6 replies to this topic

[Sky]

I read articles and forums. When people discuss BSD and Linux, they always say BSD is more secure. I really read that every page that is about BSD. Google, Disney and lots of good companies use Linux. I just don't get it why they do not use a variant of BSD?

I really do not know.

Edited by Sky, 18 August 2010 - 11:14 AM.

[Alexander]

What are you wishing to do with your platform? For BSD the kernel and userland are a complete set, a stable and secure open source distribution that can handle a lot of thrashing for administrative tasks etc, but the Linux route is more user friendly package in general, no need to install all from source etc.

If you're looking for a home/server distribution then you're best off with a simple Ubuntu or Redhat, I prefer a nice Arch distribution though.

[Sky]

I am not wishing to do anything. I use Ubuntu for my laptop. I just wanted to know! Thanks.

[Jimi]

IIRC OpenBSD is a *BSD that focuses on security. So of course, if a Linux distro had the philosophy of maintaining the highest level of security, the outcome would be the same.
Besides that, maybe you could argue that since things have to be slightly ported to *BSD, the source codes get a nice look-over before they're implemented.

[bythos]

FreeBSD is great at being a server, not very good as a desktop. But if you run vmware/virtualbox on your desktop m$ windows in my case just run freebsd on top of that. Also has a lower memory foot than most linux distros making it good for this purpose.

[Sky]

OK thanks for replies :thumbup:

[b941]

Quote

Is BSD really more secure than Linux?

Yes, it's tested better. Linux is like an alpha-version of BSD. Kinda.
Linux is very raw whereas BSD is conservative. BSD guys don't rush it.