[HN Gopher] Why use OpenBSD?
___________________________________________________________________
Why use OpenBSD?
Author : akagusu
Score : 126 points
Date : 2025-11-16 12:25 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.tumfatig.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.tumfatig.net)
| detourdog wrote:
| The list is missing the fact that the documentation is consistent
| and centralized.
| mrweasel wrote:
| > is consistent and centralized
|
| complete, useful, well written and contently at hand.
| idoubtit wrote:
| The post has many links to OpenBSD's man pages, FAQ and manual.
| But I thought it was quite unsatisfying, even common tasks are
| missing. Or at least I couldn't find them.
|
| I had a test case in mind while reading the documentation:
| running a custom web service with Nginx as a reverse-proxy. In
| the documentation, I couldn't find anything about creating a
| service. Are we supposed to write a frontend script (in ksh)
| that accepts various arguments (ie start/reload/...)? And what
| about the logs of this wrapper? And if I want an auto-restart
| when my program crashes, I have to find another tool that will
| wrap and monitor the process? I've done all this tedious work
| in Linux long ago, and I'm not willing to do it again.
|
| If the question was "Why OpenBSD instead of Linux", I don't
| think documentation is a good argument. In fact, the only
| strong response I've read is "to try something a bit different
| and more niche".
| detourdog wrote:
| This is the page I was thinking of....
|
| https://www.openbsd.org/faq/index.html
| skydhash wrote:
| The documentation you need is:
|
| https://man.openbsd.org/intro.8
|
| https://man.openbsd.org/rcctl
|
| https://man.openbsd.org/rc.conf.local.8
|
| https://man.openbsd.org/rc.d.8
| brobdingnagians wrote:
| Servers I setup in openbsd just keep working, and are an easy
| patch/upgrade process. Servers I setup in Ubuntu break and have
| weird patching issues. Maybe it's something I'm doing, but I sure
| do like that OpenBSD seems a lot easier to just have solid and
| work indefinitely.
| shevy-java wrote:
| Well - I would recommend using a better linux distribution than
| Ubuntu.
|
| I run just lighttpd these days; used to run httpd before they
| decided the configuration must become even more complicated. I
| don't have any issues with lighttpd (admittedly only few people
| use it; most seem to now use nginx).
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| And which distribution would that be?
| igtztorrero wrote:
| Debian
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| I agree but you could have just said it :)
| dokyun wrote:
| Slackware
| PunchyHamster wrote:
| Ubuntu seems to have a trend of taking something that works
| under Debian and somehow messing that up. Upgrades are one
| thing but for a while we had separate instruction on how to
| make Yubikey tokens work under each version of Ubuntu (we
| used them as smartcards for SSH key auth), while Debian
| instructions stayed the same...
|
| Update was also hit and miss on user's desktop machines, for
| a while ubuntu had a nasty habit of installing new kernel
| upgrades... without removing old ones, which eventually made
| boot run out of space and poor user usually had to give it to
| helpdesk to fix.
|
| Tho tbh most of the problems in any distro _with_ packages is
| "an user installed 3rd party repo that don't have well
| structured packages and it got messy".
| graemep wrote:
| I have used lighttpd in the past but have been using nginx
| largely because I got used to it because other people chose
| it.
|
| Now in more of a position to pick for myself, and I wondered
| how you feel about the pros and cons of lighttpd? I remember
| quite liking its config at the time.
| PunchyHamster wrote:
| You are not....it's Ubuntu.
|
| Not Linux, not Debian, Ubuntu.
|
| Debian (provided you don't just dump a bunch of 3rd party
| repos) just upgrades cleanly, we have hundreds of servers that
| just run unattended-upgrade and get upgraded to new Debian
| version every 2 years.
|
| The few Ubuntus we had had more problems.
| Guestmodinfo wrote:
| How to upgrade Debian unattended if it's not a rolling
| release
| 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
| Maybe they run Debian Testing. Testing and Unstable (sid)
| are rolling, and the stable release cut from the testing
| branch (through some process)
| idoubtit wrote:
| Not the Grand Poster, but we use the Debian package
| "unattended-upgrades" to install security updates
| automatically on our servers, and send an email if a reboot
| is required to complete the process (kernel upgrade).
