I can compare OpenBSD to dev versions of OpenSolaris, DragonflyBSD, NetBSD or some stable Linux distro and I must say that OpenBSD is more stable and useful in its current version then any other OS in its stable version. Read this http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq5.html#Flavors and especially this part is just plain true - In fact, as our hope is to continually improve OpenBSD, the goal is that -current should be more reliable, more secure, and of course, have greater features than -stable. Put bluntly, the "best" version of OpenBSD is -current.
There is different problem. Which type of server you want? Too much often customers don't want break of service and they don't want to pay for eg. cluster so their systems are running weeks/months/years without updates. It's strange and in my personal opinion very stupid. If you have something what's not connected to Internet then I think no problem as you don't need to care about remote security. But how useful is server without connection to Internet? ;-) In that case you may find upgrade feature of OpenBSD very useful as you can have system updated in about 5 minutes. It's not possible with any other system. On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 12:45 AM, nixlists <nixmli...@gmail.com> wrote: > If I upgrade to -current, don't I risk stability and security issues; > or are the chances of that are very low as far as this OS goes? Long > time ago I did try development versions of NetBSD and FreeBSD because > I needed support for hardware that -stable didn't have, and they were > quite shaky. Or do you guys just want more people to use -current for > the project progress reasons? I thought -current was for people who > are more into hacking code than running a stable server. > > Thanks. > > -- http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html
