[hiphopyo]

Should have gone with OpenBSD instead to be honest. Half the requests on your UserVoice are for OpenBSD. All the coolest stuff in FreeBSD comes from OpenBSD.

OpenBSD -- the world's simplest and most secure Unix-like OS. Creator of the world's most used SSH implementation OpenSSH, the world's most elegant firewall PF, the world's most elegant mail server OpenSMTPD, the OpenSSL rewrite LibreSSL, and the NTP rewrite OpenNTPD. OpenBSD -- the cleanest kernel, the cleanest userland, the cleanest configuration syntax and some of the world's best documentation.

FreeBSD, on the other hand, is becoming more of a testbed for experimental, some would even say unnecessary technologies: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8546756. It's also having a hard time catching up to OpenBSD: http://itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/62641-crypto-....

[bch]

I was going to downvote your comment, but instead:

> All the coolest stuff in FreeBSD comes from OpenBSD

This is juvenile "I'd rather push a Ford than drive a Dodge" level commentary. It's not true, and isn't even interesting.

That any BSD is getting support is a good thing -- it opens the door to others following, and is good news.

[tbirdz]

> All the coolest stuff in FreeBSD comes from OpenBSD.

I disagree. Jails, ZFS, and DTrace did not come from OpenBSD.

[elektronjunge]

For security probably. But security isn't the only reason that I choose an OS. OpenBSD's security comes at a cost. They are usually late to the party on non-security features. Many of the security features make OpenBSD much slower. Even for security software OpenBSD isn't as big a win as the devs make it out to be. Take for instance PF, OpenBSD developers will be quick to point out that the OpenBSD version is more up to date. But that doesn't tell the whole story, FreeBSD is using a fork which allows for multi-threaded execution which is a must most non-trivial deployment scenarios. Further more OpenBSD often takes to hard of a line on security enhancements with the belief that the kernel should be the line in the sand. Usually, one prefers multiple layers of security but OpenBSD says the kernel is often good enough. See OpenBSD's refusal to add a MAC framework for an example of this. Jails also don't exist for similar reasons, though they are useful for reasons other than security.

The source you have for the 'testbed' for new technologies makes the claim but barely has warrant for it. On the other hand, OpenBSD is much more liberal about breaking compatibility especially when it involves security. While I'm not going to excuse OpenSSL, NTP, or Sendmail they are all general robust software that has been in use for decades. Aside from LibreSSL the OpenBSD rewrites have been incompatible.

FreeBSD also offers a number of incredibly compelling features outside of what OpenBSD can, or will offer in the short to medium term. I'll just list them: virtualization with Bhyve, boot from zfs, a linux compatibility layer, a much more modern package manager, official java support, the ability to install binary blobs.

None of this is to say that OpenBSD isn't a great choice, but recognize there are reasons to choose both platforms and that one doesn't need to spread FUD to advocate for their favorite platform.

[hhw]

> See OpenBSD's refusal to add a MAC framework for an example of this. Jails also don't exist for similar reasons, though they are useful for reasons other than security.

I think you've incorrectly interpreted OpenBSD's intentions. OpenBSD doesn't support a MAC framework because they believe the best approach to security is correctness, rather than trying to achieve security by adding features which results in more complexity, making it more difficult to ensure correctness. A common mistake people make is thinking that OpenBSD's primary goal is security; their primary goal is correctness. This just happens to result in better security more often than not.

[wglb]

Note that the package system used by OpenBSD is explicitly borrowed from FreeBSD.

[brynet]

That's not true. OpenBSD's package system was rewritten by Marc Espie many years ago in perl, the utility names are inherited from FreeBSD, but are now otherwise unrelated.

[wglb]

Ah, I misquoted. On the page http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html, they point out that the ports tree concept was borrowed from FreeBSD.