|
| Unattended upgrades could be configured to install more
| than the security release. Even with the stable release,
| one can add the official APT source for the Debian
| backports.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Back to OpenBSD... realize that it has no "unattended
| upgrades" capability. Until syspatch(8) appeared in 6.x
| you had to download patches and rebuild kernel and
| userland to get security fixes. Today, you could run
| syspatch(8) in a cron job but that only covers the base
| system. You'd need to handle any installed packages
| separately. And only the current and immediately previous
| release are supported at all. There are two releases a
| year, so you have to upgrade every ~6 months to stay in
| the support window.
|
| Fortunately, with the introduction of the syspatch(8) and
| sysupgrade(8) utilities this is much simpler than it used
| to be. And, release numbers are just sequential with one
| point number, i.e. 7.0 was just the next release after
| 6.9, nothing more is implied by the "major" number
| ticking up.
| epakai wrote:
| Debian still has security fixes, and point releases.
| unattended-upgrades is the package that automates their
| install.
|
| I think you can also do unattended release upgrades by
| using the 'stable' release alias in sources. That will
| probably result in some stuff breaking since there will be
| package and configuration churn.
| Cockbrand wrote:
| I used to have this Debian box (which was a PowerMac G4) in
| my hallway. It had a 1000+ day uptime, back when this kind of
| uptime was still cool, or at least I thought it was. At some
| point it was two major versions behind, and I decided to
| dist-upgrade it. To my amazement, the upgrade went
| flawlessly, and the system booted without problems afterward.
| Debian is just great like that.
| shevy-java wrote:
| I appreciate that OpenBSD sold its course on security-everywhere.
|
| Unfortunately I also kind of lost faith in the BSD variants.
| There are a few minor things such as PC-BSD suddenly vanishing,
| or years before NetBSD on their mailing list admitting that Linux
| outperformed their "runs on any toaster and other gimmick"
| strategy. But one of the key issues I had was this:
|
| I installed it (FreeBSD) on my second computer. I went out of my
| apartment and returned hours later. Well, the FreeBSD machine was
| no longer running; my linux machine on the other hand is running
| non-stop for months, literally. This may be a fluke, perhaps the
| computer had a problem - I am not saying this is really what the
| BSDs are all about, as I also had them installed before. But then
| I also asked myself "why would I want to bother with the BSDs, if
| Linux simply runs better?". And I haven't found a good,
| convincing answer to that for me to rationalise why I'd still be
| using the BSDs. Note: I also use Linux in a non-standard way, e.
| g. versioned AppDirs, but essentially Linux is simply more
| flexible than the BSDs (that is my opinion) and there are more
| users too. There will be always some BSD users, but to me they
| are like a dying breed. They would need to market themselves as a
| "runs outside the nerd bubble as well"; even Linux is still stuck
| in its own nerd bubble. You have to break out of it if you want
| to really dominate (Linux semi-does it indirectly, e. g. we can
| count many smartphones as Linux-driven, but I am still using a
| desktop computer system here, so to me this is what really
| counts, even if the total number is less than the smartphone
| users numbers).
| prmoustache wrote:
| What Linux has is mostly better hardware support and on gnome
| and some distributions they have a software installation tool
| that look like an app store but that's about it... Everything
| else is pretty much the same, random people wouldn't figure out
| a system is freebsd instead of Linux when running same desktop
| (like plasma).
| sekh60 wrote:
| The license makes it very different philosophically.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Which is what makes Linux kernel stand out, as we can see
| by Sony and Apple contributions upstream.
|
| Had BSD not been busy with AT&T lawsuit, all major UNIXes
| would probably still be around, consuming whatever was
| produced out of BSD like the networking code and OS IPC
| improvements over AT&T UNIX.
|
| Instead sponsoring Linux kernel became the plan B, as means
| to reduce their UNIX development costs.
|
| > Commercial use began when Dell and IBM, followed by
| Hewlett-Packard, started offering Linux support to escape
| Microsoft's monopoly in the desktop operating system market
|
| -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux
|
| > 1998: Many major companies such as IBM, Compaq and Oracle
| announce their support for Linux.
|
| -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux
|
| Ironically the major contributor to many GNU/Linux critical
| components, Red-Hat, is now an IBM subsiduary, recouping
| that investment beyond doing only Aix.
