3 ms·
> 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 bi
by 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 agoI 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.