Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mbivert 1006 days ago
I think you're right in saying that it's not as versatile than Linux, but if your needs are focused, then it's actually a feature. For example, for small web servers: an OpenBSD base install comes with httpd(8), relayd(8), sshd(8), pf(4), etc.: tweak a few configuration files and drop a cross-compiled single-binary Go and you're all set.

OTOH, if you want to toy around with "edgy" open-source software, I would expect Linux to provide a better experience.
1 comments
maurice2k 1006 days ago
I think the same is true for Debian Linux.

Small and comes with a lot of packages that are only an "apt install" away. I only install packages that I need an check that nothing else is running and/or has open ports.

Don't see this as a pro BSD argument.

link
mbivert 1006 days ago
As far as I know, the OpenBSD team ensures that the base installation is useful already, so that their "secure by default" claim has some intrinsic value. As a result, even without installing extra packages, you get an usable system, unified (written by the same group of people), well-documented (reading the man pages and knowing what to expect from the software often is enough), easy access to OpenBSD-specific software, etc.

I personally enjoy having not to ask myself questions like, which http server I should be using, and just be rolling with whatever's in the box.

I wouldn't be surprised for Debian, and others, to provide a similar experience, perhaps not as tightly packaged though. I'm not sure the difference is that remarkable either, unless perhaps you have some specific needs that you know are well-managed by *BSD-centered software.

link