[Shared404]

> or at least it wasn't in days of yore when OpenBSD was relevant.

You do realize that a very _very_ large number of us here use OpenBSD code literally all day every day?

Who do you think wrote OpenSSH? Or do you remember Heartbleed, when everyone switched or thought about switching to LibreSSL?

Just because most of us don't run OpenBSD-the-OS very often doesn't mean we don't all frequently use it's code.

[_ofdw]

Re: relevance, I'm referring specifically to OpenBSD the OS. It has no real use case. It's a research OS at best. The performance is abysmal and "code correctness" or "cohesion" is worth its weight in gold from a practical standpoint, which is to say very little.

OpenBSD fans like to make a lot of hay about its vaunted security posture but in real-world use cases I have no doubt that properly configured and up to date FreeBSD, Linux or even Windows Server is just as secure as OpenBSD.

There are just vanishingly few reasons to use OpenBSD today.

[amatecha]

No real use case? I'm running it on multiple daily-driver machines as my personal computing OS. It works, and well. It's stable, reliable and everything works as expected and works as comprehensively-documented. I think there's more reason every day to use OpenBSD vs. all the other OSes you just mentioned. I've never seen such strict adherence to project goals/values than with this OS, and the resulting quality and correlating user experience is evident.

[_ofdw]

We'll have to agree to disagree on the UX part. I find the UX to be very poor compared to Fedora, for example. There's nothing OpenBSD does better than its competitors by enough of a degree to make up for its warts; it's not significantly more stable or reliable than FreeBSD or Debian.

The documentation does tend to be pretty good, but... honestly? I just don't find that to be a compelling reason to choose an operating system.

[amatecha]

hmmm.. I haven't used Fedora so I can't speak to the comparison, but I just found OpenBSD so straightforward and "plain", not particularly unusual in how it actually functions. It kinda feels like a cleanly designed UNIX variant and the onboarding is so well-documented I just found it so easy to get started.

I do feel quality documentation makes a huge difference. Navigating the broken-links craziness of FreeBSD documentation was just such a frustrating experience. And even on a "first-class-supported" system at the time, they omitted a KEY (IMO) piece of information that resulted in me being unable to even run the OS until I did hours of research on OpenFirmware and realized the missing piece in the process. I could see from online discussions that most people had completely given up on FreeBSD at the same point I reached.

Ah well, for me, I don't notice any "warts" of any sort with OpenBSD, so whatever problems other people have just don't affect me or aren't relevant to my use case(s). Such is the case for any OS, I think ppl should use what works for them. No use discounting an OS completely just because it doesn't work for your purposes :)

[ThePowerOfFuet]

>in real-world use cases I have no doubt that properly configured and up to date FreeBSD, Linux or even Windows Server is just as secure as OpenBSD.

wheeze Windows Server??!! This beggars belief.

[na85]

Want to know which operating system runs on military classified networks?

I'll give you a hint. It's not BSD.

[ThePowerOfFuet]

That worked out great:

https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/worst-cyber-at...