Want a Windows alternative? Try BSD

COMMENTARY-- Some of you may think there is only one contemporary Unix alternative to Microsoft's Windows and Apple's Mac OS: Linux. This, however, is a misapprehension. While Linux is definitely the open source Unix-like operating system with the most mind share, another offshoot of the Unix family tree is worthy of everyone's attention.

It's called BSD, which stands for Berkeley Software Distribution. It's a Unix variant whose development at the University of California at Berkeley began back in the 1970s (at least according to the comp.unix.questions FAQ), and whose influence is still felt today.

IN ADDITION to being a Unix derivative, BSD is also notable for having spawned the so-called BSD license, which is a significantly more liberal open source license than the GNU Public License, or GPL, under which Linux is distributed. While there are many subtleties in open source licensing, the high-level comparison between the two styles of license is that, unlike GPLed software, software distributed under a BSD-style license permits its reuse and modification without requiring that either changes or derivative software be made open source as well.

Thus far, Linux hasn't forked into multiple different versions. Even though there are different Linux distributions that each have their idiosyncrasies, there is still only one Linux kernel. In contrast, BSD has diverged into three separate versions, with Mac OS X being a recent fourth addition to the family. Despite having considerable overlap amongst themselves, each of the BSDs has carved out an ecological niche for itself.

FreeBSD is probably the most prolific of the BSDs. It's in widespread use as a high-traffic Internet server OS, and counts prominent businesses such as Yahoo and Hotmail among its users. While it originally became known as an x86-specific release, FreeBSD has over the past few years tried to become more processor-agnostic. The current release of FreeBSD, version 4.5, is available both for x86 and Alpha; ports to IA-64, PowerPC, Sparc, and x86-64 hardware are under development.

FreeBSD is also noteworthy for its relationship with Mac OS X. Parts of versions 10.0 and 10.1 of Apple's flagship OS--though not the kernel, nor anything driver-related--came from FreeBSD 3.2, which was released in mid-1999. But even more important than the code-sharing, FreeBSD's project leader, Jordan Hubbard, became an Apple employee last year. This bodes well for making OS X's BSD layer more current.

ANOTHER BSD, NetBSD, boasts extreme portability as its major claim to fame . NetBSD runs on a staggering number of different processor and hardware combinations. Fifty are listed on the project's front page. The latest release--version 1.5.2--is available for 21 platforms, and more are under development. NetBSD is especially popular for embedded devices due to its portable nature, but is otherwise an excellent all-round OS.

Last but not least is OpenBSD, my personal favorite of the triumvirate. While it runs on more hardware platforms than FreeBSD and fewer than NetBSD, OpenBSD's particular forte is its security. The ability to keep miscreants out of one's systems has always been a valuable feature, but it has taken on much greater significance of late.

OpenBSD's security is the direct result of the project's development methodologies, which include auditing the operating systems' source code for problems and applying the lessons learned from problems found throughout the core OS. OpenBSD's developers claim the OS has gone four years without a remotely exploitable security hole having been found in its default installation. While this is a qualified statement, it is still a high watermark to which other operating systems aspire.

OpenBSD also meets my needs best. Its basic installation is sparse without being Spartan, and provides a solid foundation to build upon. With contemporary Linux distributions, and to some degree with FreeBSD, I find myself spending more time removing software that I didn't want in the first place from an installation instead of working on adding the software I need. Also, knowing that the default install isn't prone to remote compromise saves me a great deal of time. With other OSes, I would have to spend time securing them immediately after installation.

THAT SAID, since OpenBSD is comparatively minimalist, it does take more work on my part to add the pieces that I need to turn a basic installation into a functional system. But this is a price I pay gladly in exchange for the security and comprehensibility OpenBSD affords me.

All the BSDs are undergoing constant and vigorous development. Since the BSDs frequently share code among one another, innovations frequently benefit more than just one camp. FreeBSD recently published its development road map, showing version 4.6's planned release in June. NetBSD is moving toward the release of version 1.6 as well, though no ship date has been set. By tradition, OpenBSD is on a biannual release schedule. Version 2.9 was released on June 1 of last year, with 3.0 following on December 1. OpenBSD 3.1 is expected around June 1 of this year.

If you're investigating and evaluating Unix-style OSes, don't pick Linux just because of the buzz. Take a good look at FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD as well, and make the most informed decision.

Would you consider switching from Windows or Mac OS to a Unix variant? Why or why not? And if so, which would you choose? TalkBack to me below.