4 ms·

OpenBSD is what I use to host a bunch of private sites for myself and a few people I know. This is only due to some custom configurations and applications that

by eksith 12y ago

OpenBSD is what I use to host a bunch of private sites for myself and a few people I know. This is only due to some custom configurations and applications that my shared webhost didn't provide and for things I can't be bothered with, like my own domain which is static html. I put them on the shared host. I wish it was for a lofty goal like security and "code correctness" etc... but the honest answer is that it's extremely simple (once you get used to it) and I tend to be extremely lazy at times. Configuration is very straightforward for a lot of things and there have been very few surprises along the way. Actually no surprises that I can recall in most of what I do since 5.0. I wouldn't recommend it as a desktop system although plenty of people (including my boss) use it as such. There is some fiddling required for this that I'd rather not do, but for very simple, stable and surprise-free servers, it works very well for me. I also wouldn't recommend it for first-time admins either, although their man pages are some of the most thorough and helpful I've ever read.

cgag 12y ago
I installed freebsd on an old laptop (thinkpad t60) because I want to use something simple, very well documented, and with an emphasis on good code. I know OpenBSD takes this further, but I know FreeBSD has more packages/ports available, and I'm interested in playing with ZFS and jails.
- aortega 12y ago
  The problem with FreeBSD is that it has almost no security features turned on by default. It's more unsafe than windows and much worst than Linux.
  - vezzy-fnord 12y ago
    FreeBSD is the only mainstream operating system that I know of which has absolutely no ASLR by default to this day. Thankfully, it looks like they're finally gonna get there soon: http://www.bsdcan.org/2014/schedule/events/452.en.html http://www.bsdcan.org/2014/schedule/events/452.en.html
  - stock_toaster 12y ago
    > The problem with FreeBSD is that it has almost no > security features turned on by default. What security features would you like to see turned on by default?
    - aortega 12y ago
      All of these https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Security/Features https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Security/Features
    - tedunangst 12y ago
      Stack protector for one. Though they finally did that. http://marc.info/?l=freebsd-stable&m=141495893928493&w=2 http://marc.info/?l=freebsd-stable&m=141495893928493&w=2
      - stock_toaster 12y ago
        Yeah. Just saw that recently too. Good news! ASLR is apparently around the corner+ as well. Didn't OpenBSD get ASLR in 2008 or something like that? It only took 6 years for FreeBSD to get it.... >_< +for some definition of corner.
        tedunangst 12y ago
        First OpenBSD commit to add ASLR was Sep 2003. Released in 3.5 on May 1 2004 (also the first release to support amd64).
        stock_toaster 12y ago
        Thanks for the clarification!
brynet 12y ago
I use OpenBSD on my laptops and desktop. The KMS drm drivers have been improved for 5.6. So you have 2D/3D acceleration, and unlike with FreeBSD, Xorg just works without configuration out of the box. For a more "desktop" experience, OpenBSD 5.6 also has working GNOME 3.12.2. One thing that tends to trip up desktop users is the default ulimits, BSD has login classes which may need to be tuned in login.conf(5). This is especially true if you plan on using modern web browsers which are resource hogs.
- eksith 12y ago
  It seems I have to revaluate my stance on this. I admit, it's been a while since I ran OpenBSD as a full desktop. I've been happy with Crunchbang Linux so far as a simpler system, but maybe it's time I tried it again.
stevekemp 12y ago
I have to say I recently made a similar choice; I chose FreeBSD because I could easily download an ISO for it though. The documentation is exceptionally good, and the simplicity for configuration is a nice bonus.
- anotherfact 12y ago
  OpenBSD has had downloadable ISO for a long time. It is easily reachable from ftp or http. FreeBSD's site requires for and takes more clicks to get to.
  - stevekemp 12y ago
    After reading this post I went looking, looking over the FTP site I did find an ISO. Thanks. My memory was always that ISOs were hard to find, and when I didn't see a big flashing link I guess I tuned out. I'll revisit OpenBSD in the future, for the moment I'm enjoying FreeBSD though.
clarry 12y ago
> I wouldn't recommend it as a desktop system although plenty of people (including my boss) use it as such. There is some fiddling required for this I've been running OpenBSD on a laptop (which works as my desktop) for years now, and I can say there's been very little fiddling. In fact it's proved to be the best out-of-the-box experience I've had with any OS (including Windows XP and a whole bunch of Linux distros). > I also wouldn't recommend it for first-time admins either I have to admit I wasn't administrating things for the first time when I did it on OpenBSD.. but OpenBSD was so simple and straightforward that I eventually lost the will to fiddle with other systems. They really have gone out of the way to make sure the system is Dead Simple to configure (the best configuration is no need for any configuration at all!), and when you really need to change something, the documentation is unparalleled. Of course, different people have different needs so what works for me might not work for everyone. I know that what seems to work for most people doesn't really work for me...
- Touche 12y ago
  > I've been running OpenBSD on a laptop (which works as my desktop) for years now, and I can say there's been very little fiddling. In fact it's proved to be the best out-of-the-box experience I've had with any OS (including Windows XP and a whole bunch of Linux distros). I think with any BSD, trying to run it on modern hardware will be a frustrating experience as it lags behind Linux in hardware support (which itself lags behind Windows/OSX). Of course, BSDs are more coherent OSes and if it were not for hardware support I would use it exclusively.

