>Theo BTFO Linus
Why is Linux so insecure and inferior, /g/?
http://www.openbsd.org/papers/hackfest2015-pledge/mgp00001.html
the fuck's up with that website
why is it like an autistic powerpoint presentation
>L..Linus called us mean names ;_;
fuck, the open source community is dumb as fuck
I'm thinking about trying OpenBSD sometime. what do all the different *BSDs (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, DragonflyBSD, etc) have in common? are the commands the same? is the kernel the same?
>comic sans
He should've made a different OS rather than implement it on GNU/Linux
>>51278196
that's like asking what do the different Linux distros share
>>51278208
I'm just asking for a few things they have in common.
>>51278219
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_BSD_operating_systems
>loudmouth linus
fukkin lol that "presentation" screams autism
>>51278196
>what do all the different *BSDs (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, DragonflyBSD, etc) have in common
They all come from the Berkeley Software Distribution, ie the original BSD, which was one of the popular Unix systems back in the 80s / early 90s. The original BSD was modified to strip all propietary AT&T (original UNIX developer) and ported to the Intel 386, calling it "386BSD". FreeBSD and NetBSD were born from that 386BSD, and after a while Theo forked NetBSD and created OpenBSD.
>are the commands the same
The base is probably similar, but obviously there's some differences as they are separate projects since the 90s.
>is the kernel the same
No.
>>51278208
>that's like asking what do the different Linux distros share
That's a terrible analogy. Distros just package upstream projects.
>>51278247
it's safe to assume anyone who is remotely important in free software (linus, theo, richard stallman) is autistic with an inflated ego.
>>51278185
The proprietary software industry isn't any better and is often worse.
>wanted to deploy openbsd for a decade
>because linux hobbyists control foss, i'm forced to use linux on almost everything
reminder that linux is a hobby os for ricers
I'm thinking about trying OpenBSD, but I keep hearing that if you install anything you'll ruin the out of the box security. is that true or it just FUD?
>>51278318
which out of box security are you talking about? OpenBSD is insecure by default as it doesn't offer any binary security updates.
>>51278318
the more complex a system is the less secure it is
>text on the webpage is actually baked into image
What the fuck is his problem?
>>51278336
how?
>>51278347
greater attack surface, greater likelihood of breaking or failing
>>51278360
give some specifics
>>51278196
IIn June 1994, 4.4BSD was released in two forms: the freely distributable 4.4BSD-Lite contained no AT&T source, whereas 4.4BSD-Encumbered was available, as earlier releases had been, only to AT&T licensees.
The final release from Berkeley was 1995's 4.4BSD-Lite Release 2, after which the CSRG was dissolved and development of BSD at Berkeley ceased. Since then, several variants based directly or indirectly on 4.4BSD-Lite (such as FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and DragonFly BSD) have been maintained.
The kernel has mutated and evolved. What the difference is, I'm not sure.
The commands are mostly POSIX with some nuances...
I think the BSD community is mostly made up of people such as myself who just want their damn computers to work.
The Linux community is made up of a spectrum of idiots...this being said there are some brilliant devs that work on Linux, just because it seems like less of a walled garden.
I am saying this because I have met one low level developer, who was a very capable programmer. but in most instances these people have been continuing to do what they want to do, more and more leaving each time there is a major fiasco over INIT systems or such.
It is important to know that OpenBSD was built with the promise of getting a government grant, if you make it your business knowing who owes favors to who. Theo sort of give me a headache and I suppose that I will leave OpenBSD soon.
When it comes down to it the documentation is the most important part of a distribution, unless you're "only using it as a web portal"
But then you may as well be running Windows 95 if this is the case.
>>51278370
linux vs lamp
![mgp00008[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/PxRmx5O.jpg "mgp00008[1].jpg")
What does he mean by this?
>>51278386
most people just disable selinux
>>51278381
can I still use OpenBSD as a daily use OS? code correction and being well documented being the main philosophy behind the OS is very appealing to me.
>>51278400
yes
>>51278400
You can but be aware speed and hardware support are not the main concern with the project. I don't believe TRIM support works on SSDs and nvidia graphics are completely unsupported and will likely never be supported.
