OpenBSD or NetBSD

I like both of them but I have a hard time choosing between then. I like NetBSDs portability and I like OpenBSDs man pages and security. Some NetBSD users claim that NetBSD is almost as secure as OpenBSD, is that true? And why should I choose one over the other?

would NetBSD be a better choice for a server because it supports ZFS?

yes netbsd would be the better choice for a server in my opinion. ive used it before in that role and it worked out well.

>>46531 May I also suggest considering HardenedBSD, lainon? I haven't used it, but I've heard it's quite good. https://hardenedbsd.org/ https://hardenedbsd.org/content/easy-feature-comparison https://hardenedbsd.org/content/roadmap

>>46531 NetBSD is solid operation system. OpenBSD more like a cult around security, code simplicity and Theo himself. If you want just OS without strange problems as features = go with NetBSD. If you into cults, like I am, welcome to OpenBSD. Take a compiler, debuger, all your knowledge of C and be prepared to debug and write something to you kernel to make it work. It's kinda fun though.

So I see you're running OpenBSD... You know, I'm actually on NetBSD myself, I know this operating system is supposed to be better, but you know what they say, old habits, they die hard. Yeah, I know what you're thinking... I'm not a criminal, I mean, why am I even running BSD? Again, old habits...

Use Alpine. OpenBSD is nice an I had a great time with it due to how good the documentation is, however Alpine is worth considering. Its got a small codebase, uses musl instead of glibc, doesn't install anything you don't specify. Its security through simplicity and an easily auditable codebase. It also implements some additional security features you can look into.

>>46531 All I can say I've never touched NetBSD and I'm running several OpenBSD servers.

>>46531 Just use loonix

>>46559 shockingly self awre

>>46559 >>48805 In the end, isn't society just cults upon cults all the way down?

>>46531 >I like NetBSDs portability and I like OpenBSDs man pages and security. Coming from an enterprise stand point, I would personally choose the one with better documentation. It saves a lot of time when it comes to troubleshooting.

>>48834 you can't spell culture without cult

>people use OpenBSD because cult peak 2021 lainchan

>using OpenBSD because cult :( >using OpenBSD because its works for you. :)

Why are BSD users obsessed with security (or at least seem to be)?? Do you hide 12TB of CP in your computer, lainon? Have you been accused of hate crimes, terrorist attacks, exploiting children, and is currently hiding from the FBI? Why?

>>49528 I am sorry, officer Glowier! I have nothing to hide and I will immediately switch to Windows 11 running on the cloud to prove you my loyalty!

>>49532 No need to act like that. My whole point is that any obscure OS will give you security simply because no one bothers with writing malware for it. If high security is a MUST for you, then your threat model is high. I don't know why OpenBSD would be an advantage over NetBSD if both are obscure niche OSes with specific use cases (just like Linux distros are). fuarrrk windows btw, I don't trust it neough to run it on bare metal, only virtual machines.

>>49535 If your entire perspective of "threat" is malware, then sure. But what if somebody with harmful intents have their eye on your machine for some reason? If it's as you say some small obscure OS it's hardly battle-tested and bugfree, reported vulns might take ages to get to. Then the person eyeing your soykaf can easily just do a small search about vulns for your system and badabing badabong, you're fuarrrked. If you don't ever actually do anything of gravity (internet-wise) that's not something to worry about though, but not everybody aren't.

>>49528 I hope you never end up being a sysadmin somewhere, because that's the main appeal though of OpenBSD as far as security goes. Sure, if you're just an average desktop user, you probably don't have super high security requirements. Most desktop security comes down to not being an idiot online. From a desktop perspective, the real selling point for OpenBSD for me (though I'm also a sysadmin) is that it's the closest thing you can get on a modern OS to something that adheres very strongly to the unix philosophy. It's a system that you can truly understand every piece of, and the OpenBSD devs work really hard to ensure code quality to the point of writing their own implementations of a lot of important services or forking other stuff (like the xorg server with Xenocara or OpenSSL with LibreSSL). Things like that are very important to me and security is just something that comes naturally from being able to understand everything that's going on with your computer. They also do a good job of documenting everything. If you don't care about understanding everything maybe OpenBSD isn't the OS for you, but if that's the case why aren't you just using MacOS or Windows at that point

The fact that openbsd puts proprietary firmware in the install without asking and without any obvious way of disabling it is pretty disgusting.

