4 ms·

What BSD is the closest to alpine in the Linux space? Which BSD is the smallest in size and very security focused by selecting for minimalism while also being

by chaxor 2y ago

What BSD is the closest to alpine in the Linux space? Which BSD is the smallest in size and very security focused by selecting for minimalism while also being well maintained and used like alpine? That seems like it would be a great starting place for a good desktop os

yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
Honestly I would say none of them are really analogous to Alpine; things don't really map that way. That said - I'd say that OpenBSD is what you're asking for: I won't comment on size, but it's very focused on security and correctness, well maintained, and is actively daily-driven as a desktop by its devs. (In contrast, I like FreeBSD, including as a desktop/laptop OS, but historically it's had a bit of a thing where people develop FreeBSD to run on their servers from the comfort of their macbook. They just started an effort to improve that, but that's new.) That said, all of the big 3 (Open/Free/Net) are pretty great and if your hardware is supported you'd probably have a good time if you don't mind doing a bit of legwork in terms of having to set things up starting from a terminal. Of course if Alpine is your reference point then you'll be fine.
- chaxor 2y ago
  Thanks, this is good information. I'm still curious about size, as it removes attack surface for security. The glibc to musl conversion is obviously not the direct change to occur in BSD, since BSD has its own libc, but an even smaller alternative would be interesting. My understanding is that OpenBSD is about 100x the size of Alpine right now. In modern times, a Rust-based option is also intriguing if the goal is security as well, though things like Redox are _extremely_ heavy for these considerations.
speed_spread 2y ago
OpenBSD fits what you describe.
wkat4242 2y ago
Freebsd is pretty great and it has elements of Nix too. Like the RC.local config. I use it on my desktop as daily driver. It's really capable and well documented.

by chaxor 2y ago

yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago

Honestly I would say none of them are really analogous to Alpine; things don't really map that way. That said - I'd say that OpenBSD is what you're asking for: I won't comment on size, but it's very focused on security and correctness, well maintained, and is actively daily-driven as a desktop by its devs. (In contrast, I like FreeBSD, including as a desktop/laptop OS, but historically it's had a bit of a thing where people develop FreeBSD to run on their servers from the comfort of their macbook. They just started an effort to improve that, but that's new.) That said, all of the big 3 (Open/Free/Net) are pretty great and if your hardware is supported you'd probably have a good time if you don't mind doing a bit of legwork in terms of having to set things up starting from a terminal. Of course if Alpine is your reference point then you'll be fine.

chaxor 2y ago
Thanks, this is good information. I'm still curious about size, as it removes attack surface for security. The glibc to musl conversion is obviously not the direct change to occur in BSD, since BSD has its own libc, but an even smaller alternative would be interesting. My understanding is that OpenBSD is about 100x the size of Alpine right now. In modern times, a Rust-based option is also intriguing if the goal is security as well, though things like Redox are _extremely_ heavy for these considerations.

speed_spread 2y ago

OpenBSD fits what you describe.

wkat4242 2y ago

Freebsd is pretty great and it has elements of Nix too. Like the RC.local config. I use it on my desktop as daily driver. It's really capable and well documented.