Holy War: BSD Vs. Linux

Ah, holy wars. vi vs. emacs. Mac vs. Windows. Marmite vs. starving to death. Who doesn't love a good, old-fashioned battle royale? Today, we're pitting BSD vs. Linux.

Background
Whilst in college, I was living in a bachelor pad with two other hackers. I'd been running Red Hat Linux 5.2 on my new PC for a few months when one of my roomies introduced me to FreeBSD 2.2.8. This single event sparked my love for BSD in general. Later, I'd come to really settle on OpenBSD. Over the last 15 years, I've written quite a bit about various operating systems including the BSDs. I by no means hate Linux. I still have to use it for some things. I simply have my gripes about it.

Leading up to the release of OpenBSD 4.5, I got in a few debates -- holy wars, kind of.

Wednesday, I got into a Linux/BSD debate with Mubix.

Then Ben, the instigator that he is, brought up a decent point in the public info-sec fora that is Twitter:
"... Why should I try [OpenBSD]? What advantages does it have over Linux?"

I, always ready to inject semantics to prove a point, started with the obvious: Linux is a kernel, not an operating system. I also quickly pointed out that Holy Wars are hard to do on Twitter. So here I am. Ben really wanted a comparison of OpenBSD vs. his current solution of Debian Linux.

Really, though, semantics have a lot to do with it. Linux is not a complete operating system.

Lineage of Linux
The Linux kernel itself is maintained by a core of kernel developers. Almost all Linux distributions come with the GNU system -- the so-called "userland environment" -- which was itself designed to replace the proprietary UNIX userland in the 1980s. The GNU system and the Linux kernel are developed independently of one another. In fact, Linus Torvalds was completing work on the Linux Kernel around the same time as The Free Software Foundation was putting the finishing touches on GNU. With these two free software components combined, a truly free operating system could be rolled out. This is, of course, why The Free Software Foundation prefers that people use "GNU/Linux" when talking about Linux as an operating system, rather than simply Linux as a kernel. Debian led the charge in adopting the GNU/Linux name.

This was all unfolding in the early 1990s, with the first distributions accessible to the masses around 1992 and 1993 with the popularity of dial-up Internet in the home and CD-ROM drives and media becoming less expensive and widely used.

Linux Distributions
While GNU and Linux combined make a bare-bones operating system with just enough tools to log in and compile software, it's not enough to be useful to the average person. To that end, groups package the GNU system, the Linux kernel and sometimes up to thousands of third-party packages into distributions. These distributions are complete operating systems: many of them are somewhat secure, stable, and usable for their given purpose.

Ubuntu, one of the more popular distributions, gathers praise for being one of the easiest for non-technical people to use. It also gets criticized by many technical folks who prefer something more svelte and minimalist. Those technical folks often choose Linux distributions that fit their needs: Arch Linux, Debian, or Gentoo. Likewise, corporations often spring for enterprise-supported distributions like SUSE Linux Enterprise Server or Red Hat Enterprise Linux. There are literally hundreds of active distributions, all of which loosely fall under the Linux umbrella. I do not have time to list them all, however I've touched on some of the more popular ones.

Configuration and package management
Package management systems, configuration tools, and other details vary widely between them. A sysadmin that uses SLES at work, for example, will probably have to spend some time figuring out how things with on Arch Linux or Debian GNU/Linux. Most Linux distros use a System V-style init based on runlevels. Configuring services and daemons usually involves messing with files and subdirectories in /etc/init.d/. The automated tools to do this, however, differ between families of Linux distributions.

Popular Linux package-management systems
RedHat Package Manager (Red Hat, SUSE, Fedora)
Debian Package (Debian, Ubuntu)
PacMan (Arch, Frugalware)
BSD-Derived Ports-like systems (Arch Build System, Gentoo)

Lineage of the BSDs
Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) started as an additional package to go with Bell Labs' Unix Version 6. By the end of 1979, 3BSD was a complete operating system (kernel and userland) designed to run on DEC VAX systems. By late 1983, BSD had implemented TCP/IP. Legal troubles surrounding copyright of the source code held back BSD's development in the early 1990s, but by 1994, a portable, free operating system (4.4BSD-Lite) existed: a kernel and userland wrought from a very mature code-base written by a comparatively small group of developers. Development of BSD at Berkeley win 1995.

A more mature and unified kernel / userland code-base, and smaller development community are two major things that separate BSD-derived operating systems from Linux distributions. All BSD operating systems still package many other open-source tools such as X.org, Apache Web Server and perl. Many of the BSDs come with some or all of the above included by default. To that end, even BSD flavors are similar to Linux Distributions in that the release team can pick and choose what gets rolled in with the base operating system.

