I've been playing with Solaris over the past year but I would like to get more experience with UNIX. There seems to be three (correct me if I'm wrong) main players in the BSD playing field. Can someone briefly give a semi-layman, semi-tech explaination of the differences between NetBSD, OpenBSD and FreeBSD?
From reading their web pages and googling they all seem to pride
themselves on security. I think it's NetBSD that prides its self on having the most portability and tightly written code, the downside being they are not the most current when it comes to supporting new hardware, etc. I'm looking to use a BSD to create a secure web server and maybe OpenLDAP as well. This would be for a production environment and not just tinkering. Xen compatability would also be a bonus.
On 5-Dec-06, at 9:43 AM, Montana Quiring wrote:
I've been playing with Solaris over the past year but I would like to get more experience with UNIX. There seems to be three (correct me if I'm wrong) main players in the BSD playing field. Can someone briefly give a semi-layman, semi-tech explaination of the differences between NetBSD, OpenBSD and FreeBSD?
From reading their web pages and googling they all seem to pride
themselves on security. I think it's NetBSD that prides its self on having the most portability and tightly written code, the downside being they are not the most current when it comes to supporting new hardware, etc. I'm looking to use a BSD to create a secure web server and maybe OpenLDAP as well. This would be for a production environment and not just tinkering. Xen compatability would also be a bonus. _______________________________________________
I have always considered them as....
NetBDB = portability (and support for my toaster) OpenBSB = Security FreeBSD = Performance (on x86 primarily)
But, FreeBSD is staying pretty current wrt security and they now have UltraSPARC SMP support which is pretty cool.
But in the end, if I need a server to be secure, I run OBSD.
shawn
NetBSD, runs on everything used to be the place to go for experimental stuff (ie. new takes on network stack etc). Now it pretty much just runs on everything but is very fugly (IMHO) and layout is a bit different relative to the other two. You want anything outside of generic then you will end up living with LKMs (loadable kernel modules), not exactly a smart idea for security conscious installations.
FreeBSD is the place to go for desktop friendly or experimental stuff. It is too bloated (IMHO) for edge lying based networking services but internally it is really high performance relative the other two BSDs. Since you can use 'windows drivers' on Free this makes it desktop friendly but not necessarily 'free software' friendly. Like NetBSD it is kernel module happy. If you need support for cutting edge gear that will tolerate vendor NDA's (which I only do because I have to) then go here.
OpenBSD, can be a bit of a dog in high perf environments (ie. high volume file serving) but largely my preference of the three. It is very small and clean and the ports tree has matured a hell of a lot over the past few releases. It is the place to go for secure services and experimental security (here meaning solid but not yet widely adopted) and is the home for OpenSSH, PF, spamd, OpenNTPD, etc. Anything you learn in Open will be directly applicable to Free and Net (with exception of PAM which is kind of dumb and therefore not in Open).
If there is some REALLY STRANGE reason you must have Apache 2, then I'll give you a reserved recommendation for FreeBSD (though enable PF). Apache 2 would work on Open but it isn't 'out of the box' due to the extra restrictions 'recently' introduced into the Apache licensing.
Otherwise if it lives on the Internet I would only recommend OpenBSD. I would suggest Open regardless, but then again I'm biased.
On 5-Dec-06, at 9:43 AM, Montana Quiring wrote:
I've been playing with Solaris over the past year but I would like to get more experience with UNIX. There seems to be three (correct me if I'm wrong) main players in the BSD playing field. Can someone briefly give a semi-layman, semi-tech explaination of the differences between NetBSD, OpenBSD and FreeBSD?
From reading their web pages and googling they all seem to pride
themselves on security. I think it's NetBSD that prides its self on having the most portability and tightly written code, the downside being they are not the most current when it comes to supporting new hardware, etc. I'm looking to use a BSD to create a secure web server and maybe OpenLDAP as well. This would be for a production environment and not just tinkering. Xen compatability would also be a bonus. _______________________________________________ Roundtable mailing list Roundtable@muug.mb.ca http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable
Montana Quiring wrote:
I've been playing with Solaris over the past year but I would like to get more experience with UNIX. There seems to be three (correct me if I'm wrong) main players in the BSD playing field.
<snip>
OS X (Mac) is the most popular BSD out there. It has been ported to the "standard" PC by several "projects". I can testify to its ease of use on a Mac (30 seconds to set up a server box through the GUI). If you have the latest and greatest version there is plenty of free and commercial software out there.
There is a down side to it too. It *IS* a commercial product. The OS itself seems to be a bit schizophrenic when it comes to the split between the GUI and the BSD parts. The company is a bit schizophrenic with its relationship with its customers as well. Come to think of it they are a bit inconsistent in their relationship to the open source community as well. Like many Linux distros they also include a lot of things many of us will never need.
Apparently NetBSD and FreeBSD will also work on *some* non-G series PPC Macs. However the general consensus is the G series PPCs are easier to deal with. Frankly I'd love to put one on a 7100 but I gather it is a very painful process and (for the moment) beyond my skill and understanding. :-)
Later Mike
I have Fedora Core 4 installed on a system where the monitor is starting to go - severe pincushion on the right hand border.
During installation, FC 4 seemed pretty good at recognizing hardware. What happens if I now change the hardware? Will I have to reinstall?
During installation, FC 4 seemed pretty good at recognizing hardware. What happens if I now change the hardware? Will I have to reinstall?
Most likely not, as long as your new hardware doesn't require funky kernel modules (like scsi) that your old one didn't (mkinitrd issues). Just keep an eye out for kudzu running during the first boot and go through the normal kudzu process.
-
Dan Martin -
Mike Pfaiffer -
Montana Quiring -
Sean Cody -
Shawn Wallbridge -
Trevor Cordes