>>49552 this is not only blatantly false, but in fact unless you're using the libre version, it's actually the Linux kernel that ships with proprietary drivers by default. this is so completely untrue that the reality is actually the complete opposite: OpenBSD has historically taken a strong stance against including any proprietary drivers in the kernel, as opposed to Linux and FreeBSD, which makes it more freedom-respecting than Linux ironic considering that linux people always accuse the BSDs of being non-free despite being a corporate sellout OS whereas the BSDs generally do their own thing and are left the fuarrrk alone since corporations aren't forced to be involved in the development of BSDs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_de_Raadt#Free_driver_advocacy

>>49553 >this is not only blatantly false it's not >unless you're using the libre version, it's actually the Linux kernel that ships with proprietary drivers by default of course im using linux libre. someone tried to create a fork of openbsd called libertybsd. it was just openbsd but with all the proprietary firmware removed. all the obsd folks just called him retarded basically, and now that project is dead. >OpenBSD has historically taken a strong stance against including any proprietary drivers in the kernel they're against proprietary drivers, not proprietary firmware. >in the kernel firmware runs on devices >as opposed to Linux and FreeBSD, which makes it more freedom-respecting than Linux what an absolute joke. obsd folks scream about how they're binary blob free but the only reason they say this is because with their giga-autism they decided that proprietary firmware blobs shouldn't be called blobs! only drivers are blobs to them. so to them, as openbsd doesn't have proprietary drivers included it is blob-free! like a communist redefining words to fit their sensibilities and suddenly everything is right with the world!

>>49554 I assumed you weren't being precise with your terms. you're right though that OpenBSD has proprietary firmware support. everything besides Linux libre does, and Linux libre isn't a mainline Linux project. every Linux distro that isn't Debian or an FSF-approved fully free distro like Parabola/Hyperbola/Guix includes support by default for proprietary firmware and has proprietary drivers in the kernel. so while I also dislike this aspect of OpenBSD, it's not really unique to it and it's far from being even a common practice in free software OSes to disable proprietary firmware >like a communist redefining words to fit their sensibilities and suddenly everything is right with the world! lol. lmao

>>49554 What's this about OpenBSD putting proprietary firmware in the default install?

>>48212 musl is a meme, codebase is smaller mostly because it's got less safety mechanisms and optimization. The only thing it makes sense for is embedded.

>>49558 seething commie >>49559 debian linux is the default linux distro and it uses linux libre. any linux user with sense uses linux libre. >>49560 openbsd comes with all kinds of proprietary firmware in base install and it will load it by default. there is a tool called fw_update, with this you can download additional proprietary firmware that couldn't be distributed with the install .iso because of licensing. but not because it's proprietary, but rather because it's license says it cannot be redistributed like that look at theo the rat here making fun of a user asking about freedom. kinda like when the sjw freaks make fun of freedom and say "freezepeach" and such things. theo the rat is literally saying free software means it doesn't cost money lmao https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=143355112811564&w=2 >You come off like a child, demanding freeeeeeedom. >The kernel includes a few minor firmwares which are FREELY PROVIDED by the vendors of that hardware, since those vendors chose to not put those firmware onto ROMS on their cards. Those firmwares are FREE. Please indicate a single vendor who wants MONEY for that firmware. They don't want money. They want people to use the hardware which they skipped on adding a ROM to. That is why the firmware is free.

>>49571 that last part was supposed to be part of the greentext

>>49571 >>49572 What even is firmware? I thought it was installed at the hardware level, like BIOS firmware is installed onto the motherboard, or the controllers on a SSD. So why is it being packaged with an operating system? I can understand that drivers are OS level, but firmware? Can you give me an example of firmware included with OpenBSD?

>>49580 firmware is basically like drivers except it runs on the device itself. so for example graphics drivers run in the operating system, wheras a graphics firmware runs on the graphics card own microprocessor. an intel firmware runs on the cpus own minisystem, not in the operating system a network card firmware runs on the network cards own processor, not in the operating system >So why is it being packaged with an operating system some devices dont have a rom i guess, so the firmware needs to be loaded by the OS at startup >Can you give me an example of firmware included with OpenBSD? not sure about specifics. but i could give you an example where it matters. with debian, no proprietary binaries are included, neither drivers nor firmware. you can choose to install these if you want but debian makes it very clear that they are proprietary. the example is that some nvidia graphics cards have a proprietary driver, proprietary firmware, and a free driver. now. you can if you want to just choose use the free driver. you don't need to install the proprietary firmware. you get fully accelerated graphics just with the free driver, the only diffrence is that without the proprietary firmware you don't get some kind of video decoding. this case might not apply to openbsd because they have no nvidia drivers at all but it's an example of where you wouldn't want to use the firmware you have the hardware for another reason it's just bad in terms of informing the user. a lot of people might be running proprietary firmware without even knowing it. that cannot happen with debian as the base sysem has none of them

I've cleared the off-topic posts. If you want to attempt to "discuss" "nazism", or any political viewpoints of any developers, you can do so away from /Ω/.

