4 ms·

Only OpenBSD has a track record anything like going since ~1996 with only 2 remotely exploitable security bugs in the default installation. And ongoing, it has

by lcall 4y ago

Only OpenBSD has a track record anything like going since ~1996 with only 2 remotely exploitable security bugs in the default installation. And ongoing, it has far fewer (no?) privilege escalation bugs, etc., which gives some comfort as one installs packages beyond the default installation. So one can weigh security, clean organization & good documentation, vs. some convenience if needed features are missing (bluetooth is available sometimes via USB, I think I read in a mailing list, but no NFS, and some other things).

toyg 4y ago
> Only OpenBSD has a track record anything like going since ~1996 with only 2 remotely exploitable security bugs in the default installation. That stat is a bit meaningless, simply because most other OSes ship a default install that tries to do much more than OpenBSD does by default. They've downplayed it a lot over the years. > vs. some convenience if needed features are missing That "some", for everyday application developers, is surprisingly big. Last time I tried, anything related to Rust was a nope. Tons of tools just fail to compile (because "GNU is bad" or something). It reminded me of late-90s Linux, except there the community would jump at the chance to fix issues - whereas OpenBSD folks tend to just shrug (or even berate you).
- lcall 4y ago
  I think that instead of meaningless, it gives stability and control which one can lack elsewhere. Trust and local control, with those more things, but based on an explicit decision, not a less-secure default to start with. But to each his own, based on priorities, of course. Tons of tools fail to compile? My experience about lacking features feels different from what you describe. There are over 10k precompiled packages available, meeting my needs nicely. For example, I use rustc and cargo on obsd without trouble, just a simple install, though I think rustup is absent. I wonder if the rust project is still planning to integrate rustup into cargo sometime though, and how that is going.
sshd 4y ago
Gobbles says hi Gobble Gobble :PppPPPpppPP

by lcall 4y ago

toyg 4y ago

> Only OpenBSD has a track record anything like going since ~1996 with only 2 remotely exploitable security bugs in the default installation. That stat is a bit meaningless, simply because most other OSes ship a default install that tries to do much more than OpenBSD does by default. They've downplayed it a lot over the years. > vs. some convenience if needed features are missing That "some", for everyday application developers, is surprisingly big. Last time I tried, anything related to Rust was a nope. Tons of tools just fail to compile (because "GNU is bad" or something). It reminded me of late-90s Linux, except there the community would jump at the chance to fix issues - whereas OpenBSD folks tend to just shrug (or even berate you).

lcall 4y ago
I think that instead of meaningless, it gives stability and control which one can lack elsewhere. Trust and local control, with those more things, but based on an explicit decision, not a less-secure default to start with. But to each his own, based on priorities, of course. Tons of tools fail to compile? My experience about lacking features feels different from what you describe. There are over 10k precompiled packages available, meeting my needs nicely. For example, I use rustc and cargo on obsd without trouble, just a simple install, though I think rustup is absent. I wonder if the rust project is still planning to integrate rustup into cargo sometime though, and how that is going.

sshd 4y ago

Gobbles says hi Gobble Gobble :PppPPPpppPP