|
| It is no accident that all FOSS OSes that came after Linux,
| none of them has adopted GPL, as big corporations would
| rather not be obliged by it.
| GTP wrote:
| Of course big corporations would rather not be obliged by
| the GPL. But my feeling is that, if we give them the
| option to grab the code without contributing back their
| improvements, they would just do that. In the long run,
| this risks harming the OSS community, as developers would
| feel like big corps are being leeches and profiting out
| of their work without giving anything back.
|
| After all, the GPL forces to contribute back only if you
| modify and distribute a modified version of the software
| (the AGPL modified this point, to account for cloud
| services). A corporation that isn't modifying GPL'd code
| or isn't redistributing the modified binaries, doesn't
| incur any additional burden for using a software
| distributed under the GPL.
| pjmlp wrote:
| It is no accident that Google has removed everything GPL
| out of Android, falling short of the Linux kernel, and
| they haven't done the final step with Fuchsia/Zircon
| mostly due to what appears internal politics.
| abenga wrote:
| It is good for Google, not Android users.
| kryptiskt wrote:
| The NetBSD thing is becoming true again as Linux distros and
| the kernel are lately on a tear of purging old and niche
| architectures.
| HumanOstrich wrote:
| It was a fluke or a problem with the computer unless you can
| provide more than 1 data point with more info than "it wasn't
| running".
| Guestmodinfo wrote:
| Just a few hours ago on the irc channel of OpenBSD someone said
| that OpenBSD is good at not letting a wonky hardware run
| compared to linux. So you could use the dmesg and ask it in the
| OpenBSD mailing list and they will point out which wonky
| hardware is causing trouble and you can replace that
| problematic part. I ran OpenBSD current for 6 years and never
| faced such issue
| hylaride wrote:
| Years ago (circa ~2005) I was working for a company with a
| mix of OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Windows, and Linux. I was more of a
| fan of OpenBSD and I received a lot of grief when the OpenBSD
| team suddenly ripped out support for one of the Dell hardware
| RAID controllers (I don't remember which one, but IIRC it was
| one based on something from Adaptec), claiming they couldn't
| reliably reverse engineer it to create stable drivers. Their
| attempts ultimately always ended up with "random" corruption.
|
| A year or so later our main DB on Windows (long story on why
| we were running windows DBs with most of the other kit being
| BSD/Linux) had a total corruption incident (it was painful,
| but we had a replica failover that we recovered from) - turns
| out we could get an answer from Dell since Windows was
| obviously supported by Dell themselves. There was a known
| issue with that model of RAID controller that would result in
| random and total corruption - and there was no way to fix it
| in firmware.
|
| I was smug about it, but had to concede that people should
| still be given an informed choice. IIRC Dell was very quiet
| about it, which is certainly not "informed choice". Had we
| known, we'd have shelled out for different hardware for our
| databases!
| cyberpunk wrote:
| Hangon on a second, you paid dell support and they
| knowingly let you run production on kit with _known_ total
| irreversible data loss bugs? Da. Fuq?!?
| hylaride wrote:
| To be fair, there was not much Dell could do as their
| PERC cards were all rebranded Adaptec and later LSI.
| Adaptec was the gold standard for ages, but I assume was
| enshitified somewhere along the way. The long term result
| was that the entire hardware raid world ditched Adaptec
| for LSI and/or software RAID (eg ZFS). Dell (in those
| days, not sure if it's still the case) had excellent
| support. There was a bug on another server model where
| the onboard video card would eventually fail and fry the
| motherboard. Even years later out of support, Dell would
| for free replace it if it failed with whatever new model
| equivalent existed.
|
| I left the company before things were totally resolved,
| but I think dell ultimately gave people who complained
| LSI cards, but it took awhile for those to be designed
| and manufactured to fit the internal drive slot. Most
| people who were also using external arrays moved to third
| party ones or other hardware.
|
| Some background from an OpenBSD dev:
|
| https://nickh.org/warstories/adaptec.html
| anthk wrote:
| Linux won't run on legacy machines the same way NetBSD does
| today.
