soda> Hi all, a part from being concentrated on the security issues
soda> then what elses, how about the configuration files, the overall
Same player shoot again... ;-)
For my own, the difference doesn't come from security issues as
security is the admin's job (you may setup your OpenBSD box to make it
insecure and you can setup your FreeBSD box to make it secure).
If i had to choose, now, i would take OpenBSD as i have an ATAPI CD-RW
and i want to use common tools like cdrecord. FreeBSD is the only free
Unix i know which doesn't have a SCSI-ATAPI emulation layer and
doesn't plan to have it: if you want to burn cd, you must use the tool
provided with FreeBSD, not another one. Forget the graphical frontends
like xcdroast, too. Of course, if you don't have an ATAPI CD-RW, and
don't plan to have it, you may ignore these remarks.
Apart this, both are pretty similar.
ric Jacoboni, n il y a 1305059975 secondes
Here's short list of some of the differences we've noted while writing
FreeBSD and OpenBSD drivers for our WAN cards.
Trying to be the #1 most secure operating system
Greater integration of cryptographic software. This means IPsec,
Ipv6, key engines, Kerberos, free-AFS, and other forms of strong
crypto or crypto-using systems. OpenBSD is developed and released
from Canada and due to Canadian law it is legal to export crypto to
Wants to make available source code that anyone can use for ANY
PURPOSE, with no restrictions. Striving to make this software robust
and secure, and encourage companies to use whichever pieces they want
Provide the best development platform possible. Provide full source
access to developers and users, including the ability to look at CVS
tree changes directly. Users can even look at the source tree and
changes directly on the web
Track and implement standards (ANSI, POSIX, parts of X/Open, etc.)
Work towards a very machine-independent source tree. Support as many
different systems and hardware as feasible
Based on 4.4BSD
Produce an optimized x86 port
Provides higher performance, greater compatibility with other
operating systems and less system administration
Has a merged virtual memory and filesystem buffer cache which
continuously tunes the amount of memory used for programs and the
Compatibility modules enable programs for other operating systems to
run on FreeBSD, including programs for Linux, SCO UNIX, NetBSD, and
Kernel Queues allow programs to respond more efficiently to a variety
of asynchronous events including file and socket IO, improving
applications and system performance
Accept Filters allow connection - intensive applications, such as web
servers, to cleanly push part of their functionality into the
operating system kernel, improving performance
Soft Updates allow improved file system performance without
sacrificing safety and reliability, by intelligently analyzing,
caching and rewriting or reordering disk meta-data operations
Support for IPsec and Ipv6 allows improved security in networks, and
support for the next-generation Internet Protocol, Ipv6
Well-suited for both desktop and server applications
An ideal Internet or Intranet server by providing robust network
services, even under the heaviest of loads
Senior Product Marketing Manager
> soda> Hi all, a part from being concentrated on the security issues
> soda> then what elses, how about the configuration files, the overall
> soda> look&feels.
> Same player shoot again... ;-)
> For my own, the difference doesn't come from security issues as
> security is the admin's job (you may setup your OpenBSD box to make it
> insecure and you can setup your FreeBSD box to make it secure).
> If i had to choose, now, i would take OpenBSD as i have an ATAPI CD-RW
> and i want to use common tools like cdrecord. FreeBSD is the only free
> Unix i know which doesn't have a SCSI-ATAPI emulation layer and
> doesn't plan to have it: if you want to burn cd, you must use the tool
> provided with FreeBSD, not another one. Forget the graphical frontends
> like xcdroast, too. Of course, if you don't have an ATAPI CD-RW, and
> don't plan to have it, you may ignore these remarks.
> Apart this, both are pretty similar.
Has anyone noticed that there is a GIGANTIC speed difference when
OpenBSD or FreeBSD is updating the locate database. The OpenBSD
machine will ALWAYS beat the freebsd machine. At fist I thought it
was because of the hard drive size, but I have 60 GB of data on a
OpenBSD box which took a few minutes to update. My FreeBSD box has
about 9 GB of data which takes at least 10 minutes. Both machine
Athlons with 7200 RPM hard drives. Why does OpenBSD beat
FreeBSD's locate updatedb process and what can I do to replicate the
speed increase on my FreeBSD box also?
By the way, I am running OpenBSD 2.9 release on a 1 ghz athlon with 60
GB HD and the FreeBSD 4.4 release box is a 1.4 athlon with 10 GB HD.
Also I didn't change any default file systems or soft updates, I left
it on the default install settings.