Which BSD? 368
Poodle Fang asks: "After using Linux for a few years, I am now interested in trying out the free x86 BSDs. I have been reading that OpenBSD is focused on security and FreeBSD on performance, but is there really much of a difference in security and performance among the BSDs? Do any of the BSDs have any features that sets it apart from the others (for example, does one work better on laptops than the others?) How well do the Linux emulation libraries work? I am more concerned in the performance, stability and security than packaging or an easy install process. Any insights would be appreciated! "
New? (Score:3)
Each BSD has it's own goals - OpenBSD for example aims to be the "secure" BSD, and is designed package by package to make sure the l335 h4x0rs out there would rather pull their fingernails out than try to bypass the security safeguards on your box.
Sooooo... maybe it might be better if you told us what you're looking for- you've asked a really open-ended question!
--
BSD's (Score:2)
386BSD - was the original 'PC' unix
from that grew:
FreeBSD - continue a focus on i386
NetBSD - main focus being platform proliferation (they support everything, though I don't know about laptops)
OpenBSD - a fairly recent splinter form
As a general rule you'll find the BSD's more server focused than Linux (big generalization, but it holds up some). Drivers are always there weak point, but check the Slashdot BSD section for sites that help you locate what you need.
Whatever you do.. don't go commercial (Score:2)
However, this can be argued for any distro, but still.. I believe BSDi to be the worst in that category - it's simply nasty.
Stick with FreeBSD, it's stable, nice, and don't forget free.
Peace,
Matthew
_____________________________________
Linux "emulation" (Score:5)
As for the differences, FreeBSD supports more x86 hardware generally, while NetBSD supports more architectures. OpenBSD has better out-of-the-box security, but all the BSDs are quite good in security with a bit of tweaking and configuring. It mostly seems to be a matter of personal preference, though most home desktop users tend to pick FreeBSD.
Confession. (Score:2)
I run Windows98.
I know, I know. But I feel this is the appropriate time to come out of the closet.
So, I ask: Is *BSD as easy/hard to learn as Linux? Can I/ Should I start with FreeBSD?
This isn't meant to start a flamewar, of course. I'm just curious.
p.s. If you'd like to help in the "Drive to get jawad off of Windows": EMail me at jawad@nycap.rr.com or bhattj@rpi.edu. Thank you.
The BSD Family (Score:3)
OpenBSD has undergone a line-by-line professional security audit. It is focused entirely on security.
FreeBSD is the most mature of the BSDs on the i386 platform. It focuses mostly on that platform, although I believe that there is a sparc port as well now.
NetBSD's hook is that it is ported to everything including the kitchen sink. It ran well on the Vaxen and the Apollos that I came across not so long ago.
Based on user testimonial, the linux Binary emulation is extremely good for anything that isn't specifically tied to the kernel. i.e. you can't load kernel modules. I've seen somebody run StarOffice 5.0 on OpenBSD using the emulation.
I'm installing OpenBSD on a 486 tonite, so maybe I'll follow up with some more first-hand info soon.
As a matter of fact... (Score:1)
Re:Some thoughts on FreeBSD... (Score:1)
Re:Confession. (Score:1)
Re:Confession. (Score:1)
I'd recommend RedHat, Mandrake or Caldera for your first open source OS. Multi-boot with these are much easier to setup than the *BSD releases.
But why not try em all? Check out Cheapbytes [cheapbytes.com] and order the CDs. Probably about $30 for the ones I mentioned.
Oh. Backup your data. Win98 doesn't like to share partition tables with other operating systems.
The BSDs (Score:2)
OpenBSD - The line by line security audit gives it a claim to security. Security, however is what one makes of it on thier box.
NetBSD - likes running on as many different platforms as possible. From x86 to toasters to dreamcasts. And, the NetBSD developers have been cast by others as as giving a damn about hacking an OS, not trying to peddle one.
FreeBSD is prob. the best bet for x86. Only because that was the original focus.
Linux emulation on FreeBSD has worked on every program I have tried...but that is hardly useful praise.
For stability, FreeBSD gets the nod, only because you can point to Yahoo and cdrom.com and go, yup, yup, lotsa uptime, lotsa traffic. (for most purposes almost any modern Unix-like OS will be stable enough for most people) I'm sure the defenders of the Net and OpenBSD will submit big net/open BSD sites. (just like if one said RedHat was used on the biggest, a swarm of SUSE would point out big SUSE sites)
[OT] Is this a parody? (Score:1)
The more I think about it (and go over your posting), the more it looks like to took somebodies speach and did a search and replace on it. If so, I guess you're trying to show that the speach can be applied to anything producing the same value (ie, none).
Re:New? (Score:2)
BSD is kinda the same thing - for example your wonderful GNU-enhanced utilities no longer have those extensions... which can make life difficult for awhile until you figure out why a perfectly good command doesn't work anymore... there's other stuff too... best advice I can offer - if you're taking the plunge for the first time, be sure to RTFM, or you'll be bald by next tuesday.
On the plus side, the BSD stuff has alot of cool features you just can't find under linux - especially the filesystem stuff. The immutable flag is a very good way of tripping up crackers, and the bsd-style kind of file creation is to make the file creator's group match what the directories group is set to. Very nice, b/c I hate doing the find/grep/chown dance twenty times a day *muttering* ....
