Slackware versus OpenBSD - Slackware

This is a discussion on Slackware versus OpenBSD - Slackware ; What are your thoughts about Slackware versus OpenBSD as a highly stable and secure infrastructure server for the following roles - firewall, gateway, file and print, DNS, and SMTP mail?...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: Slackware versus OpenBSD

  1. Slackware versus OpenBSD

    What are your thoughts about Slackware versus OpenBSD as a highly stable
    and secure infrastructure server for the following roles - firewall,
    gateway, file and print, DNS, and SMTP mail?

  2. Re: Slackware versus OpenBSD

    On 2008-04-30, GuestUser wrote:
    > What are your thoughts about Slackware versus OpenBSD as a highly stable
    > and secure infrastructure server for the following roles - firewall,
    > gateway, file and print, DNS, and SMTP mail?


    I'm no pro, but I think both are just fine. If I didn't use Slackware or if
    Linux was somehow compromised (they keep trying), I'd use OBSD. I keep it
    on one of my swap drives just to keep my unix chops up.

    nb

  3. Re: Slackware versus OpenBSD

    On 2008-04-30, GuestUser wrote:
    > What are your thoughts about Slackware versus OpenBSD as a highly stable
    > and secure infrastructure server for the following roles - firewall,
    > gateway, file and print, DNS, and SMTP mail?



    With which one are you *most* familiar? Use that one.
    I *like* OpenBSD; it's installed in another partition on my laptop;
    If I weren't using Slackware, I'd definitely be an OpenBSD user.
    However, "secure by default" is not very useful if the admin can't
    maintain it securely or has to do insecure things in order to use it.

    -RW

  4. Re: Slackware versus OpenBSD

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On 2008-04-30, GuestUser wrote:
    > What are your thoughts about Slackware versus OpenBSD as a highly stable
    > and secure infrastructure server for the following roles - firewall,
    > gateway, file and print, DNS, and SMTP mail?


    Keith summed it up most succintly, but I'll go into a bit more detail
    for your edification.[0]

    OpenBSD pros: pf beats the hell out of netfilter for ease of use,
    performance (at least in my limited testing), sanity, and feature-set.
    Also, OpenBSD's documentation is without equal due largely to their
    policy of treating any short-coming in the man pages as a full blown
    bug equal to any problem with the actual code. OpenBSD also tends to
    "push the envelope" on things in ways that other OS OSs don't.[1]

    Slackware pros: Better driver support, particularly for oddball
    things.[2] Generally easier upgrade path than OpenBSD. Better CPU
    performance, particularly with SMP systems. Easier choice for getting
    proprietary apps like Oracle and the like to run.

    For your needs, either will do justfine. I myself would probably
    choose OpenBSD in order to use pf, but that's a personal preference
    really; netfilter will do just fine.

    [0] Contrary to popular belief yours truly is intimately familiar with
    the grammatical and vocabular parameters of the English language.
    [1] For example, OpenBSD has really hammered vendors to give
    documentation for wireless chipsets and agree to things like allowing
    free redistribution of their binary firmware.
    [2] For example, the drivers for popular TDM cards are only available
    for Linux, not *BSD due to their being GPL only drivers.

    - --
    It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
    Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
    Ecclesiastes 7:5
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkgYvk8ACgkQrZS6hX/gvjo3bQCgnsvKrSIfYw2QqCbMBCVtSaae
    1a8AoJZWAURf9pIaFCJVwJok7lQv2Br4
    =2r0d
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  5. Re: Slackware versus OpenBSD



    > What are your thoughts about Slackware versus OpenBSD as a highly stable
    > and secure infrastructure server for the following roles - firewall,
    > gateway, file and print, DNS, and SMTP mail?


    Alan wrote you nice piece of comparison, my experience says: OBSD is
    perfect for front line firewalls, PF needs aprox. 75% lines less than
    ip tools, iptables etc etc.

    The only thing I have against OBSD (if regular use is considered) is IO
    efficiency- it is really sloooow.
    And smaller thing: CPU scalability is far behind Linux kernel.

