*BSDThis forum is for the discussion of all BSD variants.
FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I was just wondering, why is freeBSD (or othe variation, im not to familiar) more secure them linux, whats the big deal of both of them?
Those apps who run in linux run in BSD?? If BSD is better why linuxers dont use it, considering that they could run the same applications and the same window manager...
IŽd never used freeBSD before, so I have a bounch of questions...
Personally, I dont think BSD's are more secure than Linux. The problem is that some Linux distributors, release their distros with configurations that make them easy to attack whereas most BSD's are locked down by default.
Linux and *BSD are entirely different worlds, and each has its pros and cons:
Many serious vulnerabilities have been found in the Linux kernels, and it is not because it's used more than *BSD: it is because of the new features that are being added everytime, and bugs are inevitable.
There are 2 Linux distributions that are actively auditing the kernel and software... They are Debian and Gentoo (they release advisories everytime, contributing, yet they are more secure than FedoraCore/Mandrake/etc...)
*BSD's seems to me more stable because they have evolved with a path that isn't as reckless as the Linux one, but the approach used by OpenBSD doesn't still convince me, because the trade-off between security and usability isn't ok. Also, a lot of testing is done by the users, not just by a tight group of developers.
I'm happy with all these open-source Unix choices anyway. It is not about one vs another.
I think everyone who doesn't need to take one side has the potential to take the best of each
Originally posted by maginotjr I was just wondering, why is freeBSD (or othe variation, im not to familiar) more secure them linux, whats the big deal of both of them?
Neither. A system is only as secure as its administrator.
Originally posted by primo but the approach used by OpenBSD doesn't still convince me, because the trade-off between security and usability isn't ok.
Well, it *is* for ISP's that need to have machines pretty much standing wide open to attack on the Internet... For the rest of us, no, the security over usability greatly decreases the usefulness of OpenBSD.
You mentioned Linux software running on the BSDs. This is not true for all apps; I do 3D modeling and animation using Maya , for which there is a Linux version. Being complex software, it relies on Linux too much to run on *BSD. Same with Shake.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.