BSD Flavors
During the legal battle encumbering official development on BSD, a team of developers ran with some existing free software from the official 4.3BSD release, 386BSD and some GNU code as well. The result was FreeBSD. FreeBSD now focuses on cutting-edge hardware support, performance and scalability. More "liberal" than the other BSDs, FreeBSD isn't vehemently against closed-source binary drivers and allowing developers to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements with hardware vendors in the name of functionality -- practices that Linux developers regularly partake in.

Around the same time, NetBSD was also underway. Today, NetBSD focuses on clean kernel code that is extremely portable and easy to compile across almost every 32-bit computing platform. If your kitchen sink had a CPU, it could probably run NetBSD.

OpenBSD forked from NetBSD shortly after NetBSD's 1.0 release, mostly due to a falling out between Theo DeRaadt and the rest of the NetBSD developers. OpenBSD's primary focus has always been on security and freedom of code. Strict code audits, re-writing open-source replacements for proprietary services, and refusal to use closed-source binary "blob" drivers or sign NDAs are some key factors.

Configuration
FreeBSD and NetBSD have a somewhat "hybrid" init for services and daemons. For the most part, "easy" system configuration tools are only found in the installation tools and scripts. Configuration is typically done by modifying human-readable files and scripts in /etc that are well-documented with comment lines. The syntax of the system tools often varies slightly from the GNU equivalents found in Linux distributions.

Package Management
Binary packages are handled nearly identically across all three major BSD platforms, which borrowed the functionality from FreeBSD.

The Ports Tree is a staple in BSD derivatives. It is a skeletal directory of patches that can automatically fetch, build, and install source code including all dependencies. NetBSD refers to this functionality as "Source packages" because it uses the term "Ports" to describe porting the entire operating system to different architectures.

In praise of Linux
No one had really heard of GNU until the Linux kernel came along. It was the last piece of a huge puzzle. That puzzle was a free operating system that beat BSD to the target market by almost 3 years. It took the Internet by storm, engaging a new wave of passionate coders. As a catalyst, Linux has probably done more for the Free and Open Source Software movement than anything else to date. It also happens to be that Linux's threading is quite efficient, and the kernel scales fabulously from old 386 computers up to bleeding-edge supercomputers. For things where symmetric multi-processing and threading matters, such as databases, Linux can be a very hard competitor to beat.

My Linux gripes
I feel like there are too many cooks in the kitchen sometimes. Updates to the kernel and GNU sources happen fast and frequently from a very, very diverse and loose pool of developers. It's both good and bad. It also seems like every budding techno-junkie has thought that it would be a good idea to learn how to craft their own Linux distribution. There are too many to be useful. Fortunately, there's a relatively small group of distributions that really matter out here in the real world. Still, one has to experience many of them in order to be what I'd consider a Linux expert. When hiring a sysadmin with 3 years of Linux experience you really don't know if they will have any idea what to do with the flavor you've got deployed, without asking. I also dislike the ominous verbiage and forced-open source of the GNU Public License under which most of Linux and all of GNU is licensed. The GPL forces you to share the source code to anything you derive from GPL-licensed work. While it sounds noble, it's actually a restriction on what you can and cannot do. The license itself is incompatable with some other popular licenses, so you may not be able to use code from two different projects if you plan on releasing the end result to the masses.

In praise of BSD
I'm an OpenBSD fanboy, but I like NetBSD and FreeBSD as well. If you've used one, you will probably be comfortable using the others. They are fast and come installed with a fairly minimal set of tools, but it's very east to install the things you want and need in order to build your system up the way you want it. I don't know anyone who's tried BSD coming from another UNIX-like operating system background and not at least liked it. The BSD license has less restrictions on what you can do with the code. While a smaller core of developers generally means the BSDs have less support than Linux for bleeding-edge hardware, I like the fact that the BSD flavors are more mindful of what is allowed into the base operating system. In the case of NetBSD and OpenBSD, I see a lot of benefits that come from a strict code auditing framework. Recently, FreeBSD has been working on scaling CPU performance, but it's taken them a long time to catch up to Linux on enterprise server class hardware.

My BSD gripes
With few exceptions, BSD is usually slow to the game for adding exciting new features and hardware support. Because of this, there are still places where the BSD kernel lacks the performance of Linux. BSD is therefore often playing catch-up with Linux on performance, while Linux is busy adding new features. The BSDs are often a pain in the ass to patch, too. And just like Linux, OpenBSD releases patches as soon as they fix a problem. They don't release binary patches, though, so you have to have a kernel and userland source tree available, manually patch and re-compile components, and move them into place. This is an arduous procedure that's arisen because of the portability of the source code. Still, I wish that official binary patches were released for popular architectures, such as x86. See: OpenBSD FAQ on Patching.

