BSD, Is It Good?

[tuxpenguin8]

Hi,

I've recently dicovered the BSD (formerly BSD UNIX) operating system family. But are they any good?

Some of the articles I've read seem biased, so I can't really trust them.

So I don't know if I should use them, not instead of linux, I will most likely use them with linux.

And finally, is OpenBSD good for security.

So are the BSD family of operating systems any good, what are they good at, and bad at, in all aspects compered to linux, and wether I should use them, in any place like a server or pc, not inplace of linux because there is probably stuff that linux is good at and bad at, same with BSD. I will still use linux for destop, maybe in conjunction with some of the BSD variants.

Telling other people about this is greatly appreciated, so it can help me and others.

Thanks,

[wanderer7]

In my opinion, BSD isn't good for desktop & laptop PC-es. For servers - it is. OpenBSD is one of the most secure OS in the world. The only BSD distro that can be used on PC-es is PC-BSD: http://www.pcbsd.org/
But PC-BSD requires too powerful hardware: 64-bit CPU, 4 GB RAM, 50 GB on HDD. GNU/Linux distros are much more lightweight than that.

You can try one of the BSD distros if you want to, but they are not friendly to new users.
What else can I say? Both GNU/Linux and BSD belong to Unix-like operating systems, so if you learn GNU/Linux first, it will be easier to use BSD later.

P.S. When I said BSD isn't for PC-es, I meant for everyday use. You can install BSD on a laptop and use it, but in order to do that, you need to be an advanced user.

[tuxpenguin8]

Hi,

So if I become a more advanced user, I will find using BSD alot easier. And since I'm VERY concerned about security, OpenBSD will be excellent.

So if i were to setup a server, BSD will be great for it. But if I wanted a secure server, OpenBSD is the way.

Thanks,

[Bolle1961]

The only BSD distro that can be used on PC-es is PC-BSD: http://www.pcbsd.org/
But PC-BSD requires too powerful hardware: 64-bit CPU, 4 GB RAM, 50 GB on HDD. GNU/Linux distros are much more lightweight than that.

You forget Ghost BSD, it even runs on my Asus EeePC900
http://ghostbsd.org/

[wanderer7]

You forget Ghost BSD, it even runs on my Asus EeePC900
http://ghostbsd.org/

You're right. Thanks for the link, I've never tried GhostBSD before. It seems to be a good alternative though.

[xenopeek]

If you are concerned about security, you could look into Qubes OS (http://qubes-os.org/). Qubes OS isolates applications and even operating system components from each other, so a bug in one can't be exploited by malware or attackers to gaining access on the others. Here's a good recent look at it from user perspective: https://micahflee.com/2014/04/the-opera ... et-hacked/

As already shared, OpenBSD is good on servers. I ran it for a while on Fit-PC (tiny low power computer), played around with using it as a firewall and a remote shell server. I prefer Linux though and if I had to run a server again at home I'd just use CentOS or Debian. But by all means, experiment, play around with it, learn! It keeps you young

[tuxpenguin8]

A Great thing about OpenBSD is that it has integrated cryptographic software and other various security enhancements. Here are a few of them (from http://www.openbsd.org).

OpenBSD ships with cryptographic software. (some info from wikipedia) Cryptography is a practice used for seure communication, incase there are 3rd parties or other people, other than the people you sending it to (more info on cryptography at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptography). That was a quick explaination of what crypto is. OpenBSD ship it, beause they can, literally that what they said on the website. OpenBSD is from Canada, and Canadian law has no restriction on exporting cryptography. They put crytpo in various places around the os. Crypto is important in means of security enhanchments.

To make sure that newbies don't need to beome security gurus over night, the OpenBSD project ships the os with secure by defalt mode. Non-essential sevices are stopped. As the user becomes more familiar with OpenBSD, he will discover how to use daemons and other parts of the os. The user is likely to learn security considerations. When the project find a problem, one of their goals is to find security problems and fix them before anyone else. They try to make the os and software robust and secure.

