[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Chris Buechler <cbuechler at gmail dot com>
 Cc:  m0n0wall dash dev at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall-dev] RE: [m0n0wall] The future
 Date:  Wed, 12 Oct 2005 18:03:21 -0400
just a quick reply, more later.

On 10/12/05, Jonathan De Graeve <Jonathan dot De dot Graeve at imelda dot be> wrote:
>
> 2) Openbsd for obvious reasons
>

Everybody acts like there are a bunch of great, obvious reasons to go
with Open.  It's just not true.

Pros:  If using pf, it's the most logical choice.  there will be less
problems trying to make it work on an OS other than the one it was
written for.  that's all I'll give it, and even that isn't a major
issue, pf, pfsync/CARP, and ALTQ all work just fine on FreeBSD 6.0 and
are stable.

"designed for security" isn't really a plus here, these things just
tend to be developed on OpenBSD first and most make their way into
FreeBSD, and others.  Can't argue "it's more secure".  In the last 2
years of stable m0n0wall releases, how many security updates have been
needed because of FreeBSD?  Zero.  One security update in total,
ez-ipupdate, would have been no different on Open.

Cons:
- hardware support not nearly as good.
- wireless support much, much worse.  Yes, it has an ath driver, but
it's a hacked reverse engineered driver that can be expected to have
problems, and not support everything properly.  FreeBSD has enough ath
issues with the official binary drivers (though it's pretty good,
don't get me wrong).
- In addition to lacking wireless card support, it lacks support for
many wireless technologies that are in 6.0.
- Slow (around 1/3rd the speed of FreeBSD 4, or only a little faster
than FreeBSD 5.3 that we ran away from like the plague)

parts of this taken from the experience of people who ported pfSense
to Open and ditched their efforts because it wasn't worth it.  There
was no benefit to running on Open.

more later.
-Chris