To answer Ben's original questions:
Why should I use OpenBSD?
If you are the kind of person who likes a lean environment for your desktop or servers, you will probably like any of the BSDs. I'd recommend starting with FreeBSD, or if you're a die-hard command-line commando, OpenBSD. If you're serious about security and stability, OpenBSD is a good choice. BSD isn't for everyone, and there are some things that it's simply harder to to on BSD than it is to do on Linux. Running Mozilla with Flashplayer, for example. I honestly don't miss having flash. It's an annoyance to me, most of the time. Exception: When someone sends me a really funny video on YouTube.

What advantages does it have over Linux?
I think I've made plenty of points and counterpoints regarding the technical advantages of Linux and BSD. It's difficult to compare Linux (in general) and all the BSD flavors side-by-side. So my initial comment stands: "Seriously, more geeks should give this operating system a try!" You might just like it!

OpenBSD's philosophy and ease of use are what keep me coming back. Are those advantages over Linux? No. It's about personal preference.

iPod touch hack released

iPOD touch hack released.
Check out http://www.ziphone.org/. Zibri found the solution to the iPod touch's in ability to be unjailed. The problem was with the nvram being corrupted.
Here is how to do it.

1. Just run the un-corruption utility in the zPhone utility
2. Run the jailbreak.
3. Install the BSD Subsystem.
   
4. Then Run the 1.1.3 updates for the BSD subsystem terminal for back spacing.
   
5. Then install the SUID Lib Fix .
6. Install The Term-VT100 terminal program.
   
7. Install the Cydia package (DEBIAN style package management!) which will replace the BSD subsystem.

Side notes:

• The /Library/LaunchAgent/ folder contains the daemon launch plists. deleting one will prevent it from loading.
  
• If you still have the BSD subsystem do not change the root password. The BSD passwd utility BREAKS the OS causing you to need to re-install the firmware. The Cydia utility works with out incident.
• The default root password for for the iPOD will be either "alpine" or "dottie".
  

Linux: Ready only for the geek desktop

I do almost everything within either OpenBSD, Solaris or Mac OS X. All of them required me to install quite a few extra pieces of software to work just the way I like, but at the end of the day, they're great for the things I do, with some exceptions noted in Solaris. I spend the majority of my time doing web stuff (surfing, forums, blogging), listening to music, writing e-mail, word processing, performing systems administration, and tinkering with encryption and information security. Occasionally, I may goof around with my own music or graphical art. Solaris lacks easily-installed free or bundled graphics, MIDI, and audio editing software.

Enter Linux. Linux is a pretty broad brush to be painting with these days. Linux is a kernel. It's also a highly generalized term for any operating environment with Linux at its core. The end result is quite confusing. As part of my job, I take care of a bunch of Red Hat Enterprise Linux servers. I've been familiar with Red Hat for quite some time. While I don't particularly like how Red Hat approaches certain things, I am quite good at installing, patching, managing, and tweaking Red Hat Linux servers simply because I've been doing it for so long. When I went to play with a totally different flavor of Linux on a spare server at home, however, my first instinct to use the command-line for everything was met with a few problems. Primarily, many of the tools and programs that Red Hat provides me with are nowhere to be found. Only because of my familiarity with Linux and UNIX flavors in general (okay, and my ability to read documentation) was I able to figure out how certain things were set up. For those who care, it was ArchLinux, but I had similar issues with SME Server as well, despite being loosely derived Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Right now, the big push in the Linux world is getting Linux onto the desktop. Linux for everyone. Break free from your commercial operating system hell! Linux is here to save the day! Ubuntu is the big name that gets thrown around most often. Self-described as "Linux for human beings", Ubuntu aims to be the final answer to the Linux desktop quandary. After trying Ubuntu Desktop, Ubuntu Server, and Kubuntu Desktop, I can say that "Linux" has come quite a way in its quest for desktop domination.

Ubuntu Desktop is based on the Gnome desktop environment. Asmodian X pointed out to me that Gnome feels an awful lot like Mac OS 9, and I wouldn't have quoted him on that unless I agreed. Part of the clunky feel is the fact that Linux is still bound by the X Window System. Essentially, all graphics go through a network or local socket. Windows and MacOS X don't suffer the same fate, and their interfaces simply feel more responsive. I can deal with a sluggish display, though. There are bigger fish to fry. All flavors of Ubuntu install quickly and ask a very minimal set of questions during installation. As long as the hardware is supported, pretty much anyone can get any of the Ubuntu flavors installed in minutes.

