4 ms·
They are all viable as backend operating systems, understood as server use. I don't think it's uncontroversial to say that it what they are mainly used for, al
by Athas 3y ago
They are all viable as backend operating systems, understood as server use. I don't think it's uncontroversial to say that it what they are mainly used for, although some people also use them on desktops/laptops.
I'm not terribly familiar with NetBSD and FreeBSD anymore, but I can provide some of my own motivation for using OpenBSD on servers whenever I am able. I don’t consider myself a beginner to Unix or computers, but I do consider myself a fairly inept and inexperienced systems administrator, with no great desire to spend the time to become better, and my needs are fairly basic - just the usual web/shell/IRC/mail server stuff, and other random infrastructure needs that come along for my work. I prefer OpenBSD because it is is so minimalist, the defaults so sensible, and the documentation so good, that I trust the machines I set up. I have confidence that I did not overlook something crucial. The OpenBSD http daemon is beautifully simple - too simple for many uses, but perfect for mine. The OpenBSD mail daemon is the only mail daemon I have ever been able to set up from scratch, just from reading the man pages. Other systems are more featureful (and probalby faster), but I always worry that I might have overlooked something.
I run Linux (NixOS and RHEL) on my desktop and some servers respectively, because of needs that OpenBSD simply does not support (mostly GPU computing). Linux is fine and certainly runs very fast, but OpenBSD is the only operating system I honestly like.
I've heard someone mention that FreeBSD is "the Linux of the BSDs", meaning that it is bigger, has more features, and is faster, but (probably) also that it is more complicated. I don't know if that is actually true. My last FreeBSD experience was in 2003, where I used it because the Linux emulation could run 3D games like Enemy Territory faster than Linux itself could. (I don't think that is a common use case anymore.)
- vedranm 3y agoFreeBSD is a full-featured OS. Me and my colleagues used it for initial porting of a particular scientific software (non-GUI, just CLI and library) to macOS while having no access to an Apple Mac machine. Almost all the time (modulo Clang version differences), what worked on FreeBSD, also worked on macOS. Even if that was not the case, just using FreeBSD would have helped us a lot to "de-GNU-ify" the assumptions present in the code. FreeBSD Ports/packages are a great collection of software (~30000); while not always providing the latest version of all software (and I will admit that I am spoiled in that regard by the usage of Arch Linux and derivatives), almost anything you need is there and it just works.
- throw0101b 3y ago> FreeBSD Ports/packages are a great collection of software (~30000); 31969 per the "Statistics" sidebar at: * https://www.freshports.org https://www.freshports.org
- avkleosm698 3y agoThat's mostly been my experience as well, that GNU extensions are the largest real difference between between the various Unix implementations in practice, at least in terms of software compatibility.