3 ms·

> Let's face it, Solaris was a pile of crap. Security-wise alone, it was a disaster. Huh, that wasn't my impression at all - for a long while wasn't it much sa

by geofft 7y ago

> Let's face it, Solaris was a pile of crap. Security-wise alone, it was a disaster. Huh, that wasn't my impression at all - for a long while wasn't it much safer to have unprivileged untrusted users on Solaris than on Linux? (that is, Linux quite frequently had local privilege escalations, I thought Solaris didn't?) I guess "security" is a broad term, what sort of security?

armitron 7y ago
https://www.cvedetails.com/product/19755/Oracle-Solaris.html?vendor_id=93 https://www.cvedetails.com/product/19755/Oracle-Solaris.html... https://www.cvedetails.com/product/32658/?q=Suse+Linux+Enterprise+Server https://www.cvedetails.com/product/32658/?q=Suse+Linux+Enter...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- geofft 7y ago
  Both of those only show data from after 2013, which is well after Solaris lost. I'm afraid I don't understand your point? The code execution vulnerabilities from 2013 seem to be from third-parry products (pip, squid, etc.) What part of these links should I be looking at?
evanweaver 7y ago
I remember Irix as the bad one. SunOS/Solaris was ok. Linux/BSD was worse, until it was better.
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  These are products of a different era - the security vs usability or vs performance trade-off was very different during the heyday of IRIX. And you absolutely could make a secure IRIX or Solaris or whatever system; people just didn’t because they mostly didn’t need to (and those that did, just did it).
  - DonHopkins 7y ago
    Yes, Irix had its Software Usability problems... "Indy: an Indigo without the 'go'". -- Mark Hughes (?) https://yarchive.net/risks/sgi_irix.html https://yarchive.net/risks/sgi_irix.html