>>49528 >Why are BSD users obsessed with security (or at least seem to be)?? The common operating system of today doesn't stray too far from the MS-DOS security model; letting any program do whatever it wants on your computer. This lack of competence means that a single piece of mediocrely crafted malware could completely wreck your installation, and some people who like OpenBSD use it because it attempts to combat that by implementing security features. That being said, the security features on OpenBSD are incomplete, and by default isn't too much better than other operating systems; most people seem to not realize this. >Do you hide 12TB of CP in your computer, lainon? Have you been accused of hate crimes, terrorist attacks, exploiting children, and is currently hiding from the FBI? Why? I sincerely hope you're baiting, because if you have the mindset that the only reason people want security is because they're doing something illegal, you're insane. In the spirit of your post: "why are users obsessed with passwords (or at least seem to be???). Do you hide 12TB of CP on your computer, lainon? Have you been accused of hate crimes, terrorist attacks, exploiting children, and is currently hiding from the FBI? Why?"

>>49571 >theo the rat is literally saying free software means it doesn't cost money lmao Not everyone uses the word free as a synonym for open source.

>>49621 yeah autistic word games is all openbsd has openbsd defines free differently, depending on how it benefits them in that specific context https://man.openbsd.org/fw_update fw_update — install non-free firmware packages free software is free software when it benefits you, otherwise free software is just gratis software

>>49552 >>49553 >>49554 >>49571 Absolute fuarrrking idiots, all of you. If you stopped to use your goddamn brain for just one fleeting second you would realize the points you're making are not even related to what Theo is talking about. Imma spell it out for y'all: do non-free software blobs matter if they're not running? The fact is that yes, OpenBSD ships with non-free firmware (not denied, although idiotically explained in Theo's reply), but 1. It is not in OpenBSD's repository, and 2. It won't run if your device does not need it. 3. Even if your device needs it, non-free instructions will not run in your CPU, ever. If you buy supported hardware that does not need non-free binary blobs, then non-free software would not run, ever. Not in your CPU nor in the processing units of each hardware device's microprocessor. The debate is not about if OpenBSD ships with non-free software or if OpenBSD is "changing the meaning of words." Your discussion should be about if you're ok with binary blobs that won't touch your hardware ever sitting somewhere in your drive, or if that's an infringement on your freedoms. Absolute clowns. >>49571 >debian linux is the default linux distro You must be the biggest clown, yes. You must not have a single idea of what Linux is about, or how people actually use it. Ecochambers are bad, pal. >sjw freaks make fun of freedom and say "freezepeach" They're not making fun of freedom, they're making fun of you. >>49618 Should have just nuked this thread and started again. >>49621 Holy fuarrrk is this another poster? Do you even understand the concept of free software? Why the fuarrrk are you posting here? Free software is not a synonym of open source. Words have an agreed upon meaning, and if you are aware and still choose to depart from that meaning, you must have a reason to do so. If you're not aware, then educate yourself before writing.

>>49653 >Do you even understand the concept of free software? I think those of us who do are a dying breed on imageboards, my friend. We technically-inclined are on the decline, drowned out by refugees from elsewhere.

>>49660 >he understands the concept of free software which one lol?

>>49653 >but 1. It is not in OpenBSD's repository Incorrect, all of it that has a license that allows for free redistribution is included in the main install. The firmware that is not as free (in terms of distribution, nothing else) can be downloaded with fw_update. >Your discussion should be about if you're ok with binary blobs that won't touch your hardware ever sitting somewhere in your drive, or if that's an infringement on your freedoms I'm not ok with it, especially when the system doesn't inform you such firmware has been loaded. You could be running proprietary software without even knowing it. >They're not making fun of freedom, they're making fun of you. No, they are making fun of freedom, they hate free speech. Most people do, more than 90% of people are opposed to free speech.

>>49583 >some devices dont have a rom i guess, so the firmware needs to be loaded by the OS at startup >with debian, no proprietary binaries are included, neither drivers nor firmware Wait so if the proprietary firmware is stored in ROM on the device it's not bad? Or is all of your hardware completely free with open source firmware/flashable open source ROMs?

inform me on the state of freebsd Annual Domination 2021

>>49717 No to both questions. I know you think you said something really smart but you didn't. It's pretty simple, an actual free system doesn't load a bunch of proprietary soykaf, especially not without telling you. It's not rocket science.

>>50205 But some hardware still just loads it from a ROM?

>>50208 Yes, that's a good idea. It's also a good idea to not have proprietary software that larps as free software, even putting "open" in its name.

The only BSD I have ever thoroughly enjoyed is OpenBSD. Everything about it just worked.

i have heard that openbsds performance is like kicking dead whales down the beach (not sure if its true or not) which one should i use for desktop usage?

>>46531 >netbsd is almost as secure lmfao