Subj : Re: Synchronet vs Mystic vs ??
To   : Gamgee
From : Arelor
Date : Sat Apr 22 2023 07:23:16

  Re: Re: Synchronet vs Mystic vs ??
  By: Gamgee to Arelor on Thu Apr 20 2023 08:16 pm

 >  Ar> I like the OpenBSD approach better. Install everything via
 >  Ar> ports/packages. If aprogram needs sandboxing, it can request it
 >  Ar> itself via the pledge() and unveil() systemcalls.
 > 
 > I've told myself for years that I should learn one (or more) of the
 > BSD's, but have never gotten around to it.  Maybe I'll bump that up on
 > my TODO list a little.  Would you recommend trying OpenBSD first, or
 > FreeBSD?  Related question - once you "know" one of them, is the other
 > one easy/similar?
 > 

Slackware is very BSDish, so any of the three big BSD should be easy to pick
up.

Each mayor BSD is a different Operating System and they are not that similar.
They are pretty much the same on the surface - the classical Linux utilities
like tar, awk, sed etc. have their BSD counterparts, but then kernel
capabilities and OS administration differ. Firewall utilities are different.
Package management is different. MAC/sandboxing (for the BSD that support such
things) are different. If you are used to a BSD and suddenly need to
administrate another, the differences won't shock you but you will totally have
to relearn some of the tools.

As for which BSD to try first, it depends on what you want. OpenBSD is
developed by IT nerds for their own use, and non-devs get to enjoy the ride if
it happens to suit their needs. What this means is OpenBSD has very clean
implementations for the things it does but it lacks some features you'd take
for granted everywhere else because the devs don't give a damn. ie. if the devs
don't like blutooth as a protocol then you will never ever use your blutooth
speakers on OpenBSD. In exchange, you get a very tightly developped set of
userland utilities.

OpenBSD is the OS I would pick for a small home server, because OpenBSD
maintains its own http daemon with very tight privilege separation and
sandboxing. They also develop their own SMTPD in-house and same advantages
apply. Firewalling is also developped in-house. OpenBSD's utilities and
services have just enough features to serve medium sized deployments while
featuring non-bullshit configuration processes - administration is very
Slackware-like.

FreeBSD is more of a corporate product so the kernel has more features and it
is a bit more Linux compatible. You may expect better performance, a modern
filesystem with COW support, and better vendor support. FreeBSD is not as tight
when it comes to default process isolation and their MAC framework requires
some work to understand (think SELinux).

I personally use OpenBSD mostly everywhere because its system layout feels more
sane, but that means that I often need some feature that is not supported and
end up having to build it in myself. FreeBSD is more likely to support a random
feature or a given package you may one day discover you need.

NetBSD deserves special metion because it is developped very aggressively but
to a fine quality standard. Dragonfly is a small project but it is known for
their HAMMER filesystem and its advanced multithreading. I have never used
Dragon and my experience with Net is not meaningful.

Which to pick for testing is a matter of choice. FreeBSD feels much more
production ready. OpenBSD feels like the product of a bunch of hardcore Unix
advocates building the sort of modern Unix-like they want to run at home.

The fun part with OpenSource is exploring the options, I guess XD



--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
 * Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (21:2/138)

.