i find it hard to believe you're involved in such project. "more portable", "more secure" don't mean anything unless details are involved. i mean, if it runs on your target hosts, what could "more portable" possibly mean?
it's better to say: i'm trying out these two and i want a comparison. lying, saying your boss wants a bsd solution, doesn't make it seem more important! On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:17 AM, <benh...@gmx.us> wrote: > Hi > > A client of mine asked me if I can develop a BSD project for them. I don't have much experience with BSDs, and I have been collecting some background information. > I was given the choice between OpenBSD and NetBSD. > Now, since portability is not all that important, I was oriented towards OpenBSD, which is more secure. The only problem might be the lack of certain features on OpenBSD, such as support for a modern filesystem. As I said, I don't know much about BSDs, so don't flame at me if I say something incorrect. In fact, I am asking your advice. > What I would need for my project is a filesystem that supports, at least, journaling. From what I have seen, NetBSD already has that, while OpenBSD doesn't. > Has any modern filesystem been ported to OpenBSD? I really need to know, because this issue may constitute a stumbling block to my adoption of OpenBSD. > > Thanks > > Ben J. Rafter
