Open Vs Free BSD
holger.kipp at alogis.com
Mon Jun 22 09:09:16 UTC 2009
Daniel Bolgheroni schrieb:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Holger Kipp wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 09:47:35AM +0100, Michal wrote:
>> For the masses:
>> - NetBSD: Run on any hardware (including toasters)
>> - OpenBSD: Be as secure as possible
>> - FreeBSD: provide best system for x86-platforms
> It's a mistake to make this association.
I don't think so:
*NetBSD say on their website:*
NetBSD is a free, fast, secure, and _highly_portable_ Unix-like Open
Source operating system. It is available for a
_wide_range_of_platforms_, from large-scale servers and powerful desktop
systems to handheld and embedded devices. Its clean design and advanced
features make it excellent for use in both production and research
environments, and the source code is freely available under a
*OpenBSD say on their website:*
The OpenBSD project produces a *FREE*, multi-platform 4.4BSD-based
UNIX-like operating system. Our efforts emphasize portability,
standardization, correctness, proactive security
<http://www.openbsd.org/security.html> and integrated cryptography
*FreeBSD say on their website:*
FreeBSD is an advanced operating system for _x86_compatible (including
Pentium® and Athlon^(TM)), _amd64_compatible_ (including Opteron^(TM),
Athlon^(TM)64, and EM64T), ARM, IA-64, PowerPC, PC-98 and UltraSPARC®
With over 20,000 ported libraries and applications
<http://www.freebsd.org/applications.html>, FreeBSD supports
applications for desktop, server, appliance, and embedded environments.
Actually I like it this way, because every BSD variant has a different
focus and is trying different ways to solve problems or fullfill user
requirements. Whatever turns out to be best will be incorporated into
the other *BSDs whenever the need arises. Each of the mentioned BSDs has
its advantages and disadvantages, so what? Choose the system you seem
best suited for your needs. Afaik some developers are also working on
> OpenBSD people chose "security" as an argument to describe what the OS
> is. It's true and I believe it can attract more users, but on the other
> side, people seem to think OpenBSD is ONLY used when you need security,
> like a firewall, router, etc.
OpenBSD was a fork of NetBSD but is having more of a focus on security.
This is a good thing. We might not have OpenSSH, PF etc. without it.
Afaik OpenBSD however is using a simple Giant Lock for MP which FreeBSD
got rid of some time ago (wasn't an easy task) which now results in very
good scalability of FreeBSD on MP systems. I have not checked how NetBSD
is handling MP and have also not conducted any performance tests in this
> OpenBSD is a GENERIC OS which can be used to do _almost_ every task a
> computer system is able to.
This is true for all unix-like (and many other) operating systems. I
don't see the point here.
The OP did not intend to start a flame war, and I don't either. I like
OpenBSD (because of the security features and supported platforms). I
like NetBSD (because of the supported platforms - especially RiscPCs -
and the clean implementation). I like FreeBSD because of the many
available ports (which in the past was a reason to choose FreeBSD over
NetBSD or OpenBSD on x86-hardware) and for other reasons. There is no
general "a is better than b" here. It all depends on the requirements
and what you're familiar with.
I prefer FreeBSD because I have ipf, ipfw and pf to chose from, it has
good MP support, ZFS and never let me down since 2.2.8.
I also use OpenBSD and NetBSD occasionally and support their projects by
buying their CDs and T-Shirts ever now and then.
More information about the freebsd-stable