If I haven't scared you off, take the plunge, but maintain a rigorous backup policy for the good of thy karma. You DO have backups, right? >:) ~ The BOFH
--
Well, a guy I know says... (Score:2)
So, one day I was talking with a friend about BSD, and how I wanted to try it out. This person I know just happenned to be sitting nearby and jumped in. He said that FreeBSD was the most secure and that OpenBSD was the most compatible. I asked him to elaborate on this compatibility thing, and he said "Well... I think... OpenBSD can run C++ programs." Instantly I lost all respect for him. I inquired further, and he said "yes, it can run Microsoft C++ programs, and the other BSD's can't."
Moral of the story: If you don't know, shut up already!
-------------
BSDs (Score:1)
Re:Confession. (Score:1)
For a user... (Score:1)
I've used FreeBSD (not too much though), and unfortunatley I couldn't get a DHCP client to work, and if it weren't for that I may be running it right now instead of Linux.
Re:Linux "emulation" (Score:1)
Any kernel dev people here (I know you're out there, step forward and be counted!) care to comment on the current state of the art right now on this front?
--
Re:Confession. (Score:3)
If you have a fairly fast internet connection you can also download some images and do an over the internet install of RH6.1. Then go visit Anywhere office [applix.com] from applix and you can use their java based office suite for free. I think you will find it more then adequate for most of your needs.
Whereever you are there is probably a Linux users group, go to one of the meetings and you will find lots of friendly knowledgable people who are just dying to help you out. Good luck and welcome to the adventure.
Re:Unix is Unix is Unix (Score:1)
What are you using it for? (Score:2)
However, if you are using this computer as your personal workstation i would highly recomend staying with Linux. Its overall environment seem better polished and more usable. It is not difficult to get around the problems of the BSD's, however they are annoying. The ports collection is invalualuable to almost anyone on all three of them.
Between the three BSD's, I have found openBSD to be the best. It not only is super secure, but it gets around many of the newsences of freeBSD. It's hardware support is excellent, i have found drivers for many devices that would not work under freeBSD or Linux. I also found the installation of openBSD was much nicer, however i have done many i386 unix installation, so i knew what i was doing.
In my network which is mixed commercial unix(mostly solaris), Win 95/NT, *BSD, linux, i use freebsd on intranet servers (excellent NFS), openBSD on the internet servers, and Linux on the rest.
If you have never used unix, i would highly recomend Linux, Redhat, SuSE, or any commercial package will work great.
My FreeBSD perspective. (Score:5)
Everyone will have a different opinion, and they are all right. I'm going to offer my FreeBSD-slanted opinion as one view.
NetBSDCoke, original formula. Hard to argue with that. NetBSD has a long and noble history. The NetBSD team does a great job of covering the hardware world. No, not the WinTel hardware world, that's Linux. They cover platforms. By running on so many platforms it is a great platform if you have a lot of different (and/or old :-) sorts of hardware. Unfortunately, it is this platform compatability that slows their progress.
I have nothing bad to say about NetBSD. unfortunately, I have nothing good (feature wise) to say about it when it comes to getting real work done. Anything you buy these days has "better" choices that run on it. I will continue to be a big NetBSD supporter though, as it's the only choices for some of my older machines that still deserve a real operating system.
OpenBSDI'd tell you about it, but then I would have to kill you. :-) Actually, it's not that bad. OpenBSD is security focused, and so they do go a few extra steps in that direction. About 60% of what they do can be done on NetBSD simply by intelligently securing the box. The other 40% is good security add on work.
Most of the good stuff the OpenBSD folks come up with make it into the other BSD's and Linux shortly afterwards, although not all. I'm not sure on security alone OpenBSD is "better", assuming you have a clueful admin who understands the issues.
IMHO the best thing for the BSD community is if the OpenBSD guys and the NetBSD guys could get together. Unfortunately, the inability to do that is the very reason they are apart.
FreeBSDThe FreeBSD folks want to get real work done. Early on, that resulted in an Intel focus, as that was the only affordable platform available. Now the Alpha is included, and hopefully more soon. When they day is done though they are interested in bang-for-the buck, not on RC5 or quake, but applications like web, ftp, and news. Bread and butter network stuff, rooted deep in the Unix world.
This shows in several places. The VM subsystem they implemented several years back was one of the first of it's kind in the free OS world. The port subsystem is an efficient way to distribute and build tools that may still have compile-time dependancies and configuration without creating a packaging nightmare. The installer is simple, clean, fast, and good for the novice and the expert.
Put simply, FreeBSD makes the admin and the machine the most productive when trying to do Internet application "stuff".
LinuxI'll offer my Linux opinion, to complete my perspective. Linux wants to be everything to everybody. As such, it supports more "options" to everything. There are more device drivers, more supported file systems, and more "applications" than any other free unix. In many cases, this is good, but when it comes to getting real work done, it is questionable at best.
The quality of both some of the "supported" hardware and the drivers are to be questioned, but how are you to know what is good, and what is bad? The releases are more frequent, both to fix bugs, and introduce features. There are often all sorts of new things added you don't need that may affect what you're trying to do.
SummaryAny of them will probably do what you want. All of the BSD's have a very different structure than Linux, not only in code, but in how they are designed, built, and released. They all have core teams, rigid code review and testing procedures, and an emphasis on being correct rather than being first, best, or fastest. For the most part, if there is a feature in a released version, it works, reliably. Linux emulation on FreeBSD works like a dream. If RealPlayer G2 and acroread will run fine under it, anything will. The penality for this stability and reliability is that you're doing to have to pick from the "approved" hardware list, and do without some of the wizbang stuff.
Finally, I have one recommendation. Learn the way each OS wants you to do things. Unix is Unix, unless you're an admin or a programmer. The worst thing anyone switching OS's can do is try to impose one OS's / designers view on another. It's usually a poor fit. Just because one OS does something completely different than another does not automatically make it better or worse, what matters is what you are able to do with it at the end of the day.
