[TriLUG] BSD users?

[Ken Wahl]

On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 09:41:11AM -0700, Aaron Joyner wrote:
> Okay, I can't restrain myself.  :)  This is exactly the behavior you 
> should expect when following the CURRENT branch.  To quote the 
> freebsd.org web page, "...keep in mind that FreeBSD-CURRENT is the 
> bleeding edge of FreeBSD development.  FreeBSD-CURRENT users are 
> expected to have a high degree of technical skill, and should be capable 
> of solving difficult system problems on their own. If you are new to 
> FreeBSD, think twice before installing it."  They go on to say, "whether 
> or not FreeBSD-CURRENT brings disaster or greatly desired functionality 
> can be a matter of which exact moment you grabbed the source code in!" [1]
> 
> What you probably wanted, to get the desired  functionality, would be 
> FreeBSD's -STABLE.  Note that even tracking -STABLE (RELENG_5, 
> technically) is not considered the ultimate in system stability, for 
> that consider tracking a particular release, such as RELENG_5_4, which 
> is generally reserved for servers which have little to no interest in 
> new functionality, only in preserving a running system with security 
> updates and as little disruption as possible.
> 

I believe I mentioned that FreeBSD was stable until you dipped into CURRENT
and I did so mainly to avoid such a rant. But I did also try STABLE and
was less than satisfied with the results. I received all sorts of advice
that my hardware must be at fault, or I was doing something wrong or
perhaps maybe martians were responsible. Despite my Corsair memory not
showing any problems nor my Tyan motherboard, the FreeBSD folks insisted
it must be a problem on my end. Amazingly though, all of OpenBSD's ports
compiled on that "broken" machine and perhaps that is something worth
taking consideration of in itself - if you are less than 200% certain
that your hardware is fault-free then don't mess with FreeBSD's ports
tree. Stick with RELEASE and use the packages rather than ports.

> Yes, FreeBSD can be just as stable as OpenBSD.  Yes, OpenBSD has a 
> marginally better security track record.  Yes, pf has now been 
> integrated into FreeBSD, and you can have your favorite packet filter on 
> your BSD of choice.  :)  Yes, FreeBSD has something like half an order 
> of magnitude more packages than OpenBSD or NetBSD.

I never said it "couldn't" I said it wasn't for me and made the limits of my
experience with the OS explicit. I did do my due diligence though and
could quote FreeBSD Handbook chapter and verse as well at the time.

At the time I jumped off the BSD bandwagon, pf had been ported into
FreeBSD and NetBSD but from what I remember reading on the FreeBSD PF
project page itself, pf implementation in FreeBSD was still having bugs
hammered out and didn't run as smoothly or include all of the features
of OpenBSD's native pf. That may have changed by now. I don't know. It
may also be worth mentioning that yes you can have it but it also
requires a kernel recompile as does a few things in FreeBSD, like if you
want something as esoteric as sound. Kernel recompiling is encouraged in
FreeBSD and discouraged in OpenBSD. It's just one of the many philosophical
differences between the projects.

You say to-may-toe I say to-mah-toe. Let inquiring minds try the 3
different BSDs for themselves and come to their own conclusions. They
each have their own strengths and quirks and what may be considered a
strengh by one user will be a hinderance to another. But the "I am
FreeBSD your lord and god. Thou shalt not prefer any BSD over me."
nonsense is long past its day. None of them suck and none of them lack
areas that could use improvement. A preference is just that. Considering
FreeBSD's much larger user base, I'm not shocked to find my preference
for OpenBSD to be a minority opinion.