Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 20th Jun 2007 20:07 UTC, submitted by Valour
OpenBSD "If you're a software enthusiast who has never used OpenBSD before, you might enjoy installing it by yourself and figuring it out as you go. If, however, you're looking for a more practical approach to using OpenBSD 4.1 on a desktop or server machine, here's a quick guide to get you started in this spectacular operating system."
Thread beginning with comment 249392
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Security
by Supreme Dragon on Wed 20th Jun 2007 21:14 UTC in reply to "Security"
Supreme Dragon
Member since:

"The security of a server depends mainly on its administrator, not on it's OS."

Software quality cannot be overlooked, a Windows free server is a more secure server.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Security
by ThawkTH on Wed 20th Jun 2007 21:38 in reply to "RE: Security"
ThawkTH Member since:

Not always. I think it's all about how competent your admin is.

If somebody is a windows guru, they can probably construct a respectable server.

If they have absolutely no *nix experience and slap an OpenBSD box together, enable random services, they might have some issues.

I agree that in their own, BSD's are more secure than Windows boxes - provided the admin knows what they're doing of course!

Edited 2007-06-20 21:40

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Security
by flav2000 on Wed 20th Jun 2007 21:53 in reply to "RE[2]: Security"
flav2000 Member since:

I agree with the part that admins are crucial in terms of setting the system right.

However, the OS design is more important in these days of zero-day exploits.

If an OS is designed properly, there is a less chance of major damage even if a vulnerability is exploited while the admin is off-work, sleeping, commuting, etc..

When you go back to the history of Windows vs. *nix in the security arena, more often than not Windows have vulnerability that are exploited actively and quickly.

Sometimes, you just don't have the time to patch or implement a workaround before the exploit hits your server.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Security
by BluenoseJake on Thu 21st Jun 2007 15:43 in reply to "RE: Security"
BluenoseJake Member since:

I have to disagree with you. A windows 2003 box can be made to be very secure, with only a small amount of effort. Most unneeded services are disabled by default, and the system is setup to require authentication to even view open shares and services. Codewise, Win2k3 is going to need some updates when installing a new box, but what OS that came out 4 years ago doesn't?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Security
by Supreme Dragon on Thu 21st Jun 2007 17:20 in reply to "RE[2]: Security"
Supreme Dragon Member since:

Windows is the worst OS you can use on a server, other OS's such as Linux, BSD, and OpenSolaris easily win on cost, reliability, security, EULA, and system requirements.

Reply Parent Score: 0