Good luck with whatever you try.
Conspiracism? (Score:1)
Surely, you mean "conspiritorialism"?
Re:Some thoughts on FreeBSD... (Score:2)
But, where is your examples? How is FreeBSD being evil to other BSDs? How is it robbing the poor and giving to the rich, or anything else one could hold ethical and important where FreeBSD breaks community trust. I'm willing to listen, just not accept statements blindly. I like the FreeBSD people I've met, though never met other BSD people since I'm all x86, and used the BSD a system administrator told me to try. I've got an HP Apollo, but no luck yet with the NetBSD port (used to chat a bit with the guy), and just got another HP... might get it working...
So, where's FreeBSD hurt us? I can forgive some evils, because FreeBSD has helped user choice a great deal in knocking the linux zealots over and over again with the fact that there are other, and at times substatually superior, open source operating systems out there. That doesn't make everything ok.. but then what am I to despise FreeBSD for? I don't see them breaking my, or the communities, trust.
Huh? (Score:1)
It doesn't seem to have anything to do with any of the BSD's. I have no experience with any of the BSD stuff, but I doubt it could possibly be that bad. Actually, it sounds more like a rant that would be targeted at Microsoft than one targeted at the BSD's.
Re:Unix is Unix is Unix (Score:1)
BSD differences are small, but at times critical (Score:3)
OpenBSD ships with heavy cryptography in the distribution, allowing one to choose Blowfish generated passwords instead of MD5 for example. They're allowed to do this because they code, integrate the distribution, and ship from Canada, where Draconian laws on exporting Open Source cryptography are non-existent. Taking advantage of this the OpenBSD project is also striving to update ssh-1.2.12, the last completely free version of ssh, to remove well known security problems, which will be known as OpenSSH.
The other two projects, NetBSD and FreeBSD each have separate slants, though neither offers direct strong cryptography in their distributions because both ship from within the United States. FreeBSD is tailored for use with x86 and now Alpha CPUs, while NetBSD is tailored for wide portability. This is why the NetBSD project states "Of course it runs NetBSD."
I've only slightly used FreeBSD, and many years back. However, my NAT box connected to a cablemodem runs OpenBSD, and I have several old Sun workstations which run NetBSD... I have to say I'm very pleased with both of these Operating Systems and would strongly recommend them to anyone with need of an OS for some specific purpose (like NAT service on a firewall, or to run old oddball hardware like my Sun3s, old VAXes, and the like). And they're very strong distributions with heavy development cycles... just recently the NetBSD project integrated in UVM, a completely new memory manager with distinct advantages from the stock VM described in the BSD Design and implementation Red Book.
Hell, they all make for excellent alternatives to Linux as well... though I personally prefer Linux on my desktop workstation, after having my previous IP-MASQ Linux system, also connected to the cablemodem, cracked using a well known named buffer overflow (yes it was my fault) I'm now convinced I don't want a Linux box sitting out on the open net. I feel much safer with OpenBSD for many reasons... not just because they include the cryptography but because they code audit, they by default run critical daemons without root privileges in chroot() jails, and the authors take great pains to distribute their system by default with the fewest services started as possible, unlike most Linux distributions.
And one last thing, not meant to inflame Linux Proponents since I gleefully run both systems in my house, the documentation in all the BSD distributions seems far superior to Linux DOCS. Linux may have more HOWTO's, and other informal documentation, but when it comes to finding canonical documentation, like in man5 for
I've been very pleased with the results
Re:Some thoughts on FreeBSD... (Score:1)
FreeBSD is probably a good starting point (Score:5)
Although I haven't tried it personally*, everything I've seen and heard points to FreeBSD being the smallest leap from Linux. Once you get past the shallow stability/scalability/performance claims, the two aren't appreciably different.
As for the "emulation", I understand it is pretty good. A coworker of mine used to request Linux builds of a particular piece of software I maintained at work, because he was using it on a FreeBSD box, and I had a Linux box. It all worked without a hitch.
As for claims that some software runs faster, I'm sure it does. In general, software will run slightly differently, which includes some operations running faster and others running slower. FreeBSD and Linux are optimized differently -- this is an artifact of the fact that they're completely different implementations of the same basic POSIX and Unix APIs. I'm sure there's a class of problems that each is better at. Making a broad statement that X is faster than Y is pretty much pointless. (Even if Y is a Microsoft product. ;-) )
In the end, you really need to try out different flavors and find the one you're happiest with. If it seems like too much of a hassle, then perhaps that's a hint that the change won't do you much good.
--Joe(* Note: I did try to install FreeBSD once, but a bug in the Adaptec 7800 driver caused it to trash memory and crash before it even mounted the / partition. (This was a long time ago and I'm sure it's fixed by now. Linux and FreeBSD have been sharing their AIC7xxx code for awhile now.) Since I needed the machine for some hardcore simulation work, and since I already had a working Linux install, I didn't take the time to debug it then, and haven't gotten back around to it since. This isn't a black-mark against FreeBSD in my mind at all relative to Linux: Not only were the FreeBSD developers willing to help, but also my first Linux installs required similar sorts of hand-holding. The two worlds aren't that different. I've just been too lazy to try another Unix when I have something that works well enough for me.)
--
Immutable + Linux (Score:1)
Re:New? (Score:1)
Re:BSD's (Score:2)
OpenBSD is a 3, I believe, year old splinter from NetBSD. There should be many similarities, and many changes from NetBSD.
BSD is more focused at the task that its goal is, and what its developers are working towards. Linux is developed at what every one or two developers are interested in, and throw their code up and hope Linus takes it. Its not a targetted, planned growth, but definately covers all corners.
