Like it says, Why use OpenBSD and not Freebsd?
I know to security is great in OpenBSD, but what else??

I'm not a BSD guy, but I feel like I recently read an article stating that of the three main BSD's that OpenBSD also is the most picky about being free (libre). A bit like gNewsense for linux, really avoiding binary blobs or anything that might be a gray area when it comes to freedom for modification and redistribution.

There's a quote here OpenBSD tech mailing list that sums it up well. The OpenBSD philosophy is that if the software can be restricted in ANY way (i.e. closed source, the GPL's copyleft or CDDL's similar modification distribution clauses, or whatever), regardless of the intent of the restriction, then the software does not belong in OpenBSD core. As such, you will *NOT* find inappropriately licensed software in OpenBSD core.

That said, there are plenty of packages/ports that allow you to install projects that are *NOT* BSD licensed, but not all ports are available as packages, and ports require building from source code (like FreeBSD's ports).

Personally, I feel that security is priority #1, so I run OpenBSD on many of my machines. If security and complete freedom don't matter as much to you, OpenBSD may very well be a bad choice *for you*.

Reasons for using OpenBSD: great security track record; immediate response to any problems in the core; continuous evolution produces a reliably better system at every release; excellent community[1] that is quite intelligent and helpful; very clean and sensibly structured; slim and trim, no bloat; but still tons of precompiled packages and also ports; intensely awesome networking features (pf, carp, relayd, ...); very passionate developers who really care about doing things right; and more.

[1]Some people really have a gripe with the OpenBSD community because they see them as arrogant jerks, etc. but nearly all of the people who are considered after this fashion are quite intelligent people who have better ways to spend their time than figuring out precisely what somebody's problem may be; they'd much rather have the questioner tell them exactly what the issue is so they can set about solving it. The way I see it, that's the mark of a highly skilled technical community that values the input and collaboration of other technically-inclined folks. It's a system by hackers and admins, for hackers and admins. If you're not willing to get dirty and you just want problems solved for you without helping any yourself, there's a fair chance you will not be treated kindly. This appeals to me because I'm kind of a mean (read: fair) guy myself; I think if you don't give input you don't deserve output. Now, others in the community may think otherwise and I don't speak for them, but that's just my view of it.

rocket357: I believe it is that while OpenBSD eschews GPL code in the core, some things just cannot be gotten around and have to be there, e.g. GCC. But like you said, it's avoided when at all possible.

/me crosses fingers for PCC

Try both, use the one you like.

FreeBSD is better in most hardware and security can be hardened further

I'll add that compared to just about any documentation I have used, the OpenBSD man pages are wonderful.

That won't impact me too directly, but I anticipate that it will be easier to follow -current when pcc replaces gcc as the default compiler.

Mostly what I like is that OpenBSD does virtually nothing behind your back.

Two excellent points. The OpenBSD FAQ (as well as the man pages) constitutes some of the best documentation I've seen...where other OS's man pages allow ambiguity, the man pages in OpenBSD are concise, thorough, and full of examples...and ambiguity is removed even if brevity suffers for it.

As for not doing anything "behind your back", that too is a characteristic I wish other OS's had more of...particularly the Redmond variety of OS...