermals. The feature size has gotten so small that they can afford to pack in extra stuff like accelerators and get good value out of them on the basis that it allows them to expend less energy than if they were to just use the CPU. For example, one big reason you see a lot of mobile SoCs with dedicated hardware for inference is because they have space and doing it with dedicate hardware lets them avoid burning a ton of energy on the CPU/GPU.
nequo 4y ago
> NetBSD, OpenBSD, or NetBSD. Have to go with NetBSD there. :) More seriously, you could give them test rides inside QEMU before you decide.
- matrix12 4y ago
  Qemu will let you see what works on the OS as far as software goes. But fails to tell if your hardware is even supported. They all have usb images available. Boot up, see if it finds everything, combined with your Software needs. I run all three so it's not always a trinary value.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
knaekhoved 4y ago
I like to use FreeBSD for general appliances, OpenBSD for security-hardened appliances.
- UI_at_80x24 4y ago
  Agreed, same.
user3939382 4y ago
NetBSD is known for its package system pkgsrc and they have a nifty new firewall https://man.netbsd.org/npf.7 https://man.netbsd.org/npf.7 It's most known for its portability and the number of architectures it supports, which many interpret as a comment on the quality of its underlying architecture. SDF runs on it so you can play with it there. OpenBSD is known for its security but I've run into too many rude people in their community which has never happened to me with NetBSD, maybe just a coincidence. FreeBSD is known for its performance and being more up to date with drivers, etc but feels more "messy" and therefore less BSDish to me. Take all of this with a grain of salt, just one man's take.
seabird 4y ago
FreeBSD is focused on the same market Linux is. It will probably give you the least trouble in terms of software and hardware compatibility. OpenBSD is "the way things should be" according to a certain group of people. Generally feels good if you're tired of the Linux Mexican design standoff, but will sometimes leave you either very happy or very confused depending on whether or not you're on the same page as the developers. I haven't used NetBSD extensively myself, but it seems to be a pretty simple system with a focus on portability. None of the above matters if what you want to use doesn't work on your hardware. Test each one.
lcall 4y ago
I think it depends on your purpose. OpenBSD is focused on correctness, security ("secure by default"), portability, and good documentation. (it is my choice.) It is the only one I know of that has had only 2 of the worst kind of security hole (remote hole in default install) since about 1996. It is the source of pf (firewall) and OpenSSH and I think other things that are used elsewhere. OpenSSH is widely trusted. It is not as fast at disk i/o as FreeBSD and doesn't have ZFS or Bluetooth support, or USB support for some use cases, I gather (though I use it with some USB things all the time). FreeBSD seems focused on performance and stability, and some people say it is not as secure as openbsd, especially out of the box. Other people debate, and on it goes. It has the most users of the 3. NetBSD seems focused on portability, and ... I don't know, fun hobby-ness? I know least there.
mekster 4y ago
Your comment read like I was in 1999.

nix23 4y ago

Try FreeBSD first, more functions more ports/pkg, i had OBSD for a long time, but decided against it because of ZFS and Wine-Proton....and much more, but it's really about what you want and what you need.