Re:New? (Score:3)
Quite simply, one of the biggest misconceptions about the BSD's is that OpenBSD is more secure than all other OS's period. OpenBSD is more secure than any other OS out of the "box"--you can install the latest version and have a damn highly-secure box without any fuss. But FreeBSD or NetBSD can be(and properly patched and config'd and etc ARE) just as secure. By no means should you think that FreeBSD (or NetBSD for that matter) is not a secure OS. It just requires a little more work out of the "box" to fully secure it.
FreeBSD is definately where you should start, I agreee 100%. Even though they've recently opened their driver database for the rest of the BSD's [slashdot.org], you're so much more likely to get FreeBSD running on your existing hardware than any of the others.
One of the best pieces of advice I can give the BSD newbie is to head to Walnut Creek's site [cdrom.com] and go ahead and pay for the subscription [cdrom.com]. About 4 times a year you get the latest FreeBSD delivered right to your door on a CD, which is extremely handy for handing out to friends who have seen the light
As for WHY you should make the switch, just wait till you see the screaming performance. Something about a magic TCP stack, i dunno
---------
Question: How do I leverage the power of the internet?
Good if you don't use SMP (Score:1)
So if you expect to utilize your dual-processor machine, you should consider Solaris x86, Unixware, or Linux, instead of the *BSD's.
Kris
Kriston J. Rehberg
http://kriston.net/ [kriston.net]
Re: directory groups (Score:2)
*gripe* I hate it when rpms that install into /usr/local reset my SGID bits and groups.
FreeBSD - more merchandise! (Score:2)
But when it comes to the *BSD family, FreeBSD has more merchandise available. Just check out http://www.freebsdmall.com for stickers, hats, shirts, mouse pads, plushies, etc. OpenBSD does have the cool Blowfish shirt, with the C code on the back.
Re:New? (Score:1)
When idle it had load averages of ~6.5
Re:New? (Score:1)
Anyway, whenever I drop into a BSD shell it takes me a minute or two to reorient my brain to that environment... everything "seems" the same.. yet there are subtle things that need to be taken into account. It's not unlike converting regex expressions between perl, php3, egrep.. well.. try it some time, I guarantee you'll be a drooling mess by the end of the day if you have to do alot of it. :\
--
Not only that, but... (Score:1)
Re:FreeBSD has incredibly good docs! (Score:1)
... (Score:3)
from the author of The Complete FreeBSD: [barnesandnoble.com]
if you peers are using bsd, use bsd. have no freinds? use linux instead
--
be careful about video (Score:2)
Re:Well, a guy I know says... (Score:1)
-------------------------------------------
Re:Confession. (Score:1)
I think the main thing you need to do, if you haven't done so already, is to realize that Unix and Windows are completely different entities. Once you reconcile yourself to the fact that you'll need to learn a new OS from scratch, you'll be fine. Also, as a rule, Unix is a lot more configurable, but that comes at the price of complexity. As an analogy, think of Windows as a car: you can specify what color you want it, whether you want automatic or manual transmission, and whether you want the extended warranty. Unix, on the other hand, is a box of Legos: you're handed a box of parts, and you can put them together any way you like. Yes, this is more complex, but you can do much more.
Personally, I'm a BSD bigot, probably because I grew up on a VAX running 4.2BSD, so I'd love to see you run *BSD (probably FreeBSD, since it tends to be the most featureful of the *BSDs on Intel boxes). However, from what I've seen, Caldera's OpenLinux is the most newbie-friendly of the free OSes.
If you're just starting out, I'd say that FreeBSD, Red Hat Linux and Caldera OpenLinux are approximately equal (within an order of magnitude) in terms of complexity. I'd recommend that you try at least two of them and see which one(s) you like best.
Dudes, it's a joke (Score:1)
Jeremy
Re:Immutable + Linux (Score:1)
My impressions of BSD's (Score:2)
Re:Confession. (Score:1)
Feel free to think differently.
FreeBSD (Score:1)
So after the first installation of FreeBSD 2.2.2, this thing stayed up and was more responsive that a P166 running Linux. If you just want to play with a UNIX or clone, Linux will get you through your day, but if you are doing real work, FreeBSD is it.
As for the other BSDs, I installed NetBSD on a Mac68k and a MacPPC. In both cases, I was astounded by it. NetBSD is also an incredible system. I have not had much experience with OpenBSD, but the code itself is a direct off-shoot of NetBSD with security tweaks, so I expect the same experience.
But in general, I am sure you will be pleased with any BSD. They are fast, small, and easy systems. They are each present a clean, consistent interface without bogging down the system with unused "features" and bloat as GNU code tends to. The ports system also makes it a snap to install anything from Java to Apache to KDE without anything more than "make install". And without a doubt, my favorite feature of FreeBSD (and the others permit this as well) is the simple upgrade procedure: "make world". Never again will I have to deal with RPMs or dependencies, or precompiled binaries optimzed for a 386sx.
Re:Unix is Unix is Unix (Score:1)
Re:Confession. (Score:2)
Re:Unix is Unix is Unix (Score:1)
Immutable + Linux ==> chattr (Score:2)
The chattr command allows changing file attributes on an ext2 partition. Here's an excerpt from the man-page:
CHATTR(1) CHATTR(1)
NAME
chattr -changefileattributeson aLinuxsecondextended
file system
SYNOPSIS
chattr [-RV] [-vversion ][mode]files...
DESCRIPTION
chattr changesthefile attributesona Linuxsecond
extendedfilesystem.
The lsattr command allows showing these attributes.
