I wanted to know what is the best BSD OS.

Flamewars aside, the best BSD OS is the one that meets your needs. What are you doing with it?

I'd recommend PC-BSD more if you're planning on using it on the desktop (and PC-BSD8 beta is out, and it's going to be NICE when done).

Server side, OpenBSD, FreeBSD are my faves, depending on what you're doing. NetBSD supports an insanely wide variety of odd hardware types.

They're all good - but it depends on your needs

As I get in love with FreeBSD, I introduce it:

1- Binary compatibility with many programs built for Linux, SCO, SVR4, BSDI and NetBSD.
2- Thousands of ready-to-run applications are available from the FreeBSD ports and packages collection:
Ports : Ready-to-Compile/Install Sources
Packages : Binaray
Until now more than 20,531 ports(Software)
3- A full complement of C, C++, and Fortran development tools
4- Preemptive multitasking - merged VM/buffer cache

Reffer to

http://www.freebsd.org/
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/doc/

1 members found this post helpful.

The question you should really be asking yourself is what features do you really need in an operating system. Then, after answering this question, looking for a suitable solution will be a much easier exercise.

1 members found this post helpful.

As a whole, BSDs systems are suitable for Developers && Expert Administrators, that have super Time/Energy/Ability for skimming/Reviewing/Editing/Deploying System Configurations, Source Codes, also interested in knowing the systems in-depth, in both software & Hardware Architecture.
BSDs, and in a higher degree FreeBSD not dedicated/suitable for those people that want to see all things up after a switch turn on key. After a FreeBSD Installation, it's on you to set every things up, such as mounting additional partitions, increase security, standing up a WM/DM/DE, setting up internet connection in a pure text mode, enable sound/graphic card enhancement by setting up correct drivers, and so on.
FreeBSD is in opposite direction of some latest hot news like Ubuntu, and against of Folk Windows/Mac concepts too.

If you don't want to crawling like a snake into details, adhere to Windows/Mac/Linux, because it shall waste your time.

This is mostly true, though PC-BSD does a fair job of automating some of that (especially the NIC and video card stuff). If you want Flash working out of the box, PC-BSD is certainly closer to it than FreeBSD

I think the point of BSD is different than Linux, though. BSD is Unix ported from midrange/mini-computer hardware to other systems. Linux is a ton of Unix-like stuff written specifically for x86 and then ported elsewhere. I think this leads to some massive differences in mindset.

How's the saying go? "Linux is what you get when a bunch of x86 developers write Unix. BSD is what you get when a bunch of Unix developers write for the x86."

It's so true. Linux distros tend to follow the philosophy that the system is complete when nothing more can be added...the BSD's tend to follow the philosophy that the system is complete when nothing more can be taken away. One gives you a system of default programs, settings, and such that doesn't take long to get up and running with, the other tends to give you a barebones system that, given enough knowledge, you can build into virtually anything you wish.

Edit - I use the terms "tend to" because Linux distros like Gentoo, Slackware, and LFS follow the BSD mindset of minimalism, whereas BSD's like PC-BSD follow the Linux mindset of "kitchen-sinking". When comparing Linux and BSD, it's not fair to compare Ubuntu to OpenBSD...they're so completely different in scope. It would be much saner to compare PC-BSD to Ubuntu, or HLFS to OpenBSD, or Gentoo to FreeBSD, etc...

1 members found this post helpful.

I think this is extremely true. PC-BSD is definitely the BSD world equiv for Ubuntu, both for the good and ill.

Given my preferences, I'll take a super lean system that I build up exactly to spec as opposed to a super fat system that I have to strip down to spec... but that's why I'm a BSD person

I'm OCD about inefficiency. Extra files laying around taking up a few KB of space make me crazy. I have issues. That's why I use BSD =)

Well, ok...I'm OCD about security first, *then* inefficiency.

Experience:
For Notebooks/laptops NetBSD.
For Desktops FreeBSD.
For virtual any BSD.
Better graphics support for FreeBSD.
Older computers OpenBSD.

I have not used Linux in a couple of years, so I can't compare Linux performance with OpenBSD, but I can tell you unequivocally that OpenBSD will bring old hardware back to life. On anything with less than 4GB of RAM, I'd expect OpenBSD to clean Windows' clock (OpenBSD doesn't yet use more than 4GB, but it uses that 4GB very, very well).

Once you are at all used to the OpenBSD installation you are likely to prefer it, IMAO. And with OpenBSD, I don't wonder what the computer might be doing behind my back. There are also fewer somewhat similar management interfaces all installed by default than, say, CENTOS.

The only things I find lacking in OpenBSD are watching embedded video that is not actually on Youtube and being able to use DoD Common Access Card authentication.

FreeBSD/i386/pc98 minimum requirements: CPU (486), RAM(24 MB) HDD(150 MB)
Generic Kernel size on my system:
11,492,703 B : kernel (dynamically linked - uses shared libs)
36,188,860 B : kernel.symbols (statically linked)

As I always say: Just dive to hardest way!
I started to learn Linux by Debian, and Unix-like by FreeBSD.
For security use OpenBSD.
For Server use NetBSD.
Desktop use PC-BSD!
Live bsd use BsdAnywhere.

The biggest hurdle that most newcomers to BSD run into when trying OpenBSD is getting help with problems. OpenBSD has the best man pages on the planet because they're considered part of the code (i.e. the coding isn't finished until the man pages **correctly** explain the program in explicit detail), and because of that the mailing lists are very, very hostile towards people who do not use the man pages first. Any of the BSDs holds that requirement (users should investigate solutions first before asking developers), but the OpenBSD team is *actively* hostile towards users who don't make the effort to figure it out for themselves (even if that effort is reading the man page to make sure they're using the program correctly).

That aside, it's been my experience that OpenBSD "just works" 99% of the time and I have never needed external help to solve problems (I've always been able to solve problems with the man pages and/or FAQ).