4 ms·

NetBSD is the more portable one. FreeBSD is maybe the best well rounded, has zfs. OpenBSD is all about top notch security by default. Generally the documenta

by ianai 3y ago

NetBSD is the more portable one. FreeBSD is maybe the best well rounded, has zfs. OpenBSD is all about top notch security by default. Generally the documentation for them is accurate. If the manpage says something should work it will work. The components are more tightly integrated than a gnu/linux system since they’re all maintained together. I have long wished they would find some killer application(s) for the server sector and grow in widespread usage. (And I have a long held commitment to myself to support them significantly, financially if I ever win a lotto ;) Their licensing is much easier for a corporation to use than linux and there are products which are based on them. They probably would work well as a backend OS as they’re known for stability.

SubjectToChange 3y ago
The components are more tightly integrated than a gnu/linux system since they’re all maintained together. Well, sure, but most of the software they maintain are the relatively “trivial” parts of the system. Or rather, the software that gives me the most trouble isn’t anything they’d be maintaining. I have long wished they would find some killer application(s) for the server sector and grow in widespread usage. I wouldn’t hold my breath. I mean, what feature or functionality could any BSD have that would justify migrating? It would be easier to add an equivalent to Linux in virtually every case. Not to mention that many “cloud-native” projects are typically Linux-only. I don’t really care one way or the other, it’s basically “coke vs Pepsi” as far as I’m concerned. It’s just hard to see any BSD variant challenging Linux.
networked 3y ago
NetBSD also integrates ZFS, albeit an older version than in recent FreeBSD releases: https://wiki.netbsd.org/zfs/ https://wiki.netbsd.org/zfs/. I have used ZFS in a NetBSD 9.2–9.3 VM on AMD64 without apparent issues. (Not for root.)

by ianai 3y ago

SubjectToChange 3y ago

The components are more tightly integrated than a gnu/linux system since they’re all maintained together. Well, sure, but most of the software they maintain are the relatively “trivial” parts of the system. Or rather, the software that gives me the most trouble isn’t anything they’d be maintaining. I have long wished they would find some killer application(s) for the server sector and grow in widespread usage. I wouldn’t hold my breath. I mean, what feature or functionality could any BSD have that would justify migrating? It would be easier to add an equivalent to Linux in virtually every case. Not to mention that many “cloud-native” projects are typically Linux-only. I don’t really care one way or the other, it’s basically “coke vs Pepsi” as far as I’m concerned. It’s just hard to see any BSD variant challenging Linux.

networked 3y ago

NetBSD also integrates ZFS, albeit an older version than in recent FreeBSD releases: https://wiki.netbsd.org/zfs/ https://wiki.netbsd.org/zfs/. I have used ZFS in a NetBSD 9.2–9.3 VM on AMD64 without apparent issues. (Not for root.)