--Joe--
Re:Confession. (Score:1)
Re:Confession. (Score:1)
Re:Oh that's an easy one (Score:2)
Geeez (Score:1)
Re:New? (Score:1)
I've been working for some time to find replacements for everything I run on Linux so I can convert over my last Slackware box to one of the BSD's (at present I have boxes running all three BSD variants on my home network). The last package is CDParanoia, and it's non-Linux port is in progress right now.
Lastly, I am into this stuff to learn more about Unix, and the BSDs give a lot more exposure (for example, a "real UNIX" responds with wonderment to a "dir" command....) than Linux does.
Of course, your mileage may vary. Mine certainly does.
Re:Confession. (Score:1)
Of course backing up your data is a good suggesiton, but i've never personally had problems with Windows / Linux dual boots. Well, the only problem i've had is that for some reason unknown to me Win95/98 decides to fdisk /mbr when installing, thereby wiping out lilo. There isn't really any reason for this as far as I can see, the Win95/98 installer doesn't do partitioning?! (Unless you have an unpartitioned HDD I assume).
This shouldn't be a problem when adding a Linux partition to a Win98 install though, unless you reinstall '98.
The BSDs (Score:2)
Re:... (Score:3)
oh, and if it was a complaint.. I doubt he would have flown in for FreeBSD Con. Coming to the U.S. from Australia (around a 19 hour time change from Bay area), cannot be fun. Hope he had a laptop (especially with BSD) to keep him company on the flight.
Linux compatibility (Score:2)
Re:What about em.. (Score:2)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re: TCP stacks (Score:2)
For the dozens of times I've heard this, I haven't seen any recent benchmark or anything to back up the claim. It should be very simple to compare the two -- you can use exactly the same apps very easily.
I know that the original TCP stack for Linux was not so hot, but I know it was rewritten sometime in 2.0.x (get me if I'm wrong). I'm sure there have been other improvements through 2.1 developement.
I've never used Linux in a high enough bandwidth environment to be able to see the stack at all. On my old k6-200 serving ftp on 10baseT, processor utilization to fill the pipe (perhaps 30 users, so the ftp daemon wasn't costing much) was about 3%.
Anyone have any reports on the two in a 100baseT or gigabit environment?
Re:Well, a guy I know says... (Score:2)
Okay, those are silly analogies, I'll admit it. The truth is, that experience AND instruction are the best teachers. Without guidance, trying something can be, at best, a waste of time and, at worst, dangerous.
When I want to learn something dealing with computers I usually check the web first. I'll bet most people work the same way. This might come as a suprise, but the information on the web is actually written by real people. And books, like those O'Reillys that we all love -- those are written by people too. Believe me, I'd much rather learn Perl from one of those books (or a knowledgable Perl programmer) than just "trying" it by typing text into the interpereter and seeing what happens.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:Confession. (Score:2)
1. The tour guide was a CS/CE (computer engineering.. not civil), and said he spent 8 hours max / day (generally 5) on classes and work.. and then complained that he had 1 class on friday.. never worked weekends. Four years for both.
2. The people I was staying with all had either 1 major and 2-3 minors, or 2 majors and 1-2 minors. One was leaving in 3 years. Now, some people are smart, but the guy I talked to (2 guys, 2 girls) said it was common. With the people in charge making such a big fuss about how great RPI is tied to the industry.. I was skeptical.
3. Didn't like their facilities / campus. Personal preference.
In any case, that was all my opinion.. and it isn't much because when I got a tour of the CS stuff.. a junior tagged along and kept asking dumb questions about SAT scores and talking about his conceptual physics class when we were showed some class playing with little robots. hehe.. just didn't have a great showing I presume. Like IIT, cept housing was dumb so I'm on a upper-classman floor (nice dorms!).. so know no freshman (damn!).
Still.. UNIX/Windows, always see SGIs.. and physics teacher answered a few problems with gnuPlot. Just has that diversity and UNIX love to it.
No community behind OpenBSD? Come on! (Score:2)
The community seems to be growing in size, too.
Re:OpenBSD audits all its code... (Score:2)
Which *BSD? (Score:2)
skalore@nfsg.org
Chairman of TooRcon (www.toorcon.com)
Just what the hell is that supposed to mean? (Score:2)
Linux is the "WinTel hardware world"?!?
Just off the top of my head, I can think of several platforms that Linux runs on:
- PPC
- x86
- ARM
- SPARC
- Alpha
You BSD guys just never give it a rest, do you?--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page [slappy.org]
Re:OpenBSD audits all its code... (Score:3)
I doubt anyone would be insane enough to make that claim with sincerity. OpenBSD does a good job by starting most daemons as normal users and then chroot() jailing the process, providing high quality blowfish cryptography support for passwords (try and run crack on that!), and just being careful with their code. They've done an extensive code audit looking for lack of bounds checking ala buffer overruns and other obvious exploits... strncpy() instead of strcpy() type fixes.
But this DOESN'T mean OpenBSD is completely and totally secure, nor does it mean it's been completely cleaned of remote root exploits. Never mind removing all Denial of Service exploits, or well hidden and unpredictable race conditions.
Such are the statements of fools...
Re:*BSD's vs. Linux for Clusters? (Score:2)
Yes, *BSD, and FreeBSD in particular have pretty advanced TCP/IP stacks, so far they've been the only ones capable of driving the Myrinet cards past the gigabit range.
It's probably just robo-generated text (Score:2)
Probably somebody who picked the "Complain about a company/organization" option for Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator [uiuc.edu], supplying "NetBSD" as the name of the company/organization, specified that it should generate 5 paragraphs, hit the "Complain" button, and pasted the results into a Slashdot comment.