    PS. God bless ed, if you install OBSD from floppy you will know what I
    mean

    --
    luk


  6. Re: Slackware versus OpenBSD

    On 2008-04-30, +Alan Hicks+ wrote:
    >
    > Keith summed it up most succintly, but I'll go into a bit more detail
    > for your edification.[0]
    >
    > [SNIPPED]
    >
    > [0] Contrary to popular belief yours truly is intimately familiar with
    > the grammatical and vocabular parameters of the English language.



    But not spelling, right? Did I say that succinctly enough? ;-)

    Sorry, I couldn't resist.

    -RW

  7. Re: Slackware versus OpenBSD

    Robby Workman says:
    >On 2008-04-30, GuestUser wrote:
    >> What are your thoughts about Slackware versus OpenBSD as a highly stable
    >> and secure infrastructure server for the following roles - firewall,
    >> gateway, file and print, DNS, and SMTP mail?



    >With which one are you *most* familiar? Use that one.
    >I *like* OpenBSD; it's installed in another partition on my laptop;
    >If I weren't using Slackware, I'd definitely be an OpenBSD user.
    >However, "secure by default" is not very useful if the admin can't
    >maintain it securely or has to do insecure things in order to use it.


    How is BSD for packages these days? The last time we did an
    install, admittedly 4 or 5 years ago, the big packages were two or
    three revisions behind.

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  8. Re: Slackware versus OpenBSD

    +Alan Hicks+ says:

    [pgp trash troll delete]

    Why the pgp trash? What is the purpose of putting your name in
    lights?

    Is your dick really that small?

    cordially, even to pgp trash trolls,

    rm

  9. Re: Slackware versus OpenBSD

    On 2008-04-30, lukaswu wrote:

    > PS. God bless ed, if you install OBSD from floppy you will know what I
    > mean


    There are still ppl without broadband? Horrors!

    OBSD and all its packages installs great from online.

    nb

  10. Re: Slackware versus OpenBSD

    On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:25:39 +0200, lukaswu wrote:

    > The only thing I have against OBSD (if regular use is considered) is IO
    > efficiency- it is really sloooow.


    Really? From what outhouse wall did you read that?

    > And smaller thing: CPU scalability is far behind Linux kernel.


    How many CPUs do you require to build a firewall? A 486DX2 will handle
    10 Mbit/sec IP traffic at 10% CPU utilization.

    > PS. God bless ed, if you install OBSD from floppy you will know what I
    > mean


    Really, with the install sets on a server the entire OS goes onto HDD in
    less than 5 minutes. Makes me fall to sleep waiting.

  11. Re: Slackware versus OpenBSD

    On 2008-04-30, Realto Margarino wrote:
    > Robby Workman says:
    >>On 2008-04-30, GuestUser wrote:
    >>> What are your thoughts about Slackware versus OpenBSD as a highly stable
    >>> and secure infrastructure server for the following roles - firewall,
    >>> gateway, file and print, DNS, and SMTP mail?

    >
    >
    >>With which one are you *most* familiar? Use that one.
    >>I *like* OpenBSD; it's installed in another partition on my laptop;
    >>If I weren't using Slackware, I'd definitely be an OpenBSD user.
    >>However, "secure by default" is not very useful if the admin can't
    >>maintain it securely or has to do insecure things in order to use it.

    >
    > How is BSD for packages these days? The last time we did an
    > install, admittedly 4 or 5 years ago, the big packages were two or
    > three revisions behind.



    Some of them are a bit "behind" and some are current, but I have yet
    to find one that doesn't "just work" when installed. Quality and
    stability is more important than having that "new and shiny" version
    number.

    -RW

  12. Re: Slackware versus OpenBSD

    notbob wrote:
    >
    > There are still ppl without broadband? Horrors!
    >


    Not everyone thinks broadband is worth $60/month....

    - Kurt

  13. Re: Slackware versus OpenBSD

    Robby Workman says:
    >On 2008-04-30, Realto Margarino wrote:


    >> How is BSD for packages these days? The last time we did an
    >> install, admittedly 4 or 5 years ago, the big packages were two or
    >> three revisions behind.


    >Some of them are a bit "behind" and some are current, but I have yet
    >to find one that doesn't "just work" when installed. Quality and
    >stability is more important than having that "new and shiny" version
    >number.