Ubuntu server is everything you'd expect in an open source LAMP server distribution that's released by a company that believes in ease-of-installation. Much like Ubuntu Desktop, only a small set of options are available during installation. The end result is a server distro that is neither lean and mean, nor bloated. It's pretty damned generic, and up to the user to install and configure what needs to be installed if anything more than a basic web application and database server is desired.

Kubuntu Desktop replaces Gnome with the K Desktop Environment (KDE) and a different set of bundled applications -- for the most part, the KDE-based apps are chosen over the competing software packages where available. Konqueror is the default web browser as opposed to Firefox. Kontact and Kopete handle mail/scheduling and Instant messaging respectively. The list goes on and on. If I had to compare Gnome to MacOS Classic, I'd have to say that on a user interface level, KDE feels a bit like Windows Vista with most of the snazzy features turned off, except a little more "Fisher Price." It kind of feels like a toy, but it gets the job done nicely.

Keep in mind that my impression of the two desktop environments is based only on Ubuntu. I haven't used KDE or Gnome prior to this in several years. Right now, I'd say I favor KDE over Gnome, at least in the configurations provided by Canonical (the company behind Ubuntu). There are other variants of Ubuntu which I have not yet tried, so they aren't being reviewed here.

After you get one of the desktop flavors of Ubuntu up and running, keeping the system secure and up-to-date is a breeze. The system checks for upgraded packages that are available for download, and alerts you to their presence. It's easier to keep Ubuntu up-to-date than it is to do the same on Windows. It really is that easy. Installing other software packages can be a breeze as well. Ubuntu provides a graphical application installer that lets you simply choose programs from a list or search through the list for what you want. You simply select the programs you want to install, then install them. The system handles all the downloading and installation procedures on its own, including any other packages that are required by the software you selected.

BSD has been doing package management like this for years without the graphical installation wizard. You still need to know what you want, and have to look through the list manually. Ubuntu is based on the Debian package system, and Debian has also had similar functionality for many years. This stuff isn't new, but combined with the other aspects of Ubuntu, it makes for a system that's pretty user-friendly.

• Installation is a breeze.
• Applications that you need to get going are already installed by default
• Patching and upgrading software is automated.
• Installing new software is as easy as picking it from a list.

Almost anyone can install and use Ubuntu without much of a fuss. What more could you ask for? Quite a bit, actually. Compared to Windows or Mac OS X (still the two heaviest hitters in the desktop operating system market), all Linux flavors are left wanting. Configuration of anything but the most rudimentary options requires the use of the command-line, which is not an environment that many people are comfortable in. For me? I live and die by the CLI and don't mind it one bit. If there's a software package that you read about for Linux and it's not on the list of stuff that Ubuntu provides, then there's no easy way to install it. Someone like me could download and unpack it, and compile it if needed. Most people are used to double-clicking on the installer or dragging the application (seemingly one file) to their hard drive. Don't get me started on the difficulty of installing certain drivers under Ubuntu.

The other advent that the Linux desktop has brought to the table is "Live" distributions. A Live distribution is an operating environment that boots from removable media such as a CD-ROM or Flash drive, providing an instantly functional system that doesn't rely on a hard drive to operate. Ubuntu and Kubuntu Desktop installation CDs initially launch in this mode. You truly get to try it before you install it. Things tend to load very slowly from CD, so the whole operating system seems very sluggish when run this way.

There are dozens of popular Live distributions that you could check out. Back|Track is my favorite so far: for hackers, geeks, auditors, and security professionals alike. Back|Track, is the end result of Whax and Auditor joining forces. Upon booting, you get a clean, functional desktop platform from which to launch any number of tests and exploits.

Truly, Ubuntu is only good for end users who are happy using it pretty much just as it comes from a default installation. The Live version is sluggish and not recommended as a replacement for Windows - a preview if you will. Other Live distos are great for tinkerers and nerds. For geeks and hackers, a full install of Debian or ArchLinux would be considerably more flexible than Ubuntu if you wish to stick with the Linux kernel.

In closing, I'll say that the biggest hurdle remaining for Linux to conquer on the way to end-user desktops is the fact that the command-line is still not optional despite the best efforts of the Linux community. A command-line should only be required as a last-ditch interface to the operating system in order to recover from some earth-shattering catastrophic failure. Windows has been to this point for years. OS X has as well. For some reason, Linux is lollygagging. It would also help if everyone could just agree on one package distribution model and stick with it. So far, I think Debian's system holds the most promise for the Desktop and enterprise workstations.