Exactly, I found out the same with some googling, but the handbook specifically mentions it will describe the differences and then neglects to do it :)
I was first considering pf because I used it on Mac before, but the problem is the freebsd version was forked quite a long time ago and has different features than the openbsd version as a result.
I went for ipfw mainly because it seems to see the most active development.
But really, I wish FreeBSD would just pick one as standard and keep the others around for compatibility reasons if needed. One of the reasons I like FreeBSD is that you don't have to make such choices. Things have well chosen defaults.
Contrast this with arch which I mentioned, that even lets you decide which mechanism to use for network management (e.g. net manager, connman, systemd-networkd, netctl). It describes this choice really well in its excellent wiki, but when I tried arch it meant I had to do this kind of decision for pretty much every part of the OS :) What I like for FreeBSD is that they keep things simple.
I think Arch and FreeBSD have a lot in common, they're both intended for users that don't expect to click through everything and just dump you on a command prompt where you can set up stuff the way you want, instead focusing on excellent documentation.
I use FreeBSD on my daily driver PC now as I thought Arch was too much work with all the choices, and on the other hand the one thing I did want to change (systemd) it didn't allow.
>>CRUX is a lightweight Linux distribution for the x86-64 architecture targeted at experienced Linux users. The primary focus of this distribution is keep it simple, which is reflected in a straightforward tar.gz-based package system, BSD-style initscripts, and a relatively small collection of trimmed packages.
>>Inspired by CRUX, another minimalist distribution, Judd Vinet started the Arch Linux project in March 2002. The name was chosen because Vinet liked the word's meaning of "the principal," as in "arch-enemy"
BTW Crux is still a great distro, limited packages yes, but absolutely simple and rocksolid.
I like FreeBSB too...well it's my main system since years >8 probably. But if it need's to be linux then Alpine Arch Crux....or the RHEL's Debian's...if i really have to use them.
I was first considering pf because I used it on Mac before, but the problem is the freebsd version was forked quite a long time ago and has different features than the openbsd version as a result.
I went for ipfw mainly because it seems to see the most active development.
But really, I wish FreeBSD would just pick one as standard and keep the others around for compatibility reasons if needed. One of the reasons I like FreeBSD is that you don't have to make such choices. Things have well chosen defaults.
Contrast this with arch which I mentioned, that even lets you decide which mechanism to use for network management (e.g. net manager, connman, systemd-networkd, netctl). It describes this choice really well in its excellent wiki, but when I tried arch it meant I had to do this kind of decision for pretty much every part of the OS :) What I like for FreeBSD is that they keep things simple.
But where they do give a choice, I'd love it if they describe the pros and cons as well as Arch do: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Network_configuration#Netwo...
I think Arch and FreeBSD have a lot in common, they're both intended for users that don't expect to click through everything and just dump you on a command prompt where you can set up stuff the way you want, instead focusing on excellent documentation.
I use FreeBSD on my daily driver PC now as I thought Arch was too much work with all the choices, and on the other hand the one thing I did want to change (systemd) it didn't allow.