This was a quick write up on security in OpenBSD. For more info on OpenBSD's security features visit: http://www.openbsd.org

[xenopeek]

I don't know a major Linux distro that doesn't come with cryptographic software installed by default. How else would the installer be able to offer full disk, or home folder, encryption? cryptsetup (for dm_crypt/LUKS), ecryptfs, gpg, openssl, you will find all those on major distros. You can hardly use a computer without them...

[benali72]

Is BSD good?

As with most products, it all depends on your evaluation criteria -- your goals.

As you cite, BSD has a good reputation for security. It's pretty popular on servers, where IT pros often like it. It's less popular on the laptop/desktop than Linux, in part, I believe, because there are so many Linux distros designed for the desktop. The only BSD distro specifically made easier for desktop users AFAIK is PC-BSD. I've used it and found it fun and easy (just like many Linuxes) but the user and developer populations are pretty small. When I had trouble installing on a box with an IDE to SATA controller converter, no one was able to help and the problem remained unsolved.

My guess is that sophisticated folks like IT pros and serious hobbyists might enjoy BSD, but for many average users and consumers, sticking with the larger community of Linux users may be a better choice. it all depends on who you are and what your goals are.

Best of luck.

[/dev/urandom]

The only BSD distro specifically made easier for desktop users AFAIK is PC-BSD.

There's also GhostBSD (will completely switch over to MATE soon). And MidnightBSD (uses the neat GNUstep environment). And DesktopBSD (currently on its way back to full duty). And, to some extent, Arch BSD. Probably PC-BSD is the most flexible of those but I'd call it bloated with all its additional stuff like AppCafe and PBIs. Of course that's a matter of taste.

Actually, it's even pretty easy to set up a working "pure" FreeBSD as a desktop in about half an hour once you understood the basics. Some forks, like DragonFly BSD, even come with a preconfigured desktop even though they're mainly supposed to work on servers.

On quite all of my servers is FreeBSD 10.0, serves me well and without major issues (except the usual "PHP doesn't want to play with Apache today" things common on all operating systems), also its port management is amazing. I'd assume FreeBSD is "secure enough" (automatically installing security fixes once they appear makes it even easier). However, OpenBSD is truly paranoid: less performance, more safety. (As in: really, REALLY more.)

Sticking with Linux just because "more people use it" is a bad excuse. On one of my laptops, OpenBSD works without any problems (even ACPI and WiFi) almost out of the box. Sure, OpenBSD is thought to be a firewall/router OS, but its own X distribution works like a charm. (Setting up another desktop than the default fvwm-thingy is two commands away once the network is configured properly.)

The OP asked where BSD excels. Well, in everything but the performance (except DragonFly BSD which is a beast IMO) and the number of applications in the official repositories (which are amazing anyway, at least on FreeBSD and NetBSD). There are a few design differences but the desktop user probably won't care much.

These days (where the NSA reportedly infiltrated the well-spread Linux deeply enough) I'd always prefer BSD - different BSDs depending on the particular use case, but BSD indeed.

[wanderer7]

These days (where the NSA reportedly infiltrated the well-spread Linux deeply enough)

What do you mean by "infiltrated"?

P.S. Now I understand why you chose that avatar.

[/dev/urandom]

Maybe infiltration is the wrong word? No native speaker here. Well, backdoors.

[wanderer7]

Maybe infiltration is the wrong word? No native speaker here. Well, backdoors.

Yeah, but there are no backdoors in most GNU/Linux distributions, right? For example, I don't think that either Debian or Mint come with any backdoors. How could they hide it in a code which is open source? In my opinion, BSD and GNU/Linux distros offer the same level of privacy.
Then again, it depends on the distribution as well. If you are talking about Chrome OS or Android, then probably you're right. But I've never heard about any community-driven distro that comes with backdoors.

[/dev/urandom]

Backdoors usually reside in the userland and crypto drivers. Read Snowden's papers.

Of course I can't prove it, but it's not dependent on the distribution you use. OpenBSD, for example, removed some crypto drivers for similar reasons.