I started using OpenBSD on my IIci at 1.2 release.  I picked OpenBSD because
I was paranoid about security and I liked the "userland" stuff that's included
with it - less for me to maintain.

OpenBSD 1.2 was a bit unstable, but it worked for my needs.  When 2.0 came out,
it was really something, and I was thrilled to be using it.  Now 2.1 is out, and
I see continued stability and attention to security.  Looking over the 2.2 stuff
on the way, it's obvious the developers are really working on it.

I am unsure who is doing the Mac68k port of OpenBSD since 2.1 was released.  The
one person I used to work with seems to have dropped out of sight.  So it's a bit
fragile IMO in that respect.  It's obvious that more people are focusing on
NetBSD, and I think both camps lose from not working together.  However, most
stuff in NetBSD ends up in OpenBSD so it's not really a total loss.

I'm still doing longevity testing with OpenBSD 2.1.  It has never "expired" due
to any kind of memory or file corruption, and processes (except Top) are very
stable under it.  My current record is 17 days continuous operation (stopped by
an extended blackout).

My biggest regret is lack of built-in HFS support and not enough SCSI busses to
support all the drives I'd connect if I got HFS support.  (-:

BTW - we have a OPENBSD-MAC68K mailing list here at listproc@associate.com, which
I'm cross-posting this note to.  We just deal with port-specific issues there,
and discussion has been very light, despite the 24 subscribers.

> So, with that in mind, please help me decide which MacBSD I should run by
> giving my some honest, open, *NON-FLAMING* assessments of the strengths
> of the operating system you run.