3 ms·

> how cool it is compared to Linux. It a matter of preferences. Linux is hard to beat, but so is macOS. OpenBSD is cool in its own little ways. For me it's the

> how cool it is compared to Linux. It a matter of preferences. Linux is hard to beat, but so is macOS. OpenBSD is cool in its own little ways. For me it's the consistency and ever present documentation. FreeBSD fans will say: "FreeBSD has a the handbook, and it consistent", but it is not the same, it's not like OpenBSD. In terms of consistent feel (command line, documentation and system configuration) FreeBSD feels very much like someone made an effort, OpenBSD feels like they succeeded. While OpenBSD can be a great desktop, even if it does require at little more tweaking than I care for. It's almost there, like an older version of Slackware. For me personally, it's macOS desktops and OpenBSD servers, if possible.

LoganDark 4y ago
From what I've been told, the biggest difference imho is that BSDs include the entire operating system, including userspace. Most Linux distros pull from a pool of packages that are supposed to mostly work with tons of different configurations, whereas BSD can be tailor-made for one rock-solid configuration. System upgrades are also basically atomic for this reason, since user-installed packages and applications are separated from the system level. The base system itself is versioned as a whole.
lcall 4y ago
Only OpenBSD has a track record anything like going since ~1996 with only 2 remotely exploitable security bugs in the default installation. And ongoing, it has far fewer (no?) privilege escalation bugs, etc., which gives some comfort as one installs packages beyond the default installation. So one can weigh security, clean organization & good documentation, vs. some convenience if needed features are missing (bluetooth is available sometimes via USB, I think I read in a mailing list, but no NFS, and some other things).
- toyg 4y ago
  > Only OpenBSD has a track record anything like going since ~1996 with only 2 remotely exploitable security bugs in the default installation. That stat is a bit meaningless, simply because most other OSes ship a default install that tries to do much more than OpenBSD does by default. They've downplayed it a lot over the years. > vs. some convenience if needed features are missing That "some", for everyday application developers, is surprisingly big. Last time I tried, anything related to Rust was a nope. Tons of tools just fail to compile (because "GNU is bad" or something). It reminded me of late-90s Linux, except there the community would jump at the chance to fix issues - whereas OpenBSD folks tend to just shrug (or even berate you).
  - lcall 4y ago
    I think that instead of meaningless, it gives stability and control which one can lack elsewhere. Trust and local control, with those more things, but based on an explicit decision, not a less-secure default to start with. But to each his own, based on priorities, of course. Tons of tools fail to compile? My experience about lacking features feels different from what you describe. There are over 10k precompiled packages available, meeting my needs nicely. For example, I use rustc and cargo on obsd without trouble, just a simple install, though I think rustup is absent. I wonder if the rust project is still planning to integrate rustup into cargo sometime though, and how that is going.
- sshd 4y ago
  Gobbles says hi Gobble Gobble :PppPPPpppPP

LoganDark 4y ago

From what I've been told, the biggest difference imho is that BSDs include the entire operating system, including userspace. Most Linux distros pull from a pool of packages that are supposed to mostly work with tons of different configurations, whereas BSD can be tailor-made for one rock-solid configuration. System upgrades are also basically atomic for this reason, since user-installed packages and applications are separated from the system level. The base system itself is versioned as a whole.

lcall 4y ago

Only OpenBSD has a track record anything like going since ~1996 with only 2 remotely exploitable security bugs in the default installation. And ongoing, it has far fewer (no?) privilege escalation bugs, etc., which gives some comfort as one installs packages beyond the default installation. So one can weigh security, clean organization & good documentation, vs. some convenience if needed features are missing (bluetooth is available sometimes via USB, I think I read in a mailing list, but no NFS, and some other things).

toyg 4y ago
> Only OpenBSD has a track record anything like going since ~1996 with only 2 remotely exploitable security bugs in the default installation. That stat is a bit meaningless, simply because most other OSes ship a default install that tries to do much more than OpenBSD does by default. They've downplayed it a lot over the years. > vs. some convenience if needed features are missing That "some", for everyday application developers, is surprisingly big. Last time I tried, anything related to Rust was a nope. Tons of tools just fail to compile (because "GNU is bad" or something). It reminded me of late-90s Linux, except there the community would jump at the chance to fix issues - whereas OpenBSD folks tend to just shrug (or even berate you).
- lcall 4y ago
  I think that instead of meaningless, it gives stability and control which one can lack elsewhere. Trust and local control, with those more things, but based on an explicit decision, not a less-secure default to start with. But to each his own, based on priorities, of course. Tons of tools fail to compile? My experience about lacking features feels different from what you describe. There are over 10k precompiled packages available, meeting my needs nicely. For example, I use rustc and cargo on obsd without trouble, just a simple install, though I think rustup is absent. I wonder if the rust project is still planning to integrate rustup into cargo sometime though, and how that is going.
sshd 4y ago
Gobbles says hi Gobble Gobble :PppPPPpppPP