What’s the point of it?
OpenBSD = Security
FreeBSD = The main UNIX-like
NetBSD = ???
Based on the name of have assumed it’s be used in things like network appliances but in 20 years I’ve never seen a single device use it.
Yes, it is mostly appliances, but an (informal?) stated goal of NetBSD is too run on all computing hardware.
- FreeBSD = user-friendly free Unix (plus ZFS and jails 😀)
- OpenBSD = very secure free Unix (no ZFS 🙁 but has the VMM hypervisor 😀)
- OpenIndiana = user-friendly free Unix that runs old Solaris software (plus ZFS and zones 😀)
- NetBSD = runs on any computer chip ever built within the past 40 years (some ZFS support, but no zones, jails, or VMs 🙁)
Naturally, that makes NetBSD a good choice for appliances, especially ones that might only have limited memory.
(Here is a quick explainer on the difference between Jails, Zones, Containers, and VMs)
EDIT1: someone pointed out to me that ZFS is not supported on OpenBSD. Sorry about that everyone.
EDIT2: there is a ZFS driver for NetBSD
There’s no ZFS support in OpenBSD is there?
Thanks, I had to double check that but you’re right, ZFS isn’t on OpenBSD. What a shame. Anyway I edited my above post.
But there is zfs support in netbsd… https://wiki.netbsd.org/zfs/
According to the wiki, ZFS “works well” but doesn’t seem to be as stable as in FreeBSD or OpenIndiana, and is not enabled by default so you have to update your
rc.conffile to build the ZFS drivers.
Removed by mod
“I just threw a dead squirrel in a shoe box and installed NetBSD on it.” is one of the bash.org quotes I still remember.
And damnit we did it too
Somewhat confused this is in a linux community when none of these OS are linux based. Are we lacking on BSD communities?
We don’t have BSD communities and even if we did they probably wouldn’t be big enough to get a decent answer.
So I asked here cos there’s a high chance that some Linux users will also know something about *BSD.
You’d probably get better conversations at selfhosted I know some folks there run *bsd network appliances. NASs, firewalls, etc.
I think no BSD expert will bother this place
That doesn’t mean we want it here. Missing the community you are looking for? Create it.
Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn’t work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !openbsd@lemmy.ml, !openbsd@lemmy.sdf.org, !bsd@lemmy.world, !netbsd@lemmy.ml, !bsd@lemmy.sdf.org, !freebsd@midwest.social, !freebsd@lemmy.ml, !netbsd@lemmy.sdf.org, !bsd@lemmy.ml, !freebsd@blendit.bsd.cafe
It’s not like the interests are not aligned.
They aren’t.
There’s no specific point in any of *BSD. They all are general purpose OSes. NetBSD forked from FreeBSD, OpenBSD forked from NetBSD. Conflicts between developers were main reasons for that.
Pretty much like all Debian forks. They’re all forked from Debian because of conflicts between developers / different ways of seeing things. :P
I think the point is network appliances but it seems mainly used by hobbyists from what I’ve seen.
If you look at the supported platforms you kind of get an answer here. There’s support for the m68k Macintoshes and other similar ancient devices still.
The main point was always portability, and the ability to run NetBSD on basically ANYTHING.
deleted by creator
OpenBSD = Security
It is actually correctless. OpenBSD = Correctness + Simple + Free (free from copyleft too)
FreeBSD = The main UNIX-like
Citation???
NetBSD
maximum portability??
But up to NetBSD 10 (at the time writing it was not released) YOU DON’T HAVE SSL CERTIFICATES INSTALLED IN THE BASE SYSTEM !
That’s my warning :)
I dont get that “no copyleft” of OpenBSD. Like, anything they do will just be used by Apple, Sony etc. and they dont give shit back
OpenBSD try to remove GPL licensed software from base. (with free alternative)
Like, anything they do will just be used by Apple, Sony etc. and they dont give shit back
This is what the OpenBSD team want, and also appreciated by other BSD developers.
I have no idea why they would do that to themselves. You develop free software without any protection again abuse?
SEE THEIR POLICY, don’t complain with me
https://openbsd.org/policy.html
They distribute a Free operating system
The original Apache license was similar to the Berkeley license, but source code published under version 2 of the Apache license is subject to additional restrictions and cannot be included into OpenBSD. In particular, if you use code under the Apache 2 license, some of your rights will terminate if you claim in court that the code violates a patent.
A license can only be considered fully permissive if it allows use by anyone for all the future without giving up any of their rights. If there are conditions that might terminate any rights in the future, or if you have to give up a right that you would otherwise have, even if exercising that right could reasonably be regarded as morally objectionable, the code is not free.
In addition, the clause about the patent license is problematic because a patent license cannot be granted under Copyright law, but only under contract law, which drags the whole license into the domain of contract law. But while Copyright law is somewhat standardized by international agreements, contract law differs wildly among jurisdictions. So what the license means in different jurisdictions may vary and is hard to predict.
The GNU Public License and licenses modeled on it impose the restriction that source code must be distributed or made available for all works that are derivatives of the GNU copyrighted code.
While this may superficially look like a noble strategy, it is a condition that is typically unacceptable for commercial use of software. So in practice, it usually ends up hindering free sharing and reuse of code and ideas rather than encouraging it. As a consequence, no additional software bound by the GPL terms will be considered for inclusion into the OpenBSD base system.
Thanks for the info. A very controversial topic.
It is controversial for outsider
bringing it to developers is a way to waste their time
A project could compromise by entering into NDA agreements with vendors, or including binary objects in the operating system for which no source code exists
Agreed.
I appreciate that they are blobfree but “no copyleft” has nothing to do with that. Actually, I think Copyleft Linux could not include blobs?
And then you have NomadBSD if you need an OS in a usb stick :)
BSD is kind of dead
Additionally the lack of copyleft does nothing for user freedom. You could buy a device and you would have no way of knowing it runs free software.
This entire comment is incorrect
Then why are Xi systems and a bunch of other companies moving away from BSD.
They aren’t? XI aren’t at least. Having two products doesn’t mean they’re abandoning one.
I though they were thinking about dropping support for TrueNAS core
Nope
Well fuck.