    We were talking about revisions and updates, not new versions.
    Usually revisions are made in the name of quality and stability.
    But you are right about new versions - they are usually not as
    stable.

    cordially, as always,

    rm
    --
    http://sports.jrank.org/pages/4065/R...lishments.html


  14. Re: Slackware versus OpenBSD

    On 2008-05-01, ~kurt wrote:

    > Not everyone thinks broadband is worth $60/month....


    I doubt anyone thinks it's worth that. I didn't, even though I paid it
    because that's how crumcast sets up its extortion racket. OTOH, (your
    response was so predictable) who the Hell needs a firewall/router/server for
    dial-up?

    nb

  15. Re: Slackware versus OpenBSD

    Robby Workman wrote:
    > On 2008-04-30, Realto Margarino wrote:
    >> Robby Workman says:
    >>> On 2008-04-30, GuestUser wrote:
    >>>> What are your thoughts about Slackware versus OpenBSD as a highly stable
    >>>> and secure infrastructure server for the following roles - firewall,
    >>>> gateway, file and print, DNS, and SMTP mail?

    >>
    >>> With which one are you *most* familiar? Use that one.
    >>> I *like* OpenBSD; it's installed in another partition on my laptop;
    >>> If I weren't using Slackware, I'd definitely be an OpenBSD user.
    >>> However, "secure by default" is not very useful if the admin can't
    >>> maintain it securely or has to do insecure things in order to use it.

    >> How is BSD for packages these days? The last time we did an
    >> install, admittedly 4 or 5 years ago, the big packages were two or
    >> three revisions behind.

    >
    >
    > Some of them are a bit "behind" and some are current, but I have yet
    > to find one that doesn't "just work" when installed. Quality and
    > stability is more important than having that "new and shiny" version
    > number.
    >
    > -RW

    well i tried to use ports on firefox
    a month ago (freebsd 7.0) and after downloading it (may i say the
    progress indicators (even in the install )are pretty neat )
    but it failed during compiling so i emerged the linux version
    in linux-compat and that one did work.

    i found this to be very confusing but heej
    it could have very well be my own doing.
    it took me a while to ... well do anything ( damn csh )
    and the fact you can't su out of the box and the fact
    that vmware sometimes interferes with numlock settings
    didn't make it any easier

  16. Re: Slackware versus OpenBSD

    On Thu, 1 May 2008, notbob wrote:

    >
    > On 2008-05-01, ~kurt wrote:
    >
    >> Not everyone thinks broadband is worth $60/month....

    >
    > I doubt anyone thinks it's worth that. I didn't, even though I paid it
    > because that's how crumcast sets up its extortion racket. OTOH, (your


    Dont move to Australia then, 60 is cheap, oh sure you get the sneaky
    bastards try advertise broadband from 29.95 but that includes like 1 or
    2 hundred megs and typcially only on a 256/64 dsl, I'd do that a week in
    email alone.

    its basically forced because the assholes who own the last mile copper
    (telstra) are extorionate ****nuts and the AGVC tail alone with dslam port
    without data probably costs more then what your avg U.S ISP charges you,
    and any ISP here dumb enough to get their transit data from tel$tra will
    charge you even more becasue of their extortionate practices. competition
    like Optus and MCI are great, they charge similar in transit data to each
    other, between 200 to 500 cheaper per MB, and more reliable

    Lets go back a few years, say about 7/8 years ago, most U.S ISP's got
    data at a rate of between $2 and $5 per GB, that same data was costing us
    between $150 and $190 GB, thankfully they cant do that anymore because of
    competition, but just goes to show what a monopolistic profiteering mob
    of c#n%$ telstra are.

    Its cheaper here to get ADSL2, with large more amounts of data, why?
    because tel$tra are not an ADSL2 player, thats Optus and a few smaller
    companies. But ADSL2 is only available in select areas, not the entire
    country, yet, when it is most aussie ISP's will shove the ADSL1 contracts
    down the loo and stick to hel$tra (as they are commonly known here)

    moral of my rant, cheaper internet for most != .au
    we'd like to give more for less but ISP's are businesses and running at a
    loss is not an option, like any business.

