2 ms·

This was not meant derogatorily, to whoever downvoted me... I‘m honestly interested. Obviously there has to be some advantage, otherwise it would have died out

• vertex-four 6y ago
  OpenBSD specifically has a very strong focus on security features - not just bolt-ons like containers and cgroups, but a code and development style which reduces the change of security-related bugs, and things like pledge(2) and unveil(2) which allow applications to reduce their privileges drastically through a far simpler interface than Linux's equivalents.
• floatboth 6y ago
  Alternatives always exist and should exist. Monocultures are bad! :P The community has existed for ages and it's not dying out because.. why would it? People just want to work on it for various reasons. From my perspective: it's easy to modify FreeBSD and contribute to upstream, the "monorepo" thing with keeping libc and the basic utilities developed together with the kernel is nice (no stupid "glibc devs don't want to make new syscall wrappers" situations lol), the kernel is less complex than Linux, and has made different (better) technical decisions in many cases (kqueue got pretty much everything right around 2000 while it took epoll and friends years to not suck; ALSA is.. baffling while FreeBSD's sound system is good; Capsicum is the right model for app self-sandboxing; "udev populates /dev by symlinking stuff from /sys" is nuts; jails are really hard to screw up, unlike the overly flexible linux namespaces; …)