Well to start I hope this dosent get ugly but Ive only played with freeBSD and tried to install netBSD. To make a long story short, netBSD I was trying to install on a PC that actually had hardware trouble. It was a waste. Anyway back to the questions for those who were able to use more than one version, How are they different?

Ive read that
freeBSD - web developing
openBSD- routing and networking (security)
netBSD- well i dont know what there claim to fame is.

I can only speak about freeBSD when i installed it on my laptop. Stability was nice and it was able to handle network apps better. but my issues were with legacy sound card. boo hoo, i couldnt get to listen to my mp3's opps ogg

comments or input any1

You're going to start really pulling at straws on a question like this. The different BSD distros are extremely similar to each other. To give a shot at some differences/claims to fame:

FreeBSD is pretty mature and has a broad following. This means expansive package and software support with less headaches, in some cases. If you look at their package collection and ports tree, you'll probably see more availability there. I've also heard web usage for Free-, but not sure what that would specify over any other build. You can use apache, PHP, SSL, etc. just as easily on the other builds. The one thing that seems to prevail is that their build seems to be optimzed a touch better for filesystem performance, speed-wise; some have said that this even affects network performance for processes that rely on disk access like file sharing, etc. This gives them the reputation for a fast-performing distro.

NetBSD's one real true claim to fame is their wide hardware and architecture base. While the other BSDs have i386, sparc, alpha, and a handful of others, NetBSD has focused on an incredible array of supported architecture types (READ: prccessors, mainly. This doesn't neccesarily mean a certain modem will work better here than in another distro/build). See http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/

OpenBSD - Head developer used to be one of the main guys on NetBSD and split off due to conflict of interests (Theo de Raadt). OpenBSD is arguably THE most secure Unix distribution by default; they have the most impressive record thus far and a lot of focus is put into keeping it this way. They are the same development team that makes OpenSSH. OBSD's joys are integrated crypto (IPSEC support in the kernel, as well as ISAKMPD and PHOTURISD key exchanges or support for preshared keys), pre-audited software packages (for instance, ships with a 4.x.x version of BIND by default; the 8.x and 9.x is a security nightmare, and to audit it would take some odd too much time.) Reason being for this; any insecure package installed by default into your default distribution and installed by default, therefore renders your system potentially exploitable (by default). See Section "Red Hat Linux shipping by default with exploitable versions of Sendmail and WU-FTPD". OBSD is a flagship network routing OS; it uses the PF package to support an excellent stateful packet-filtering firewall (capable of inbound and outbound state tables, filtering on a flags-set basis (READ: you can trick nmap scans), packet normalization, and state modulation). PF also gives you the usage of NAT with complex port mappings and redirects. PF ships with 3.0, IPF (Darren Reed's package) shipped in 2.9 and earlier. Development is focused on Security as a number one, not a byproduct of features. Main focus generally lies in usage as VPN, Firewall, NAT router, and secure internet-facing servers (do you need a shiny GUI in the DMZ, or a secure server?) It's potential extends beyond this though, as many people have no problem using it for their laptop system or workstation (yes, Xf86-4 is supported!) Architecture support is expanding all the time too, so look at it to run on your funny old systems too. Oh yeah - full distribution install (all packages installed) is around 300 MB.

Hope this little book sheds some light.

so the short of it is that openbsd is the best thing out there for firewall/router duties?

in my opinion, yes. in a lot of the professionals' opinion out there, yes.

thanks for your comments. i just downloaded OpenBSD3.0 and am planning to try it out. at least i know what it's good for and won't feel shortchanged when i use it.

I don't want to come across "over-promotional" of openbsd - but i should say, the system is capable of doing anything (that i can think of) that any other system can. Just because it excels in one area doesn't mean it lacks in others, except perhaps "user friendliness", which hasn't mattered except with Windows and Red Hat, IMHO. If you want to have a flashy X Window enabled desktop, by all means install the X packages, and during install tell the system "yes, i will run X windows on this computer". Install a window manager of your choice and voila. You want it be be a web, ftp, ldap, smtp/imap/pop, nfs, smb, nntp, irc, etc.etc.etc. server, go ahead and install the packages. you want to burn cds, install the packages. stream mp3s to clients... you get the picture. it's just as full-featured (potentially) as any other unix system out there, just obsd takes a bit of a secure minimalistic approach and pushes what they're good at, leaving the rest to your imagination.

oh heck no, that doesn't look over-promotional

but no, i'm convinced that openbsd is really cool...

i've got this spare 486 hanging around doing nothing... but it's only got 400MB hdd and i think 16MB ram... i was thinking of running a firewall with it... do u think i should leave X out of the picture? (i'm thinking, yes...)

what packages do you think i should select for the install?

good question. in most cases, unless you have a pressing need to include it, the answer to installing X is 'no'. In order to support it, the kernel has to have an option called "Aperture" (sp?) enabled which can lead in some remote cases to a vulnerability (or has in the past.) To add to that, running X and a window manager on top can be quite resource intensive, depending on the WM you use. If all your going to have is a dedicated firewall, definately no X (you gain no benefit, all the config is done by editing the pf.conf file and enabling a couple of kernel options - vi will be all you need The specs you gave will be perfect though; throw in a couple of nics and read the openbsd faq section http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq6.html#PF and you'll be good; might be a good idea to check out 'man pf' and 'man pf.conf' also... they contain good information for pf firewall rulesets. For more advanced information, see the 'misc' mailing list archives (a lot of users have come up with some cool rulesets to tweak the firewall rulez).

Okay, its been awhile. But yesh, I have been doing some homework and I thought I should share the article

BSD OS on a CD

very nice

Where do you nead X for on a server/firewall/router any way?

because i don't have THAT many machines lying around(only the 486). i'd like to see if it's really a viable workstation as well...