> They instead focus on minuscule differences, which you could maybe argue are a bit better from a design perspective, (the default file system layout for examp

> They instead focus on minuscule differences, which you could maybe argue are a bit better from a design perspective, (the default file system layout for example), but in practical terms matter little. Why do you even bring this up? This article is pretty technical and in depth. Why would you bring up something that annoys you about comparisons of "these sorts" while this comparison does no such thing? > What I dislike about these sorts of articles is that they try to pretend as if *BSDs weren't heavily dependent on the wider FLOSS community, which is mostly Linux-based. What does that even mean? There was FLOSS before Linux. There would also be FLOSS without the BSD's. There would also be FLOSS without Linux. > They'll sing about BSD Jails and how Docker is strictly inferior, (also ignoring LXC), while not having any even remotely equivalent frontend for BSD Jails. Ironically I remember all to well that ease of use via a UI was the argument Microsoft primarily made against Linux in the 90s and 00s when the mantra was definitely NOT "nobody ever got fired for using Linux" . > 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. OpenBSD's focus on security has nothing to do with the "only 2 holes in the default install" slogan. When having to choose OpenBSD will not compromise on security. For example OpenBSD had already figured out SMT (Hyper threading) could never be made secure (and disabled it) before spectre and meltdown came along. > They'd laugh at the systemd debates, while talking openly about maybe them doing something similar. Your confusing implementation with concept here. Not many people deny that a system layer type of thing is needed. But there is a big difference between what for example Solaris SMF or Apple's Launchd (system layer implementations) considers to be "in the scope" of such a system vs what systemd thinks should be in scope.