3 ms·
> On the other hand, they don't mention the fact that the reason OpenBSD is so "secure", is because their marketing focuses on the default install, which has al
by wolfgke 7y ago
> On the other hand, they don't mention the fact that the reason OpenBSD is so "secure", is because their marketing focuses on the default install, which has almost nothing.
Which in my opinion rather shows that to be (rather) secure, the system has to be kept as minimal as possible. This is (in my opinion) a lesson that the GNU/Linux advocates should learn and embrace (just to mention one emotive word: systemd).
> as if ZFS was somehow their invention.
ZFS was an invention of Sun/Solaris, not the Linux ecosystem.
- AsyncAwait 7y agoThere are various kinds of Linux distributions, some super minimalist, others not so much. The point of having various distributions is exactly that, you have a choice. > systemd It indeed tends to be an emotive word, but just saying 'systemd' as if that's automatically saying something isn't helping either. There's things one could criticize about systemd, a lot systemd has going for it and many would argue that having a predictable, well-defined, declarative service definition syntax, that's consistent no matter the package or system, vs various sets of init shell scripts that probably wary quite widely in quality and are just slightly different across the *BSDs to possibly surprise you, is what makes systemd in fact better. As for ZFS not being invented in the Linux ecosystem, I haven't claimed that, just that it wasn't FreeBSD either.
- rooam-dev 7y agoBetter ZFS support would be a good technical reason to use one system over another, so it makes sense to mention it. I did not get the vibe of ZFS being FreeBSD thing either. PS: I use both Linux (CentOS) and FreeBSD (home server with ZFS).