Which BSD to install?

[Abzstrak]

Ok, I'm going to break down and install a bsd on an extra box... these specs ok for it? (they're fine for linux, so I would guess so)

K6-2 500
256MB, 40GB
S3 4MB
2940 with scsi cdrom and burner

also, which one? netbsd, openbsd, freebsd? and why?

TIA

 

[MGMorden]

Depends on what you want to do. Oversimplification:

Server: OpenBSD (better secuirity)
Workstation: FreeBSD (better speed)
Really weird architecture (ie, not your machine): NetBSD (runs on just about anything with an LED )

 

[n0cmonkey]

NetBSD is the one Im itchin' to play with, but I never think I have wierd enough hardware to run it. If I run it on i386 I think Ill be labeled lame or something...

 

[Superwormy]

FreeBSD RULES!

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Superwormy
FreeBSD RULES!

Do you know how much temptation posts like that cause? Must not start "My OS is better" flame war...

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

netbsd is great. i'm lame as hell, running it on 2 x86 machines now

i'd say openbsd or netbsd. freebsd seemed kind of confusing and messy to me. havent used openbsd yet though.

 

[Soybomb]

FreeBSD is my fave, but thats because of its hardware support, and ease of acquisition

 

[Bremen]

Open and Net also have the advantage of clean code. To wit, if you can't figure it out, you'll never get it ported, and poorly written code is a security risk. If you're wanting to actually dig into the innards, one of them is ideal. OpenBSD's security is legendary; one remote security hole in 7 years! That said FreeBSD is much more of a newbie friendly type thing (don't quote me, I've never run it). FreeBSD has run (prolly still runs) some of the largest servers in the world, such as yahoo, or the old walnut creek ftp (it was the busiest ftp site in the world).

 

[Abzstrak]

so freebsd is probably the most useful to learn?

 

[Poontos]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
netbsd is great. i'm lame as hell, running it on 2 x86 machines now

i'd say openbsd or netbsd. freebsd seemed kind of confusing and messy to me. havent used openbsd yet though.

It all depends on your background and what you are used to. For me, since day one, FreeBSD has blown me away.

 

[Poontos]

Originally posted by: MGMorden
Depends on what you want to do. Oversimplification:

Server: OpenBSD (better secuirity)
Workstation: FreeBSD (better speed)
Really weird architecture (ie, not your machine): NetBSD (runs on just about anything with an LED )

Server: FreeBSD. OpenBSD does not support SMP, so you are limited in the demanding server area.
Firewall: OpenBSD or FreeBSD. OpenBSD has a great security track record.
Workstation: FreeBSD or Linux (for those closer to the Windows realm)

I would say they are all useful to learn, but personally, I would start with FreeBSD, as there is much more information out there and if you read the FreeBSD handbook, you will soon see this.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Abzstrak
so freebsd is probably the most useful to learn?

As far as jobs go, probably. OpenBSD experience helped me get a job though. I found FreeBSD to be flakey, less organized, and too full of political bull for my tastes. 5.0 is almost out! Yay, or something.

OpenBSD is clean, simple, small and generally comes out on time. Alright alright! Ill admit it. They have been coming out on dates other than the scheduled 6 month release date! Got 3.1 early. 3.2 came out early. And as far as that 7 years with only one remote root hole in the default install goes, it means nothing. Forget about it.

NetBSD I imagine is similar with a little more politics. But they have some really neat stuff coming out (IRIX threading, Darwin binary support, etc) that just blows the mind. Not to mention systrace and a couple of other features in OpenBSD.

Remember, my thoughts on FreeBSD are opinions only and should not be the beginning of an OS war. It is possible it was a hardware/driver issue, but the same stuff worked on OpenBSD. It is also possible I am just dumb and cant understand FreeBSD.

 

[cleverhandle]

OK, I'll ask because I'm honestly interested in knowing - not trying to start a fight...

Apart from SMP servers, what is the point of FreeBSD?

I can see OpenBSD for the paranoid types. I can understand NetBSD for those on odd hardware or particularly interested in portability concerns. But I really don't get why someone would use FreeBSD for a workstation rather than Linux. I installed 4.5 (?) and played around with it for a couple of weeks a while back. Granted that I've used Linux for years and am quite accustomed to it, but FreeBSD seemed harder to use. It doesn't support as many new devices as Linux. Recent software takes significant time to be ported - I was testing it out about a month after the OpenOffice 1.0 release, and the port was not yet generally usable. You have less control over what software is on the system - things like Sendmail which are part of the core system are not easily removed. The only real strength I saw was the port system - but you can find a broader selection of software with apt-get in Debian if that package management style is important.

Poontos has stated that he's a big fan, and I know others like FreeBSD a lot, too. So, please, tell me what I'm not seeing...

