On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 06:13:51PM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: > On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 10:44:01AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I believe Berkeley BSD is free. I'm told Apple chose it over Linux as > > a basis for OS/X because it didn't have all the restrictions of the > > GPL that required it to remain free, though. I'm also told it is > > developed less aggressively, does not support all the latest hardware, > > and is more stable than Linux. Not that anyone can really call Linux > > unstable. > > The BSD license allows distribution of binaries only for commercial use. > Apparently if you install something called unix services for Windows and > run strings on all the Windows binaries, you'll find a whole slew of BSD > license copyright statements. This is a good thing since if TCP/IP > wasn't licensed under BSD, there would be no internet; there'd be some > microsoft network; there'd be an IBM net, an HP net, until someone did > it under the BSD. Luckily, DARPA in effect hired USC-Berkley to write a > network stack that could be used by different computers. > > I think the FreeBSD and OpenBSD people would argue with the "developed > less aggressively" stance. OpenBSD folks do their development on new > laptops. They release every 6 months but their -current (our Unstable) > is never supposed to break and is perfectly fine in production; the only > downside to -current is that there are no pre-built binary packages (use > still use pkg_add but it ends up compiling the port instead of > installing the package). NetBSD does seem to be developed at a slower > pace. The big difference between FreeBSD and OpenBSD are that OpenBSD > runs on more hardware and will not put binary-blobs or non-BSD code in > the kernel whereas FreeBSD will do both. Hense, some drivers in FreeBSD > are written by the hardware vendors (or others after non-disclosure > agreements are signed) whereas OpenBSD (which often supports the same > hardware as well or better) writes its own drivers via > reverse-engineering the hardware if all else fails. > > As for stability: look at the debian packages it would take to make > OpenBSD base install. At least a kernel, apache, shells, Xorg, standard > tools, compilers, perl, lynx, ssh, ftp server, shorewall, various > archivers, etc. Plus all their dependancies. Now look at the list of > security updates to Debian Etch (yet alone Testing or Unstable) in the > past six months. Now compare the number of security updates to OpenBSD > in the same time-frame. > > Note that the reason that OpenBSD can claim only two security holes in > the default install in the past 10 years is that there are no services > active in a default install (you have to add commands to the startup > script to enable them). > > People reoutinely built appliances like routers using OpenBSD and e.g. a > Soekris box and put it on the shelf. They may only update it when a > security bug happens (rarely). Since there are simple HOWTOs for making > OpenBSD on a CF card, updating the appliance consists of swapping the CF > card. > > I would call a box with a kernel security hole at least potentially > unstable. Its been 10 years since OpenBSD had one, its been what, 2 > weeks, since Etch last had one? On this basis alone, I'd call OpenBSD > more stable. > > > By the way, there may well be other systems that should be mentioned, > > and I'd appreciate corrections if anything I've said is wrong. > > > I hope my corrections and amplifications are generally correct.
Thank you. I wasn't aware of the way BSD has split up into different streams. -- hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]