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.

  • Ramin Honary@lemmy.mlEnglish
    421·
    9 months ago

    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

  • state_electricianEnglish
    16·
    9 months ago

    “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.

  • atzanteol@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    15·
    9 months ago

    From “back in the day” the big claim was that NetBSD would run on anything. Portability seemed to be their major goal.

  • ryannathans@aussie.zone
    143·
    9 months ago

    Somewhat confused this is in a linux community when none of these OS are linux based. Are we lacking on BSD communities?

  • bizdelnick@lemmy.ml
    111·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • TCB13@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      9 months ago

      Pretty much like all Debian forks. They’re all forked from Debian because of conflicts between developers / different ways of seeing things. :P

  • scratchandgame@lemmy.mlTiếng Việt
    2·
    9 months ago

    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 :)

    • Pantherina@feddit.de
      21·
      9 months ago

      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

      • scratchandgame@lemmy.mlTiếng Việt
        1·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • Pantherina@feddit.de
          11·
          9 months ago

          I have no idea why they would do that to themselves. You develop free software without any protection again abuse?

          • scratchandgame@lemmy.mlTiếng Việt
            1·
            9 months ago

            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.

                • Pantherina@feddit.de
                  11·
                  9 months ago

                  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?

  • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
    412·
    9 months ago

    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.