Linux vs openBSD (for servers)

[MC Morrado]

I just recently heard of this thing called BSD. Until last week I didn't even know there were more Unix-Like operating systems besides Mac OS, Solaris, Windows, and my favorite Linux.

 

What is openBSD (in depth explanation for a Linux user who's never heard of it until now)? How does openBSD and freeBSD compare to Linux when it comes to servers? What are the distros of Linux you use for your servers? Mental Outlaw is the only reason I even know openBSD even exists, it would be good if you guys told me your takes on it so I can have a broader perspective rather than relying on one opinion when hearing many is more reliable. What do you use your Linux and/or openBSD servers for in your use cases?

[BoomerDutch]

Like pfsense as a router.

Xigmanas as nas server.

Both is bsd

 

Comparing bsd and linux well bsd is older generation however it's far more robust and stable and faster but less features.

 

I'm only using bsd for small quick services.

[10leej]

4 hours ago, MC.Morrado said:

I just recently heard of this thing called BSD. Until last week I didn't even know there were more Unix-Like operating systems besides Mac OS, Solaris, Windows, and my favorite Linux.

 

What is openBSD (in depth explanation for a Linux user who's never heard of it until now)? How does openBSD and freeBSD compare to Linux when it comes to servers? What are the distros of Linux you use for your servers? Mental Outlaw is the only reason I even know openBSD even exists, it would be good if you guys told me your takes on it so I can have a broader perspective rather than relying on one opinion when hearing many is more reliable. What do you use your Linux and/or openBSD servers for in your use cases?

MacOS is modern day desktop UNIX, WIndows is still DOS and nothing like UNIX at all.

 

OpenBSD is a BSD alternative and while it follows the XDG Standards the BSD family of operating systems are more focused on POSIX compliance (basically a set of guidelines so that software can run and compile successfully in any UNIX style OS).

The biggest difference is that BSD Distros don't typically ship with the GNU Core Utils or any real GNU tools and focuses more on the "Free" aspects of Open Source Software than the "Freedom" like the Free Software movement pushes.

 

Now that we have the 5000ft view out of the way, you won't really notice a huge difference between a BSD and Linux system. There are caveats of course, like you'll find desktop support much more lacking in BSDs compared to linux. Basically you might see KDE and Gnome not updated as quickly and well... There's no Steam and WINE is kinda poorly supported.

Yes FreeBSD does have a build of steam but that runs through their builtin Linux Compatibility Layer and you'll likely run into some issues.

 

Now OpenBSD is NOT FreeBSD, their not forks or respins like Linux Distros. Their effectively two different Operating Systems built off the Old BSD kernel fresh from SoCal in the late 90s.

 

OpenBSD is a "security first" operating system, as such you'll find that packages have a much stricter security focus, like say Chromium not having WebRTC support, no Electron whatsoever, firefox/thunderbird hardened by default. Plus some more. If your curious I'd say give it a look. But you have to keep in mind Secuirty does not equal Convenience.

 

OpenBSD is a Web/Email Server OS for basically this reason, but really I'd use FreeBSD for Networking and file storage (since it has true ZFS proper and not OpenZFS).

 

For generally everything else, I still much prefer Linux since I prefer KVM (virtualization) and OCI Contiainers (docker/podman/kubernetes) to BSD's bhyve (virtualization) and jails (containers).

 

Plus you basically need to work in Networking, or get a good recommendation to find a career with BSD servers, While yes some companys (Sony) use FreeBSD. Linux just plain has more jobs available.

[Guest]

23 hours ago, MC.Morrado said:

How does openBSD and freeBSD compare to Linux when it comes to servers?

It's mostly unsupported outside of networking, tho you can often find unsupported ports and/or documentation to get something working to some extent.

It's more than capable of doing whatever you probably want, it's just not a big target outside of networking.

 

23 hours ago, MC.Morrado said:

What are the distros of Linux you use for your servers?

Arch Linux or Alma Linux for bare metal, though we have been considering moving to TalOS.

For single purpose virtual machines, typically Alpine or Arch.

For containers a little bit of all of them. We try to use whatever a application targets. For things built locally, it's typically Alpine, Arch, or Distroless (min debian).

 

23 hours ago, MC.Morrado said:

What do you use your Linux and/or openBSD servers for in your use cases?

Linux is used as a Kubernetes host. It runs things like OCIS, Rook/Ceph, Gitlab, Authentik, Mail Server, etc...

For our Firewall / Gateway we use OPNsense which is based on FreeBSD.

[MC Morrado]

4 minutes ago, Nayr438 said:

It's mostly unsupported outside of networking, tho you can often find unsupported ports and/or documentation to get something working to some extent.

It's more than capable of doing whatever you probably want, it's just not a big target outside of networking.

 

Arch Linux or Alma Linux for bare metal, though we have been considering moving to TalOS.

For single purpose virtual machines, typically Alpine or Arch.

For containers a little bit of all of them. We try to use whatever a application targets. For things built locally, it's typically Alpine, Arch, or Distroless (min debian).

 

Linux is used as a Kubernetes host. It runs things like OCIS, Rook/Ceph, Gitlab, Authentik, Mail Server, etc...

For our Firewall / Gateway we use OPNsense which is based on FreeBSD.

Why choose Arch? Isn't it considered unstable by Linux standards? how would you configure Arch to be stable enough for your servers?

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, MC.Morrado said:

Why choose Arch? Isn't it considered unstable by Linux standards? how would you configure Arch to be stable enough for your servers?

Because Arch has some of the most up to date packages so we can stay current and Arch is the distro I am most familiar with. If there is a problem I don't really have to think about it, I already know what to look for and probably how to fix it. To add to it it's in a cluster so if there is a issue the other nodes stay up preventing downtime.
What makes Arch unstable isn't that the packages themselves are unstable, as they are stable and go through a testing process excluding the AUR, it's that it's a moving target which requires more maintenance. With that said as a kubernetes host the config is pretty minimal, it's pretty much base Arch, Firewalld, OpenSSH, systemd-boot (base), systemd-networkd (base), systemd-resolved (base), dracut, systemd-ukify, and whatever is needed for kubernetes with cri-o. It sits at about 197 packages in total with minimal static configs.

[MC Morrado]

8 minutes ago, Nayr438 said:

Because Arch has some of the most up to date packages so we can stay current and Arch is the distro I am most familiar with. If there is a problem I don't really have to think about it, I already know what to look for and probably how to fix it. To add to it it's in a cluster so if there is a issue the other nodes stay up preventing downtime.
What makes Arch unstable isn't that the packages themselves are unstable, as they are stable and go through a testing process excluding the AUR, it's that it's a moving target which requires more maintenance. With that said as a kubernetes host the config is pretty minimal, it's pretty much base Arch, Firewalld, OpenSSH, systemd-boot (base), systemd-networkd (base), systemd-resolved (base), dracut, systemd-ukify, and whatever is needed for kubernetes with cri-o. It sits at about 197 packages in total with minimal static configs.

makes sense. I use Linux Mint on almost everything I own for daily use because I find it easier to use than even modern versions of Windows. I never really used Windows 10 or 11 outside of helping old people with their computers. I typically try avoiding proprietary software (like Stallman) because I hate subscription-based services.