[olug] *BSDs - Free, Open, Net

[Jeff Hinrichs]

> Jeff Hinrichs wrote:
> > Are there any BSD users that want to comment on the differences
> > between FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD? Specifically, if you were going
> > to replace a DNS server and wanted to try BSD which would you choose
> > and why.
>
> NetBSD or FreeBSD.  Why?  The OpenBSD folks are as bad as RedHat about
> supporting older releases (their releases have 12-month maintenance
> timelines).
>
> > I've been googling away looking for some wisdom but I still don't
> > have a good/clear view on the differences between them.  It appears
> > as though the primary difference is the kernel, with the userland
> > software being fairly consistent.  Is this a correct statement?
>
> Generally speaking yes, although for some "niche" pieces of
> functionality (ie IPsec) they all differ big time.  You'll also
> differences in the structure of the bootup scripts - Free and Net have a
> hybrid BSD-SysV style setup, while Open is pure BSD-style.
>
> > What about the following statements:
>  > 1) OpenBSD is the most secure
>  > 2) FreeBSD is the most stable
>  > 3) NetBSD runs on the widest range of hardware
>
> I don't know if you've looked at an OpenBSD install lately, but the last
> time *I* did I was aghast as to the number of services running by
> default on an operating system that's pushed for it's security.
>
> It should be noted that NetBSD runs on the widest range of *hardware
> platforms*.  Generally speaking, FreeBSD seems to have the best hardware
>   *peripheral* (ie ethernet cards, multi-port serial cards, etc) support.
>
> > For a starting point, lets consider this a discussion for a
> > uniprocessor intel/amd box with ide drives. It will sit on the
> > internet naked and will be acting as a server with no workstation
> > stuff (i.e. no X, etc). Running DNS or Apache/PHP or smtp/pop
> > services.
>
> They will be equivalent in terms of security and performance.
>
> For such well-defined tasks as those you're simply not going to find one
> of them to be faster or more stable than the others - if you start
> pushing the system hard (as in, to the point where your IDE drives will
> be a big bottleneck and you need consider SCSI) you might start noticing
> a difference.
>
> You'll have more problems with third-party software (especially PHP
> scripts!) and administrator errors (ie inadvertently configuring your
> SMTP daemon to be an open relay) than you will with the core OS,
> especially if you keep it patched.
>
> -- 
>
> Phil Brutsche
> phil at brutsche.us

Thanks for the input Phil!  So then to sum up: If you are running a server
on commodity hardware then Free or Net is the way to go since they appear to
stay supported longer than Open.  And if I plan on running newer nics or usb
devices then it looks like Free moves in to the lead.

What kinds of problems did PHP give you on BSD?  My first go, I'll probably
just do a DNS server, assuming that goes well I might move one of my web
servers over to BSD.  I don't dislike Linux or have any technical problems
with it as of yet.  I just want my options and experience broadened if
management gets spooked about the SCO stuff.  They haven't yet and they
haven't give any hint that they are but being ready is always better than
getting caught on your heels.

-Jeff