newZWhoDis 4y ago
Can you elaborate? As an outsider I don’t know if you mean FreeBSD has ZFS or OBSD
- xcdzvyn 4y ago
  FreeBSD has very good ZFS support; and more software support in general (as OP alluded to with Wine-Proton)
UI_at_80x24 4y ago
It totally depends on what you want to do/how you want to use your PC. For a 'general use' PC I'd suggest FreeBSD. There are more ports for newer programs that will offer more choices. NetBSD and OpenBSD also have their strengths, and EACH ONE can be used as a daily-driver. It just depends what you need/use. IMHO: FreeBSD = general purpose (Open|Net)BSD = more specialized
- nix23 4y ago
  Well that's what i wrote no? > but it's really about what you want and what you need.
  - UI_at_80x24 4y ago
    Yes, I just the wrong reply link. So I'm agreeing with you!
irusensei 4y ago
Stopped using FreeBSD on my home servers (2 RockPro64s) because it lacks big.Little support, which results in an OS that doesn't distinct between the stronger and weaker cores. Among the BSDs only NetBSD supports it but that's too far from my comfort zone. Not only that but SSL and GNUTLS speeds were terrible at the time since it didn't knew how to use the cpu extensions (greatly impacts samba performance) I've stoped using. Meanwhile Linux is a breeze. Faster, more responsible pulling 650MB/s on AES cryptsetup benchmark. BTRFS is actually quite good and LXC replaces jails. Transfers can easily saturate my gigabit connection. Don't think I'm going back so soon.
- nix23 4y ago
  Yeah sorry i don't like the idea of weaker stronger cores, i think it's one of the most stupidest ideas.
  - Sirened 4y ago
    Do you like...not believe in the idea of power efficiency? Heterogeneous SoCs are one of the biggest reasons why we can have incredibly powerful smartphones that still last all day—you can't run the big cores at full throttle all the time because they just use too much power.
    - nix23 4y ago
      No i think having identical cores who can slow down and deactivate features on-demand or deactivate itself is a better use of space. >you can't run the big cores at full throttle all the time because they just use too much power. Yes you don't do that...not even on servers (sometimes).
      - Sirened 4y ago
        >having identical cores who can slow down and deactivate features on-demand or deactivate itself is a better use of space With a take like that you're either a CPU micro-arch engineer working at the bleeding edge of research in this area or you have no idea how this actually works. One of the major ways we power optimize a core is by just making all the variable size structures smaller. That is, fewer/narrower execution units, smaller ROBs, smaller caches, less deep predictors, etc. Less hardware running means less leakage, which is the knob we're talking about controlling with little cores. Now, in theory you can partially power gate a cache to turn, say, a 6-way cache into a 4-way cache, but doing so is extremely complicated from a correctness perspective and is really not something anyone is actually doing today. And, anyways, fwiw: area is not really the a concern for modern SoCs at this point, it really is an issue of power/thermals. The feature size has gotten so small that they can afford to pack in extra stuff like accelerators and get good value out of them on the basis that it allows them to expend less energy than if they were to just use the CPU. For example, one big reason you see a lot of mobile SoCs with dedicated hardware for inference is because they have space and doing it with dedicate hardware lets them avoid burning a ton of energy on the CPU/GPU.

nequo 4y ago

> NetBSD, OpenBSD, or NetBSD. Have to go with NetBSD there. :) More seriously, you could give them test rides inside QEMU before you decide.

matrix12 4y ago
Qemu will let you see what works on the OS as far as software goes. But fails to tell if your hardware is even supported. They all have usb images available. Boot up, see if it finds everything, combined with your Software needs. I run all three so it's not always a trinary value.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

knaekhoved 4y ago

I like to use FreeBSD for general appliances, OpenBSD for security-hardened appliances.

UI_at_80x24 4y ago
Agreed, same.

user3939382 4y ago

NetBSD is known for its package system pkgsrc and they have a nifty new firewall https://man.netbsd.org/npf.7 https://man.netbsd.org/npf.7 It's most known for its portability and the number of architectures it supports, which many interpret as a comment on the quality of its underlying architecture. SDF runs on it so you can play with it there. OpenBSD is known for its security but I've run into too many rude people in their community which has never happened to me with NetBSD, maybe just a coincidence. FreeBSD is known for its performance and being more up to date with drivers, etc but feels more "messy" and therefore less BSDish to me. Take all of this with a grain of salt, just one man's take.

seabird 4y ago

FreeBSD is focused on the same market Linux is. It will probably give you the least trouble in terms of software and hardware compatibility. OpenBSD is "the way things should be" according to a certain group of people. Generally feels good if you're tired of the Linux Mexican design standoff, but will sometimes leave you either very happy or very confused depending on whether or not you're on the same page as the developers. I haven't used NetBSD extensively myself, but it seems to be a pretty simple system with a focus on portability. None of the above matters if what you want to use doesn't work on your hardware. Test each one.

lcall 4y ago

I think it depends on your purpose. OpenBSD is focused on correctness, security ("secure by default"), portability, and good documentation. (it is my choice.) It is the only one I know of that has had only 2 of the worst kind of security hole (remote hole in default install) since about 1996. It is the source of pf (firewall) and OpenSSH and I think other things that are used elsewhere. OpenSSH is widely trusted. It is not as fast at disk i/o as FreeBSD and doesn't have ZFS or Bluetooth support, or USB support for some use cases, I gather (though I use it with some USB things all the time). FreeBSD seems focused on performance and stability, and some people say it is not as secure as openbsd, especially out of the box. Other people debate, and on it goes. It has the most users of the 3. NetBSD seems focused on portability, and ... I don't know, fun hobby-ness? I know least there.

mekster 4y ago

Your comment read like I was in 1999.