| scatbot wrote:
| One of the reasons why I'm using OpenBSD is because it passes
| what I think of as a litmus test for FLOSS software: can I build
| the whole thing from scratch, in a short time and with minimal
| fuss? In the case of OpenBSD, the answer is yes. I can install it
| on a new machine, fetch the source code from mirrors, do some
| edits to the source, build a fresh release, write it to a USB
| stick and boot it on another machine. On my machine, the whole
| process takes about 10 minutes for the kernel, additional 20
| minutes for base and maybe an hour if you add Xenocara. Compare
| that to Linux distros like Ubuntu or Arch where building from
| scratch is either discouraged or some fringe activity that
| requires skimming through wiki articles, forum posts or old
| Websites on the Wayback Machine.
| sekh60 wrote:
| Gentoo is a Linux rolling release built from source (just
| recently they gave the option of using binary packages as
| well). I've ran it on my desktop for years.
| PunchyHamster wrote:
| Buildroot does exactly that and it gives you big TUI menu to
| pick what you want included in your linux image
| Milpotel wrote:
| There is also T2 SDE.
| mono442 wrote:
| To be honest I don't really see a reason to use a *BSD system
| myself other than just for the sake of using something different
| and less mainstream. FreeBSD had some advantages in the past but
| nowadays Linux has caught up in features.
| PunchyHamster wrote:
| BSD license so you don't have to upstream your stuff would be
| one. Tho it's not an advantage _to_ *BSD systems, Linux near-
| forcing vendors to go mainline (as keeping separate kernel tree
| is PITA) did a lot of good in hardware support.
| graemep wrote:
| Not really a problem for users. Only for people who want to
| redistribute a fork. It matters if you are Apple or Sony, but
| not for most people.
|
| incidentally, the requirement of the GPL is not to upstream
| your stuff, but to offer to make the modified source
| available to anyone you distribute the code to. Often the
| same in practice, but does not have to be.
| Gualdrapo wrote:
| I feel like DragonflyBSD is really cool if you want to look at
| some BSD that offers some advantages and something unique to
| your day-to-day desktop usage. And I feel like their community
| is not as toxic as that of FreeBSD and OpenBSD with their
| holier-than-thou attitude towards Linux.
|
| I'd love it if Gentoo/BSD were a thing once again, I like the
| BSD concepts but there's nothing like Portage on BSD so far -
| afaik pkgsrc is nowhere close to it.
| rixed wrote:
| When I switched to FreeBSD, it was because of the quality of
| the documentation. In Linux manpages are a patchwork from
| various sources, and it shows; it's not rare for a manpage to
| be missing, obsolete, or to document another similar tool, or
| to be inacurrate... Much better than in many other OSes, but
| still nowhere as good as in FreeBSD.
|
| Now that I think of it, when I switched from DOS to Linux it
| was already because I found manpages amazing. Maybe I've just a
| soft spot for documentation.
| rfmoz wrote:
| The development move in ZFS from FreeBSD to OpenZFS (AKA Linux)
| was a mayor point on that.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| >To be honest I don't really see a reason to use a *BSD system
| myself
|
| I see some reasons:
|
| - the BSD license
|
| - the system is composed of pieces written to work together, it
| is built from start up as a coherent operating system as
| opposed to things cobbled together like other UNIX-like OS-es
| do
| SoftTalker wrote:
| To me the advantages are: simpler and more consistent
| configuration, less churn, better documentation, focus on
| security and secure-by-default.
|
| Yes if raw performance is your top priority, linux wins. But
| for a desktop or general-purpose server, that's not the most
| important thing for me.
| hellcow wrote:
| I built my last company on OpenBSD. It was easy to understand the
| entire system, and secure-by-default (everything disabled) is the
| right posture for servers. Pledge and unveil worked brilliantly
| to restrict our Go processes to specific syscall sets and files.
| The firewall on OpenBSD is miles better to configure than
| iptables. I never had challenges upgrading them--they just kept
| working for years.
| thomashabets2 wrote:
| Finally Linux has something that approaches pledge/unveil:
| landlock.
|
| Seccomp was never actually usable:
| https://blog.habets.se/2022/03/seccomp-unsafe-at-any-speed.h...
| shiomiru wrote:
| > Seccomp was never actually usable
|
| It's barely usable by itself but I don't think it's an
| inherent problem of seccomp-bpf, rather the lack of libc
| support. Surely the task of "determine which syscalls are
| used for feature X" belongs in the software that decides
| which syscalls to use for feature X.