OpenBSD and NetBSD merge... (Score:3)
I'll address just this point, never mind the rest *cough*.
Two reasons why this won't happen:
Re:My impressions of BSD's (Score:2)
FreeBSD is up to 1.1.2 - that's what I'm running at home. (The NetBSD 1.1.2 ports were mentioned in a news item on the KDE Web site; I didn't see the FreeBSD ones mentioned, so you may not have known about 1.1.2's availability on FreeBSD.)
Re:BSD's deserve a look... (Score:2)
Indeed? I've heard that claimed, but not seen any hard evidence one way or the other.
MS does, as I remember, use, for example, the BSD FTP client (I think I ran "strings" on "ftp.exe" and saw a Berkeley copyright notice in it), but I've not seen anything to indicate that their TCP/IP stack came from BSD.
Re:My FreeBSD perspective. (Score:2)
Everyone will have an opinion, but no they won't all be right.
for example,
Linux... The quality of both some of the "supported" hardware and the drivers are to be questioned, but how are you to know what is good, and what is bad? The releases are more frequent, both to fix bugs, and introduce features. There are often all sorts of new things added you don't need that may affect what you're trying to do.
1) Linux drivers are great.
2) These new things are only added by you if you install them. If you're worried about the quality of new drivers, then wait for the stable releases. It isn't necessary to upgrade constantly, even if it available.
3)You'll know the quality the same way that you know the quality of any other OS... you listen to the people you trust. If there is an OS that is so perfect that everything works exactly as everyone would expect, so that you wouldn't need to check on the quality of new versions, you should try clicking your heels together three times.
Re:The BSD Family (Score:2)
There was, at one point, a SPARC port project, but I think it may have died out (the link to it on the Projects page on the FreeBSD Web site [freebsd.org] is broken). (I have the vague impression that Sun was encouraging it for use on, perhaps, some UltraSPARC-based boards they sold, but may have lost interest.)
I think there may also be an IA-64 port in progress.
Re:New? (Score:3)
You don't need to have used Linux to have that experience - you can experience it with nothing but a mix of different commercial UNIXes, for example. :-) (Or you can experience it moving to a Linux system, just as you can experience it moving from a Linux system, or you can experience it moving to a BSD system from a commercial UNIX system, or from a commercial UNIX system to a BSD system.)
"UNIX systems all behave the same, except where they don't."
(I suspect you can also experience it moving from Windows 9x to Windows NT, or vice versa....)
Install... am I just weird? (Score:2)
I guess I'm weird, but I like a no-frills, just-the-facts-maam installation. It installs everything you need, and then some. Out of the box, it's tight and stable. Given a few patches (available at www.openbsd.org) to take care of a couple little niggling bugs, recompilation of the system, and the installation of a couple packages from /usr/ports, it's up and running smoothly and flawlessly.
FreeBSD - well, I installed Free and ran it for a while. It has a *ton* of stuff with its system, most of which actually works. The only thing I can say here is that it seemed less "tight" than OpenBSD. One day, my X configuration worked. The next day, after having changed exactly *nothing*, my window manager mysteriously stopped working. Then, the next day, X refused to come up at all. So, I wiped it out. It didn't seem very well put-together at that point (v3.2).
NetBSD - its installer is less straightforward than OpenBSD. It uses a somewhat curses-type installer on x86, and it's a little less than flexible. For instance, I couldn't convince it to install the system to two disks (having a couple of smallish disks is an unfortunate reality on a couple of my machines). At any rate, I had to set up the slices on wd0, reboot and pretend to want to install to wd1 and set up the slices there, and then reboot again (because I wanted / on wd0a), suspend the installer after having "set up" wd0 again, and mount wd1a to /usr before resuming. After that little bit of hacking around, the system installed normally. The mouse device still eludes me, though, and I've not the time to deal with it currently. On OpenBSD, it's /dev/psm0. On NetBSD, from which Open is derived back in the mists of time, even after compiling in the wscons console drivers and setting things up, /dev/wsmouse won't allow the mouse to work. It, too, is less "tight" than OpenBSD in my opinion, but in a different way.
There seems to be a spirit of technological innovation in the NetBSD camp that the other BSDs benefit from greatly. Witness RAIDFrame, pciide, etc. migrating from Net to Open. Softupdates originated in, I believe, FreeBSD, and was ported into OpenBSD. Some of the better parts of FreeBSD's userland made it to OpenBSD and was audited and changed. Some of it made it back to Free and even back into Net. So, there's a lot of cross-pollination between all of them.
YMMV, of course, but my miles will be run on Open.
--Corey
One more thing about FreeBSD (Score:2)
My machine is a Pentium 133 w/16 megs of RAM, so if I am running Netscape Communicator, i have about 22 megs of stuff in the swap partition. Any Window Managers other than FVWM are out of the question, and despite that, Communicator still dies fairly often.
FreeBSD, though, will let me use Communicator with KDE, and on top that, I have never had Navigator die on me.
How this info matters to a more powerful machine is beyond me, but what it means to me is that I see no good reason to be using anything other than FreeBSD - I use only x86 computers, so there's no compatibility gap there which would justify another unix, and security is not a big issue for me since I am just running a desktop which I doubt anybody would put much effort into cracking, anyway.
Re:Well, a guy I know says... (Score:2)
Perhaps he had it backwards; OpenBSD is the BSD that concentrates on security, and, as for the Microsoft programs, the "About Wine" page on the Wine Web site [winehq.com] mentions Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris (presumably meaning Solaris x86) as platforms on which Wine can run Windows x86 binaries, but doesn't mention openBSD.
