4 ms·
Contrast that to how OpenBSD handled this. There was a thing, disk access, that shouldn't be allowed to those who could shutdown/reboot, so they bounced it arou
by deltarholamda 3y ago
Contrast that to how OpenBSD handled this. There was a thing, disk access, that shouldn't be allowed to those who could shutdown/reboot, so they bounced it around internally for a while, then de Raadt submitted a patch that said, "we're doing it this way, our users will figure it out, it's not a complex thing."
No massive re-architecting, just add a group, done. Businesses could learn a lot from the way the *BSDs and Linux do things. They're all different, but you can't argue with the results.
- nvy 3y agoI actually think, given how the usage share of the BSDs is a fraction of that of Linux or Windows, that OpenBSD is a textbook example of how "good enough" almost always trumps technical excellence. Linux is unquestionably less "cohesive" and "organized" than BSD but I can't think of any reason to reach for BSD given Linux exists.
- linksnapzz 3y agoThey find sufficient usage; even if their utility hasn't become relevant for you, yet.
- nvy 3y agoActually I used to run OpenBSD on a Thinkpad as a daily driver. Did that for work at a startup around 2010, but it was a miserable experience.
- linksnapzz 3y agoFor laptops, I've always found the least-miserable experience is to run what the manufacturer prefers as the OS. Sad, but true (for me).
- nvy 3y agoSame! Though mainstream Linux distros are quite good these days, for ThinkPads and Dells