by eksith 12y ago

cgag 12y ago

I installed freebsd on an old laptop (thinkpad t60) because I want to use something simple, very well documented, and with an emphasis on good code. I know OpenBSD takes this further, but I know FreeBSD has more packages/ports available, and I'm interested in playing with ZFS and jails.

aortega 12y ago
The problem with FreeBSD is that it has almost no security features turned on by default. It's more unsafe than windows and much worst than Linux.
- vezzy-fnord 12y ago
  FreeBSD is the only mainstream operating system that I know of which has absolutely no ASLR by default to this day. Thankfully, it looks like they're finally gonna get there soon: http://www.bsdcan.org/2014/schedule/events/452.en.html http://www.bsdcan.org/2014/schedule/events/452.en.html
- stock_toaster 12y ago
  > The problem with FreeBSD is that it has almost no > security features turned on by default. What security features would you like to see turned on by default?
  - aortega 12y ago
    All of these https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Security/Features https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Security/Features
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    Stack protector for one. Though they finally did that. http://marc.info/?l=freebsd-stable&m=141495893928493&w=2 http://marc.info/?l=freebsd-stable&m=141495893928493&w=2
    - stock_toaster 12y ago
      Yeah. Just saw that recently too. Good news! ASLR is apparently around the corner+ as well. Didn't OpenBSD get ASLR in 2008 or something like that? It only took 6 years for FreeBSD to get it.... >_< +for some definition of corner.
      - tedunangst 12y ago
        First OpenBSD commit to add ASLR was Sep 2003. Released in 3.5 on May 1 2004 (also the first release to support amd64).
        stock_toaster 12y ago
        Thanks for the clarification!

brynet 12y ago

I use OpenBSD on my laptops and desktop. The KMS drm drivers have been improved for 5.6. So you have 2D/3D acceleration, and unlike with FreeBSD, Xorg just works without configuration out of the box. For a more "desktop" experience, OpenBSD 5.6 also has working GNOME 3.12.2. One thing that tends to trip up desktop users is the default ulimits, BSD has login classes which may need to be tuned in login.conf(5). This is especially true if you plan on using modern web browsers which are resource hogs.

eksith 12y ago
It seems I have to revaluate my stance on this. I admit, it's been a while since I ran OpenBSD as a full desktop. I've been happy with Crunchbang Linux so far as a simpler system, but maybe it's time I tried it again.

stevekemp 12y ago

I have to say I recently made a similar choice; I chose FreeBSD because I could easily download an ISO for it though. The documentation is exceptionally good, and the simplicity for configuration is a nice bonus.

anotherfact 12y ago
OpenBSD has had downloadable ISO for a long time. It is easily reachable from ftp or http. FreeBSD's site requires for and takes more clicks to get to.
- stevekemp 12y ago
  After reading this post I went looking, looking over the FTP site I did find an ISO. Thanks. My memory was always that ISOs were hard to find, and when I didn't see a big flashing link I guess I tuned out. I'll revisit OpenBSD in the future, for the moment I'm enjoying FreeBSD though.

clarry 12y ago

> I wouldn't recommend it as a desktop system although plenty of people (including my boss) use it as such. There is some fiddling required for this I've been running OpenBSD on a laptop (which works as my desktop) for years now, and I can say there's been very little fiddling. In fact it's proved to be the best out-of-the-box experience I've had with any OS (including Windows XP and a whole bunch of Linux distros). > I also wouldn't recommend it for first-time admins either I have to admit I wasn't administrating things for the first time when I did it on OpenBSD.. but OpenBSD was so simple and straightforward that I eventually lost the will to fiddle with other systems. They really have gone out of the way to make sure the system is Dead Simple to configure (the best configuration is no need for any configuration at all!), and when you really need to change something, the documentation is unparalleled. Of course, different people have different needs so what works for me might not work for everyone. I know that what seems to work for most people doesn't really work for me...

Touche 12y ago
> I've been running OpenBSD on a laptop (which works as my desktop) for years now, and I can say there's been very little fiddling. In fact it's proved to be the best out-of-the-box experience I've had with any OS (including Windows XP and a whole bunch of Linux distros). I think with any BSD, trying to run it on modern hardware will be a frustrating experience as it lags behind Linux in hardware support (which itself lags behind Windows/OSX). Of course, BSDs are more coherent OSes and if it were not for hardware support I would use it exclusively.