That may, of course, just be because they didn't mention it, not because Wine can't run on OpenBSD; the "emulators" section of the OpenBSD ports status page [openbsd.org] mentions Wine, so there may be a working port.
Re:Which *BSD? (& NetBSD stability) (Score:3)
NetBSD 1.4 alpha
$uptime
11:35PM up 156 days, 3:04, 4 users, load averages: 1.21, 1.01, 0.69
NetBSD's stability looks fine here. :) 156 days w/ absolutely no signs of degradation. That's 156 days since the initial setup up the machine (i.e., after transferring data from a different-type filesystem and building a custom kernel), and my first experience with NetBSD. Of course, the FreeBSD box next to it has a similar uptime (as has the Linux box..)
I think it says something about all of them that the most limiting factor for uptime is the size of your UPS and eagerness to upgrade.
Regarding the original topic at hand, I think it really depends on how eager the poster is to jump head-first into a real unix environment. I personally think it's nice to learn it the hard way first, so you know the underlying principles and can easily pick up new flavors.
Of course, if you don't care about OS or having unix skills, the one with the easiest install and prettiest out-of-the-box desktop configuration would be the obvious choice, imho. The only 2 unices I've really used as workstation os's have been Linux and Solaris, though, so I can't really comment on how the BSD's compare.. (fwiw, Linux beats Solaris to a pulp in that department, and I suspect *BSD would, too)
Re:What to use for NFS? SAMBA? (Score:2)
$ time cp /from-linux-2.2.10-ac3/ppro-200/testfile .
real 1m11.308s
user 0m0.017s
sys 0m5.704s
$ time cp /from-freebsd-3.2-RELEASE/k6-2-400/testfile .
real 0m52.546s
user 0m0.013s
sys 0m5.314s
It's probably worth noting that (at least) FreeBSD and NetBSD support NFSv3 in stable releases, and Linux does not yet.
I can't give a good answer to what would be best for NFS serving *to* linux, as I don't have anything set up that way. Samba should display less variance as it's a user-level process. In that case, network stack and ethernet drivers would matter more.
Re:Just what the hell is that supposed to mean? (Score:2)
I don't think he was denigrating Linux in anyway. Just distinguishing what he meant by "covering the hardware world." Linux has a lot of device driver support on Intel, more than any other x86 unix in fact. But his point was to clarify that NetBSD runs on more different architectures than any other unix.
Of course Linux runs on a lot of platforms, just not as many as NetBSD. You arguing against this fact by listing some of the platforms that Linux runs on would be like me arguing that CowBSD has just as many/as good device drivers as Linux by listing:
It's just not a valid argument.
-sw
2 arguments (Score:2)
The ports enable you to install 2000 different utilities with a single "make install".
cvsup allows you to keep up with all security patches with a 5 line script that is cronned every week.
But after using it for some time (after being a Linux user), the total consistency of the system is another good argument (although this is not a specific FreeBSD argument...)
original question (Score:2)
is there really much of a difference in security and performance among the BSDs? Do any of the BSDs have any features that sets it apart from the others (for example, does one work better on laptops than the others?) I am more concerned in the performance, stability and security than packaging or an easy install process.
1. Security and Performance Issues
1.1 All three BSD's (and Unix or Unix-like Operating Systems) are server-class, carrier-class, and datacenter-ready applications geared specifically for performance, stability, and security. There may be other OS's that excel [Unix and Unix-like OS's] in one of these three fields, but never in all of them. Plus, Unix is an actual useable OS when compared to say, OpenVMS, MVS, VOS, OS/900, etc. I am specifically speaking from a mid-range perspective.
1.2 My point is this: any good Unix implementation will have you fully covered (assuming you know what you are doing) for security and performance. I do not believe that security and performance issues vary WILDLY between Unix and Unix-like OS's. (well, see below)
1.3 If your goal is development, and not implementation, then you may have to shop around. For example,
1.3.1 OpenBSD is great if you would like to rid Unix of the evil problem of buffer/heap overflows and poorly written code as far as SECURITY goes. It also includes SERIOUS Userland material for security-awareness (it has IPSEC and a keyserver for ISAKMP
1.3.2 FreeBSD is great for the Internet Server market it was geared for. It is simply BSD for the masses, but it does an EXCELLENT job in this manner. If you are not a coder and looking to help a project on the Internet -- this is it. If you are a coder and like to see your code actually used and cherished by it's users/implementors, this may also be a great and exciting development evironment for you.
1.3.3 NetBSD has probably the cleanest implementation of Unix code anyone has ever laid eyes on. I mean, this stuff is *solid*. If you are ever interested in SERIOUS kernel development, this OS is like the BIBLE. It is so clean and bug-free, it's simply amazing. They need a lot more developers to get where they want to be. Only for serious low-level hardware hackers, display hackers, device driver writers, and the like! But you will be very happy little coders.
2. Userland Support (such as Laptop support)
2.1 FreeBSD has all the Userland support you will be looking and expecting to find. This may not neccesarily be true under NetBSD and OpenBSD.
2.2 Most serious advocates of OpenBSD and NetBSD run FreeBSD on their laptops
3. My take on the BSD's for maximizing Performance, Stability, and Security (versus ease of use / ease of install)
3.1 FreeBSD is the easiest to deal with. It has the most documentation. It has the best driver support for say, NIC cards under x86 (this is probably true in general for x86 arch -- the FreeBSD network driver support is insanely awesome). It has the long-standing Vendor support that Linux has (one example: Accelerated-X, however, there are many more). If you are building a generic BSD server or workstation, this is the OS you probably want to do it on.
