Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Oct 2006 16:19 UTC, submitted by Charles A Landemaine
PC-BSD "With all of the BSD variants available for download, it's easy to incorrectly assume all of them are pure, incompatible forks from each other. Actually, there are more shades of BSD out in the world than just separate forks. One in particular made the news a couple of weeks ago when it was commercially acquired. The BSD in question is PC-BSD. The company that bought it is iXsystems, a systems deployment and integrator firm out of San Jose that has pretty strong experience implementing *BSD, Unix and Linux systems for its customer base. So, why did the company up and buy PC-BSD?"
Thread beginning with comment 175874
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: OpenBSD
by re_re on Fri 27th Oct 2006 00:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OpenBSD"
Member since:

>I agree that all of the BSD's are very secure, but most of the security that they have is because of OpenBSD's innovations. Nothing against the others, but why not go right to the source of the all these security technologies and just use OpenBSD?<

I don't think you really understand the underpinnings of the OpenBSD project. By it's very nature it could not be used in the same manner as freebsd or netbsd. The reason OpenBSD is so secure is because virtually every package that goes into OpenBSD is heavily scrutinized, broken down and put back together (sometimes several times) prior to the package being allowed into ObenBSD proper.

In a fork of OpenBSD you would essentially lose the large majority of that security and stability by installing packages that were not tested, retested and configured by OpenBSD... eg... xorg, kde, gnome, and almost anything that would make for a good desktop distro.

OpenBSD is designed to be a solid stable and socure server os and nothing more. Turning it into a desktop os would simply make it like every other BSD out there.

Edited 2006-10-27 00:13

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: OpenBSD
by brewmastre on Fri 27th Oct 2006 00:41 in reply to "RE[3]: OpenBSD"
brewmastre Member since:

I understand what you are saying, but its not entirely true. Yes, the OpenBSD team does control what goes into the source tree, and that's why its so stable and secure; however, all of the programs that would make OpenBSD a useful desktop OS are compiled and tested by the OpenBSD team, they're what makes up the OpenBSD Ports Tree. And Xorg is already included with OBSD anyway. I dont think it would be all that bad to take obsd and add a nice WM that has been fully tested by the obsd and distribute it. At least at that point the core OS would be fully tested and known to be secure and stable. If users can find a way to install enough crap on obsd to make it less stable then no OS is safe.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: OpenBSD
by Soulbender on Fri 27th Oct 2006 03:03 in reply to "RE[3]: OpenBSD"
Soulbender Member since:

"The reason OpenBSD is so secure is because virtually every package that goes into OpenBSD is heavily scrutinized,"

This is not entirely true. All code that goes into the base system is scrutinized, yes, but this is not true for the packages/ports. There's simply not enough manpower to audit gigantic packages like GNOME, OpenOffice and KDE completely. This means that ports are generally not as well audited as the base system.

"OpenBSD is designed to be a solid stable and socure server os and nothing more."
While OpenBSD is a very solid and secure server OS it's not the primary goal of the project:
For example, with PF, OpenOSPFD and OpenBGPD it makes for an awesome router.

Reply Parent Score: 2