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: cleverhandle
OK, I'll ask because I'm honestly interested in knowing - not trying to start a fight...

Apart from SMP servers, what is the point of FreeBSD?

History. Speed. Stability. Ease of use. The daemon is just so much better than Tux.
Daemonette.

I can see OpenBSD for the paranoid types.

I really think that if you are using OpenBSD just because of "security" you are using it for the wrong reason.

I can understand NetBSD for those on odd hardware or particularly interested in portability concerns.

Cant argue there.

But I really don't get why someone would use FreeBSD for a workstation rather than Linux.

Why use Linux rather than Windows?

I installed 4.5 (?) and played around with it for a couple of weeks a while back. Granted that I've used Linux for years and am quite accustomed to it, but FreeBSD seemed harder to use.

Ill write this from my perspective

I installed RedHat Linux 7.3 tha couple of weeks back and Im actually still using it. But it seems harder to use.

It doesn't support as many new devices as Linux.

Linux had some trouble with the hardware on the laptop I was trying, which was very old.

Recent software takes significant time to be ported

I have the same problems compiling software on Linux as I do on OpenBSD.

- I was testing it out about a month after the OpenOffice 1.0 release, and the port was not yet generally usable.

Just so you know, both OpenOffice and Mozilla are trouble spots for OpenBSD atleast. It appears to be poor code causing problems.

You have less control over what software is on the system

I have all of these rpms all over the place. It is like I would have to uninstall software to install something else :Q

- things like Sendmail which are part of the core system are not easily removed.

rm `which sendmail`

RH appears to come with non-standard daemons. xinetd?!

The only real strength I saw was the port system - but you can find a broader selection of software with apt-get in Debian if that package management style is important.

rpmfind.net is slow.

Poontos has stated that he's a big fan, and I know others like FreeBSD a lot, too. So, please, tell me what I'm not seeing...

I have heard so many people say good things about Linux, but since I am a BSD bigot, I do not see what the big deal is. It does not work like a BSD so it appears to be crap. :Q

Yes, overly dramatized. At one time there was the thought that Linux's performance would equal FreeBSD's. People probably got used to it and liked it and decided they wanted to use soemthing they liked and understood rather than some new animal written by some nobody in finland.

Why do people use Gentoo when Debian is obviously better? Why SuSE when RedHat has more support? Why Linux when FreeBSD has been aruond longer and does not have the cancerous GPL attatched? Personal preference.

 

[Soybomb]

Originally posted by: Poontos

Originally posted by: MGMorden
Depends on what you want to do. Oversimplification:

Server: OpenBSD (better secuirity)
Workstation: FreeBSD (better speed)
Really weird architecture (ie, not your machine): NetBSD (runs on just about anything with an LED )

Server: FreeBSD. OpenBSD does not support SMP, so you are limited in the demanding server area.
Firewall: OpenBSD or FreeBSD. OpenBSD has a great security track record.
Workstation: FreeBSD or Linux (for those closer to the Windows realm)

I would say they are all useful to learn, but personally, I would start with FreeBSD, as there is much more information out there and if you read the FreeBSD handbook, you will soon see this.

I would say that even Freebsd's SMP support isn't quite top notch yet, although 5.x is supposed to improve on that I believe.

And while n0c has answered many of cleverhandle's questions I'll chip in a few:
installing your own MTA instead of sendmail is easy, but if you want to disable it quickly just change sendmail_enable="YES" in /etc/rc.conf to ="NONE"

Why do I use freebsd over linux? I feel like there a somewhat enforced level of organization and consistency to the filesystem's layout that I'm comfortable with. I like its init. I love the ports system. Its everything I wanted from linux but never got. Its the no frills OS of slackware, with a package management system as powerful as debians, with an awesome reputation for reliability and security. Everything just makes sense and works. So it delivers what I want, which is no guarentee that its what you want.

 

[Sunner]

On a workstation, I kinda agree with Cleverhandle, I prefer Linux simply cause it's easier(for me), the vast majority of open source software is written primarily with Linux in mind, and while most works on the BSD's, some doesn't, some has problems, etc.
Also, once in a while I need software that I can't get in source form, but I can pretty much always find a tarball with Linux binaries.

For a server, where the latest software might not be important, but where stability and general system quality is king, I prefer OpenBSD.
OpenBSD just feels extremely robust, great manpages, pf, and an extremely helpful mailinglist(though not very friendly sometimes ).
And like n0c said, there's very little politics, the system is made by a group of people who seem to agree on Theo's definition of "Open" and they stick to it, no BS.

