I'm asking because i have not touched any BSD for over 2 decades...and I'm getting the itch to try some out...and was wondering if for server-type use cases (like you noted) whether OpenBSD is preferred over FreeBSD or the reverse, and why? Thanks in advance for any feedback you might provide!
And, I mentioned NetBSD for embedded stuff...but really, i *think* its that NetBsd is simply installed on tons of different hardware....so not only embedded....i kinda remembered that about NetBSD.
But, its the other BSDs - in particular FreeBSD vs OpenBSD - that i always forget the differences...but got it now. Thanks!
NetBSD is, however, the gold standard for an OS that runs on just about anything. Their (maybe unofficial) slogan has been “Of course it runs NetBSD!”. Their logo has a flag in it because they “plant their flag” on so many platforms.
NetBSD is small and simple. It's a lot like an old-school UNIX. It makes a decent platform for small services. I run bind and dhcpd on a NetBSD machine. The source code is very pleasant to read. It uses the pkgsrc software repository. It's my preferred platform for writing POSIX code.
OpenBSD still carries much of the general feel of NetBSD and can fill a similar niche on a network, but the security focus stands out in their documentation, subprojects (OpenSSH, LibreSSL, OpenNTPD, etc.), APIs (see pledge(8)), and policies. It makes for a great firewall. I'd say it also requires the most know-how.
All of them have excellent documentation (especially compared to Linux distros) and the base system is developed alongside the kernel, giving you a very consistent experience compared to Linux distros where everything is developed in isolation. If you write C, it's worth keeping a BSD system around just for the manpages and to make sure you're not letting Linuxisms creep into your codebase.
Just to clarify. It's not emulation in the sense it's slower or something. They call it compatibility layer, which is better, but also nobody knows what it means.
This is simplifying a bit, but it's essentially "Linux is just a kernel" so the interface is just Linux syscalls, so the FreeBSD kernel when executing a Linux binary simply answers like Linux (so it has those system calls). How this is used in practice is that on your file system you have Ubuntu/RedHat/... "installed" (so the files and the file hierarchy are lying there) and you either directly or in a FreeBSD jail execute things in there or the binary you have.
I don't know how well it works in the present but in the past that means you could simply download the Unreal Tournament 2004 multiplayer demo or Enemy Territory or other games and just play them as if you were running Linux, 3D acceleration and all, without VM without real emulating, just the kernel providing what a Linux kernel would provide.
Also "heavy" is very very relative and subjective. You can totally have a tiny FreeBSD and a huge OpenBSD and one could argue OpenBSD is "heavy" because it comes with three window managers, an HTTP server, a full blown SMTPD server, ACME client and a ton of stuff that eg a server install of Debian or Ubuntu doesn't come with. But also if you run eg. ZFS things are heavy of course. FreeBSD has however had a time when it tried to strip a lot of stuff from the default install and make stuff either optional or make things available through ports/packages only.
And also there are surprises to be had with such overviews: Eg. your Lenovo laptop likely will give you a more "out of the box" experience on OpenBSD compared to FreeBSD with things like simple wifi setup, sound often doing the right thing (work, come out the right place, etc.) compared to FreeBSD. Also with stuff like HTTPD with ACME being available in a simple way after install I'd say OpenBSD is easier than FreeBSD.
FreeBSD to me feels a bit more like "it can be everything you want it to be". Ports and packages can be complicated if you just start out, compared to OpenBSDs "just use packages" stance. On OpenBSD things in my experience are more of a "it works or doesn't" and when it works often out of the box and/or with docs, while on FreeBSD it's more like it throws some tools into your direction you can build stuff (poudriere, jails, a build system with many options). So it's really cool if you want flexibility but a bit more like you have to figure out if it's possible and how. But that might simply be because of the use cases I used it for.
That said all of them are real general purpose systems, unlike eg. some Linux distributions. So it's not like "OpenBSD is for routers" even though it often seems like it. There are time when the GPU support is better on OpenBSD than FreeBSD's. But also FreeBSD has official NVIDIA drivers, so it's all not that clear cut.
I will defend my "heaviness" argument, though. Sure, you can run OpenBSD on large hardware, but it's not going to be able to take advantage of it like FreeBSD can. Which makes sense if you think about it - FreeBSD optimizes for heavy workloads. Conversely, if you set up minimal installs, OpenBSD will be smaller. Again, that makes sense, since OpenBSD focuses on security over features (plus the only truly secure code is the code that doesn't exist). There's a lot of overlap in the middle, of course.
I wouldn't use OpenBSD for a NAS, and I wouldn't use FreeBSD for a diskless firewall. Not because they can't do those things - they just each have their strengths and weaknesses.
And, wow, do i miss the old X-window workstations...well, i should clarify that i LOVED those (I think they were Sparc?) workstations that ran Solaris or SunOS back in the day! Man, that takes me back some years...but i really loved those machines! :-)
OpenBSD on the other hand is perfectly happy to leave oodles of performance on the table for security. They were the first OS to completely drop Hyperthreading support for example, years before spectre/meltdown.
So with these things in mind, FreeBSD is a lot more performant.