|
| In fact, Cosmopolitan libc implements pledge on Linux on top
| of seccomp-bpf: https://justine.lol/pledge/
| hulitu wrote:
| Linux is far too bloated to ve run as a secure system and the
| attack surface of any linux distro, due to the number of
| kernel modules loaded by default, is very big.
| jorvi wrote:
| > I built my last company on OpenBSD. It was easy to understand
| the entire system, and secure-by-default (everything disabled)
| is the right posture for servers.
|
| That really depends. You could argue a router is a server.
| OpenWRT has the default of WiFi off for security, which means
| that if the config is somehow hosed and you have to hard reset
| the router, you now have an inaccessible brick unless you
| happen to have a USB-Ethernet adapter on you.
|
| Sensible defaults are much, much better than the absolutionist
| approach of "disable everything".
|
| Edit: it's so funny to know that all the people slamming the
| downvote have never hit the brick wall of a dumb default. I
| hope you stay blessed like that!
| unethical_ban wrote:
| You bring up a particular edge case as a way to discredit a
| much more thorough essay on the system.
|
| And if someone is administering routers but don't have the
| hard-line equipment to configure them locally, I wish them
| well.
| DoctorOW wrote:
| > _Edit: it 's so funny to know that all the people slamming
| the downvote have never hit the brick wall of a dumb
| default._
|
| I'll bite. OpenBSD and OpenWRT are different things, and I'm
| honestly surprised to hear that tech matters enough to you to
| setup OpenWRT but not enough to own a desktop (or a laptop
| that doesn't skimp on ports)
| jorvi wrote:
| They are, but Linux or BSD doesn't matter all that much
| when it is about the meta case of deciding the defaults.
|
| Funnily enough I feel a BSD is much more suited to modems /
| routers, if it weren't for HW WiFi support. Yes, I know you
| can separate your routing and your access point onto
| different devices.
|
| At any rate I'm just pointing out that that absolutionism
| is rarely the right answer. It's also pretty telling that
| people actually went through my comment history to downvote
| a few unrelated recent comments. People get angry when they
| have to adjust their assumptions.
|
| As far as computing device goed, I prefer not lugging
| around a plastic brick. And one is bound to either lose or
| forget a dongle. In which case you get boned by OpenWRT's
| dumb default.
|
| The reason for that default is that if they set up an open
| OpenWRT WiFi (or default passworded, think "OpenWRT2025"),
| in that split 5 minute window before you change it, some
| wardriver might login and mess with your network.
|
| Obviously the chances of that are rather insignificant. And
| they could generate a default password based on the
| hardware. For the real security nuts they could tell them
| to build an image without default-on WiFi (currently they
| do the inverse).
| sedawkgrep wrote:
| > The firewall on OpenBSD is miles better to configure than
| iptables.
|
| That's understating the matter by a huge amount.
|
| pf is easier to read and understand, easier to adjust, more
| dynamic, and works like every other firewall in the world not
| based on iptables.
| tasn wrote:
| iptables is indeed horrid, but Linux has nftables nowadays,
| which is much nicer and easier to configure.
| matt-p wrote:
| I adore openbsd and have been using it since 4.x however it is
| still slow, not slow to boot or anything like that but if you run
| it as a web server it manages about half the req/s of Debian.
| Network performance is also slower than Debian if you're using it
| as a firewall (but I still prefer it as the syntax of PF is just
| perfect).
| dijit wrote:
| there's a lot of optimisations they don't engage with because
| it makes the code "ugly" but there's a larger one here, where
| they disable hyperthreading outright due to side-channel
| attacks.
|
| Might be a leading cause of what you're seeing.
| thelastgallon wrote:
| So, spin up lots of single-core VMs?
| dijit wrote:
| for I/O intensive applications, it's always been true that
| VMs are a decent chunk of overhead: https://sites.cc.gatech
| .edu/systems/projects/Elba/pub/JackLi...
|
| Also, it's likely already in a VM.
| basscomm wrote:
| > where they disable hyperthreading outright due to side-
| channel attacks.
|
| You can turn on hyperthreading if you need/want it:
| https://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq10.html#SMT
| throwaway270925 wrote:
| It's gotten a lot faster with 7.6 (lots of work on the TCP
| stack iirc). We saw huge improvements in throughput after
| updating.
|
| The new 7.8 release should bring some more performance, haven't
| tested it yet though.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Yes, they've been working on unlocking more and more
| performance over the 7.x series of releases if not longer.