Oh and it's alot of fun reading Theo's mail on misc

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Sunner
On a workstation, I kinda agree with Cleverhandle, I prefer Linux simply cause it's easier(for me), the vast majority of open source software is written primarily with Linux in mind, and while most works on the BSD's, some doesn't, some has problems, etc.
Also, once in a while I need software that I can't get in source form, but I can pretty much always find a tarball with Linux binaries.

OpenBSD's Linux emulation is top notch I think that is how they are getting Mozilla or Open Office to work.

For a server, where the latest software might not be important, but where stability and general system quality is king, I prefer OpenBSD.
OpenBSD just feels extremely robust, great manpages, pf, and an extremely helpful mailinglist(though not very friendly sometimes ).
And like n0c said, there's very little politics, the system is made by a group of people who seem to agree on Theo's definition of "Open" and they stick to it, no BS.

Oh and it's alot of fun reading Theo's mail on misc

 

[Poontos]

I don't have the time to type out all my reasons, but here is a good URL: Linux vs. FreeBSD vs. Windows 2000

Link #2

Server wise, FreeBSD is king. Desktop wise, Linux has a bit of an "advantage".

 

[Sunner]

OpenBSD's Linux emulation is top notch I think that is how they are getting Mozilla or Open Office to work.

Yeah so I've heard, Im just a little sceptical about emulation in general(cept for NES/Sega MS emulation of course ).
I prefer the real deal, much like playing the skin-flute just ain't ever gonna be as good as the real thing

Oh and that FreeBSD vs Linux vs Windows comparison seems more than a little dated, as in before 2.4 was even out.
I wouldn't say FreeBSD is king for servers, they both have advantages, and I'd take BSD over Linux in lots of cases, but Linux in others.

Linux leads FreeBSD in SMP scalability for example, probably notthing that will be noticeable with 2 CPU's, but say you have an 8-way box.

Oh well, it's all good in the end

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Sunner

OpenBSD's Linux emulation is top notch I think that is how they are getting Mozilla or Open Office to work.

Yeah so I've heard, Im just a little sceptical about emulation in general(cept for NES/Sega MS emulation of course ).
I prefer the real deal, much like playing the skin-flute just ain't ever gonna be as good as the real thing

Sometimes its better sometimes its worse, sometimes it works just the same. Kind of like a bj instead of intercourse. Sometimes its better, sometimes its not.

 

[Sunner]

I'd say a bj vs intercourse is more like "true" rpm vs alien, while I think linux bins on a linux system vs Linux emu on a BSD system is more like skinflute vs the real deal.

Oh my...just having this conversation is soooo geeky, I gotta go buy a toolbelt :Q

 

[Poontos]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Sunner

OpenBSD's Linux emulation is top notch I think that is how they are getting Mozilla or Open Office to work.

Yeah so I've heard, Im just a little sceptical about emulation in general(cept for NES/Sega MS emulation of course ).
I prefer the real deal, much like playing the skin-flute just ain't ever gonna be as good as the real thing

Sometimes its better sometimes its worse, sometimes it works just the same. Kind of like a bj instead of intercourse. Sometimes its better, sometimes its not.

LOL! Fsck BSD and Linux, I'll take a bj from hot girls any day.

Is this OT yet?

 

[Mucman]

Don't listen to n0cmonkey... he doesn't know what he is talking about

If you decide to install any of the BSD's you are on the right track . Personally I run FreeBSD because it has a large user base. A large
user base means there are lots of people who know a lot more than you, and are usually willing to help you out .

One of the major incentives for NetBSD is stability. I've heard NetBSD is the most stable because of its clean coding policy. I am not really
if it is true because at work we have OpenBSD nameservers that have been up for over a year, and my FreeBSD machines at home never
crash (I have a P150 FreeBSD fileserver that's been up for over 100 days).

They main plus about the BSD's is that their file system hierarchies are pretty much the same, and if you use the ports system, almost
all the software you install will adhere to the hier(7) specs. This is what made me dislike Linux so much... there was no sense of order, like
there is with the BSD's.

btw, I just installed OpenBSD on an IBM Thinkpad 365XD without one single issue...

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Mucman
Don't listen to n0cmonkey... he doesn't know what he is talking about

That is correct, about 99% of the time anyhow.

If you decide to install any of the BSD's you are on the right track . Personally I run FreeBSD because it has a large user base. A large
user base means there are lots of people who know a lot more than you, and are usually willing to help you out .

The OpenBSD user base may be small, but it is pretty good, although a little harsh at times.

 

[Mucman]

That is correct, about 99% of the time anyhow.

Come on... I was just kidding

The OpenBSD user base may be small, but it is pretty good, although a little harsh at times.

Hehe, reading some of the posts at deadly.org is a good example of that .

Now, is the original post inquiring about the OS, or the politics that follows the OS?