SEO

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?

On 2008-04-30, GuestUser <guestuser@mailer-fake.org> 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

On 2008-04-30, GuestUser <guestuser@mailer-fake.org> 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?

Yes.

--keith


--
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

On 2008-04-30, GuestUser <guestuser@mailer-fake.org> 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

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

On 2008-04-30, GuestUser <guestuser@mailer-fake.org> 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-----

On 2008-04-30, +Alan Hicks+ <alan@lizella.netWORK> 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

> 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

Robby Workman <newsgroups@rlworkman.net> says:
>On 2008-04-30, GuestUser <guestuser@mailer-fake.org> 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

+Alan Hicks+ <alan@lizella.network> 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

On 2008-04-30, lukaswu <lukaswu@genesis.makusz.dyn.pl> 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