|
| Remember the BSDs date from an era when you only had one core
| in the CPU.
| finaard wrote:
| It used to be faster than Linux for that, but that's been a
| while ago.
|
| I moved some stuff away from OpenBSD when the release of Linux
| 2.4 implemented all missing firewall functionality - but kept
| others still due to the early issues with the 2.4 kernel. But
| by the time 2.5 was getting decent - roughly a year before the
| 2.6 release - in most cases just using Linux with a custom 2.5
| kernel was the better option.
| lol_catz wrote:
| If you can tolerate poor performance then by all means use
| OpenBSD. Debian stable FTW.
| ectospheno wrote:
| You do have to buy more powerful hardware than you otherwise
| would. I find it worth it to run code I can more easily
| understand. I agree on Debian as well. My router and laptop are
| OpenBSD but most vms on my proxmox are Debian.
| hyperpl wrote:
| Agreed. I run my OpenBSD firewall on my odroid h4 - it's
| relatively cheap and plenty powerful to route gigabit+. I
| prefer pf and the simplicity of OpenBSD over Debian for such
| a purpose-built application. For my other "home servers" I
| simply run Debian as I believe it to be one of the more sane
| Linux choices for a server-type application.
| secwang wrote:
| I tried using OpenBSD, but the support for some specific things
| isn't very good. For example, J language support is always
| missing some packages. I also don't want to, and very much do not
| want to, use systemd. I finally chose FreeBSD, but I'm using some
| things from OpenBSD as much as possible, like obhttpd, etc. It
| feels good now.
| Guestmodinfo wrote:
| I hope people here keep donating to the OpenBSD project. I have
| myself not yet but I'm waiting yo do that
| dilippkumar wrote:
| Long time OpenBSD fan. Used it as my daily driver for years
| before standardizing all computers at home to macOS. I still
| think about going back to openBSD one day, but it's no longer
| very practical as a daily driver.
|
| I want to use OpenBSD for the next project I'm building. However,
| I can't wrap my head around the old way of doing deployments
| (before containers). People who've built production grade systems
| with OpenBSD:
|
| 1. How do you deploy software? 2. How do you manage fleets of
| servers? 3. How do you spin up/turn down servers from cloud
| providers? (I only know of Vultr who provided an OpenBSD option
| out of the box).
| hylaride wrote:
| > Long time OpenBSD fan. Used it as my daily driver for years
| before standardizing all computers at home to macOS. I still
| think about going back to openBSD one day, but it's no longer
| very practical as a daily driver.
|
| It's only practical for hobbyists. I used OpenBSD as a daily
| driver between 2001-2005. I fought, I suffered, I conquered,
| and I got tired of not being able to watch video on the web
| reliably and MacOS in those days was so clean and refreshing. I
| learned so much, though.
|
| > I want to use OpenBSD for the next project I'm building.
|
| I admire your open-mindedness. But ask yourself:
|
| 1. Do you want to have to upgrade fleets of servers every year
| with no exceptions for extended security support instead of 5
| (or more if you're willing to pay) for LTS versions of Linux?
|
| 2. Who else will need to support it?
|
| 3. You will likely have worse performance if that matters.
|
| > 1. How do you deploy software?
|
| Honestly, not many people create their own services that run on
| OpenBSD. Those that do use old-school packaging and scripting.
| Tooling like ansible works.
|
| > 2. How do you manage fleets of servers?
|
| Ansible would be my go-to for classic fleets of servers.
|
| > How do you spin up/turn down servers from cloud providers?
|
| There are ports of cloud-init for OpenBSD. Creating images for
| third party OSes can be different levels of painful, depending
| on the cloud provider.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| OpenBSD has virtualization out of the box now. Most of the
| benefit of containers you can get with chroot. I don't know if
| any of the developers are working on a true container/jail
| capability.
|
| I'd like to see a more modern performant filesystem with
| OpenBSD but ffs has never really let me down. Capability for
| logical volumes and/or live resizing of partitions would be
| welcome as well.
| indigodaddy wrote:
| RE: 1/2, doesn't Ansible work for BSDs?
| reilly3000 wrote:
| Why isn't it used more often at BigCorp? Or as a base container
| image?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-11-16 23:01 UTC)