OpenBSD 4.7 Released

The smaller codebase may be easier to secure, but the OBSD folks had problems with Apache's version 2 license changes, which they characterized as "less free".

I understand their reasoning, of course, because there's such a thing as principles and I can respect that. Still, how many of their users stay on 1.3 because of those same principles? How many just go and compile their own (un-secured) version of Apache 2.x instead?

OpenBSD has two major driving philosophies that I'm aware of - freedom of code and security of code - but in this case I have to wonder which one is more important. Is it more important to be as free as possible, even knowing that most (competent) admins will replace the secured Apache 1.3 with the non-OpenBSD-secured 2.2? Or should OpenBSD relent and include a secured Apache 2.2 in the default install, even though it's not as free as they would like, despite still being arguably 'free'.

As a pragmatist, I'd much rather have a secured 'slightly less free' OpenBSD install vs. a 'less secured' 'slightly less free' OpenBSD install. Maybe that's just me though.

I tend to use it for basic services (firewall, dns, e-mail) that I want to start with a decently secured base. It is actually pretty quick to install a server if you keep decent track of the config files and keep the ports handy.

Because many more people have Linux experience than BSD experience - there is no real other reason.