3.2 NetBSD is better than FreeBSD in all three areas. But the Userland support lacks in some ways. Since most people change around Userland into something completely different ANYWAYS -- this might not be an issue for you. If you already expect *LOTS* of development, than this is the OS you want to do it on. But, if you expect certain Unix Userland things to be there, you might find them missing or at least Under/Un-Documented. FreeBSD fills in those places, but at a slight cost of performance and stability.
3.3 OpenBSD is great for "Community", especially "Hacker community" environments. If you want to crack your life away, than this is the OS you belong in. It allows you to at least attempt to give out shell accounts and sleep well at night. I wouldn't do this with any other OS, and believe me, you will end up modifying OpenBSD to hell and back by the time you feel semi-confident with it. But, there is already a lot of work done with OpenBSD to guard against Userland attacks. FreeBSD or NetBSD will have all of the regular security stuff you are looking for (IPSEC, SSH, etc) and you can build a lot into FreeBSD or NetBSD for security (as much or MORE than any other Unix OS). But if you want all that stuff to play with right away, OpenBSD has it by default.
4. Final Discussion
Well, it's totally up to you. Check out all three homepages. Read up. And the best answer is probably, "Use what your friends use". I am a BSD bigot. If it were up to me, I would never want to use Linux again. But, everyone at work uses Linux. So, I either a) have to turn them all over to the darkside -or- b) become a Linux-head myself. But then again, I've fought the same battle for years at companies about Windows. I just enjoy an OS that actually works. And IMHO, it's got to be a *BSD.
linux audits? (Score:2)
-----
Re:Learning perl programming (Score:2)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:BSD's deserve a look... (Score:2)
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
All rights reserved.
Heh
Re:Just what the hell is that supposed to mean? (Score:2)
Maybe that's not what he meant; I'm just so used to reading anti-Linux flames in BSD-related threads that perhaps I'm too quick on the gun.
I don't understand why it seems that BSD users feel the need to constantly attack Linux and Linux users. They (BSDs and Linux) each have their uses.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page [slappy.org]
fastest...most support (Score:2)
So which is "fastest"? If I want to stick a *BSD on an old or even mediocre Pentium class machine...which of these is optimized for that, and would I be able to recompile with optimizations for my chip? E.g., Stampede Linux is compiled with pgcc which is optimized for pentiums...can I get that sort of optimization from a *BSD?
I'm actually considering to install some form of Linux, and I guess it could be an ask slashdot itself. I've looked at Slackware, and Debian for its package features, and Stampede for its optimization.
Re:Na, means he's an idiot. The moderators too. (Score:2)
Re:One more thing about FreeBSD (Score:2)
It is a Netscape problem, not an OS problem. Netscape Navigator is essentially NCSA Mosiac hacked up beyond recognition. That is why the Mozilla folks have decided to do a complete rewrite.
However, for me, Netscape still runs better then IE. Because I use Linux, and slightly unstable but running always beats won't run at all. Tell Microsoft to support Linux and *BSD with their browser.
Re:Just what the hell is that supposed to mean? (Score:2)
Just off the top of my head, I can think of several platforms that Linux runs on:
You BSD guys just never give it a rest, do you?
Add to that list
But don't take my word for it, go visit the NetBSD Supported Hardware page [netbsd.org] and see for yourself. Nobody implied Linux isn't portable, just that NetBSD has been ported to more platforms than just about anything else. Next time, try to keep your knee from jerking quite so hard.
Re:... (Score:2)
Re: TCP stacks (Score:2)
Re:Netscape and IE (Score:2)
I find your usage of quotes very interesting, as I sure as hell didn't say that. I said Navigator is based on Mosiac hacked beyond recoginition. And it is. Perhaps you're not aware of the fact that the original name for Netscape Communications was Mosaic Communications. Pull up www.mcom.com [mcom.com] sometime and see what happens.
Internet Explorer *is* based on Mosaic.
I'm well aware of IE's origins. I don't know why you think that excludes Netscape from doing the same thing.
Cool handle, BTW.
Noone runs BSDi, as it isn't an OS (Score:2)
Their product is BSD/OS. It is fairly good, but its probably not worth the money.
_Please_ stop saying "i run bsdi"
RC5 and distributed.net are run *on* FreeBSD (Score:2)
This isn't terribly relivant to which BSD is better, but since you brought RC5 up I thought I'd throw this in. Almost all of the distributed.net 'staff' have at least one box that runs FreeBSD, and for many of us, it is almost the only OS that we use. Many of our public boxes run it (web, many of the proxies, etc.), and all of the private boxes we depend on do.
Why? Well, certainly, there is an issue of familiarity. Several staff members are very familiar with FreeBSD; one of them is even on the FreeBSD team. But, most of them are also familiar with Linux, and they all prefer FreeBSD. I don't want to start another holy war, but I'd say that the biggest reasons why they prefer FreeBSD are stability, security, easy upgradeability (cvsup), and software distribution (ports). Some of it is also personal preference, and what you're used to. In fact, the stats box, which originally ran Red Hat, has been so heavily hacked that it could almost qualify as it's own OS (we call it dbnug BSDux release 1.0 (Bovinator) internally }:8) ). The only reason there's a linux kernel on the box is because of the Sybase Licensing.
As for the rest of us who aren't quite as 'in the know' (like me), we've just kinda followed along since it's easy for us to ask questions about FreeBSD. ;) Seriously though, many of us (myself included) have tried both Linux (various distros) and FreeBSD, and most of us prefer FreeBSD.
Decibel!
distributed.net Human Interface
decibel@distributed.net