    There, now I'm sure you dont feel as bad having to pay 60 bucks a month

    /coffee-time

    --
    Cheers
    Res

    I read usenet and lists in pine. But m$ outlook, thunderbird and gmail
    often use html span/whatever for quotes, makes it hard to tell who said
    what, so I dont try. If I ignore you, thats why! Use a compliant mailer.

  17. Re: Slackware versus OpenBSD

    On Fri, 02 May 2008 08:18:59 +1000, Res wrote:

    > On Thu, 1 May 2008, notbob wrote:
    >
    >
    >> On 2008-05-01, ~kurt wrote:
    >>
    >>> Not everyone thinks broadband is worth $60/month....

    >>
    >> I doubt anyone thinks it's worth that. I didn't, even though I paid it
    >> because that's how crumcast sets up its extortion racket. OTOH, (your

    >
    > Dont move to Australia then, 60 is cheap, oh sure you get the sneaky
    > bastards try advertise broadband from 29.95 but that includes like 1 or
    > 2 hundred megs and typcially only on a 256/64 dsl, I'd do that a week in
    > email alone.


    I have an account like that with Optus. I get 2000MBytes a month, up and
    download. When I go over that limit then I get capped back to 64Kb/s. I
    can't unfortunately afford a $60 or better plan.

    Frankly I blame the government. Australia didn't have decent Internet
    access before the privatisation of Telstra nor do we have it afterwards.
    They have let our communications systems rot for so many decades it is
    not funny, considering how much opportunity we had to switch to ISDN in
    the 90's.

    Richard James
    --
    sig fail on line -1

  18. Re: Slackware versus OpenBSD

    Richard James wrote:
    > On Fri, 02 May 2008 08:18:59 +1000, Res wrote:
    >
    >> Dont move to Australia then, 60 is cheap, oh sure you get the sneaky
    >> bastards try advertise broadband from 29.95 but that includes like 1 or
    >> 2 hundred megs and typcially only on a 256/64 dsl, I'd do that a week in
    >> email alone.

    >




    > Frankly I blame the government. Australia didn't have decent Internet
    > access before the privatisation of Telstra nor do we have it afterwards.
    > They have let our communications systems rot for so many decades it is
    > not funny, considering how much opportunity we had to switch to ISDN in
    > the 90's.


    This is actually a great example of how studies can so easily misrepresent
    reality. The " 2008 International Broadband Rankings", which was just posted
    to /. today, would claim Australia is doing a lot better than the US, and
    claims broadband costs almost 1/3 of what it costs here in the US:




    - Kurt

  19. Re: Slackware versus OpenBSD

    On 2008-05-02, Richard James wrote:

    > I have an account like that with Optus. I get 2000MBytes a month, up and
    > download. When I go over that limit then I get capped back to 64Kb/s. I
    > can't unfortunately afford a $60 or better plan.


    I have an older scheme with aapt 512 / 128 12 gig download and then
    64k for $40 (bundled with phone etc). Mind you the 'new' schemes are
    less generous.

    Andrew

    --
    http://www.andrews-corner.org

  20. Re: Slackware versus OpenBSD

    On 2008-05-03, ~kurt wrote:
    > Richard James wrote:
    >> On Fri, 02 May 2008 08:18:59 +1000, Res wrote:
    >>
    >>> Dont move to Australia then, 60 is cheap, oh sure you get the sneaky
    >>> bastards try advertise broadband from 29.95 but that includes like 1 or
    >>> 2 hundred megs and typcially only on a 256/64 dsl, I'd do that a week in
    >>> email alone.

    >>

    >
    >
    >
    >> Frankly I blame the government. Australia didn't have decent Internet
    >> access before the privatisation of Telstra nor do we have it afterwards.
    >> They have let our communications systems rot for so many decades it is
    >> not funny, considering how much opportunity we had to switch to ISDN in
    >> the 90's.

    >
    > This is actually a great example of how studies can so easily misrepresent
    > reality. The " 2008 International Broadband Rankings", which was just posted
    > to /. today, would claim Australia is doing a lot better than the US, and
    > claims broadband costs almost 1/3 of what it costs here in the US:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > - Kurt


    After looking at itif.org, looks like, smells like a lobby group rather than
    a non-partisan organization - besides their domain registration is private -
    strange for a non-partisan group. In addition, too many members of
    congress give itif the thumbs up...

    ken

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast