I'm running OpenBSD as a daily driver and one of its nicer point is not the security angle, but how simple and hackable it is, while still fairly capable in terms of hardware support. Linux may be more convenient, but its subsystems are too complex and not prone to quick modifications.

▲

binkHN 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yep. While I've yet to run it on my production workstation, I absolutely love it for single purpose tasks.

▲

shevy-java 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Linux may be more convenient, but its subsystems are too complex and not prone to quick modifications.

LFS/BLFS. Which BSD has that?

I don't disagree with you fully, mind you, but I think this is mostly because many more noobs use Linux, whereas on the BSDs more people with a lot of knowledge use it. But even then I would reason that there are more experts using Linux than OpenBSD, simply due to numbers alone. Not all of them can be bothered to write blogs either. (And sometimes they have reallife hardships suddenly, such as Fefe.)

There is a reason the top 500 supercomputers all run Linux. No BSDs there.

https://www.top500.org/statistics/details/osfam/1/

	▲	lmz 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Surely any BSD is "FS" being a fully functional core system from one source tree?
	▲	ori_b 2 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> LFS/BLFS. Which BSD has that? That comes with the system. Here's the manpage: https://man.openbsd.org/release
	▲	skydhash 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> LFS/BLFS. Which BSD has that? They can’t have it. The BSDs are a complete system, where the kernel and utilities are built in sync. And building them is quite easy. Linux complexity may give you flexibility, but most users systems are fairly simple. OpenBSD has a lot of documentation, and if that’s not sufficient, you browse the source code to see what’s happening.