>>51278284
if you do it for free, you kinda have to be
like janitors and mods
>>51278173
The OpenBSD guys use comic sans for their Internet slideshows specifically to piss off font dweebs.
>>51278676
Nouveau works, as do the good open source drivers for Intel and AMD, but if you need an OS for muh gaems stick to Windows or Linux.
>>51278339
He has autism
speaking of openBSD, what do you guys think of pledge() that comes with openBSD 5.8? it looks like its going to be very useful.
>>51278806
or if you need security, you wouldn't use shitty ported linux drivers from years ago, that were never audited by OpenBSD devs.
>>51278400
nope, openBSD isn't a desktop os. all those parts are in ports which are just awful quality and unsupported. even retards should notice how outdated their browsers are.
OpenBSD is fucking awesome.
Linux is complete trash and I'd wish it had never gotten traction but I guess you have to target shitware like the Linux kernel when you wont to be able to easily slip shit in.
Linux users are worse than their kernel, they brag about everything but really all they are are poor losers with too much free time.
They don't care about the code, its correctness, or how secure it is. All they care is that it's free for their wallet.
>>51279160
>openbsd cares about code
>openbsd cares about correctness
>openbsd is secure
all three are memes and the third one is a lie.
>>51279160
>they are are poor losers with too much free time
says the one using a research OS.
>All they care is that it's free for their wallet.
but OpenBSD is free, too.
Complete security is a tradeoff to usability. You can get ultimate security by disconnecting the power supply and hiding away the HDD but most people want a system more usable than that.
>>51279190
>Complete security is a tradeoff to usability
sounds like false dichotomy and dealing in absolutes.
stop watching fox news and believing things like you can only get security while giving up your freedoms.
kekats
>>51278196
It varies a bit but they're broadly similar, all modern BSDs are based upon 4.4BSD/386BSD - a direct descendant of UNIX.
FreeBSD is the most popular BSD and is run on a LOT of servers. It's more performance oriented than the other BSDs.
OpenBSD is focussed on code quality, and thus is extremely secure and stable. This is often at the expense of speed and backwards compatibility. Many project from OpenBSD are used in other systems (OpenSSH for example).
NetBSD is all about portability and backwards compatibility. If you need to run BSD on an ancient soviet base-3 architecture you run NetBSD. Pointless to run on x86 IMO.
PC-BSD is FreeBSD with a pretty skin.
DragonFlyBSD is for clusters and supercomputers.
Generally all BSDs share projects/patches with each other so they all work very similarly. Linux is a bit more cutting edge usually and gets all of the attention but BSD is designed to work seamlessly and rarely are there problems.
>>51278196
They all are very similar, in that they all share a common heritage through the BSD version of Unix. They also borrow from each other liberally. The differences between them is mainly in commands and how things are done. Once you learn one though, you can generally switch between them with minimal effort.
Also they aren't as dissimilar from Linux in terms of use, as either community will make them out to be. If you are comfortable using Linux, moving to a BSD won't feel at all foreign to you. They are generally simpler than Linux distros though, which will likely spoil you. Once you use OpenBSD for a while, Linux will begin to feel somewhat awkward, and convoluted.
OpenBSD is probably the better choice of them all for a desktop system. It comes with X as an optional part of the base, which is where the major headaches of installing a DE are.
XFCE works great on OpenBSD, and I hear KDE does too, if you happen to like it. Gnome on the other hand supposedly is even more shit than normal. Personally I use XFCE, but I'm really liking Fluxbox lately, which also runs nicely on OpenBSD.
>>51278791
Don't they realize that it's post-ironically cool to like comic sans among font dweebs these days?
I think Helvetica is the most hated font these days.
>>51279434
>OpenBSD is probably the better choice of them all for a desktop system. It comes with X as an optional part of the base, which is where the major headaches of installing a DE are.
FreeBSD user here, it's not hard to use FreeBSD as a desktop, PC-BSD is the desktop variant of FreeBSD, it's essentially the same system but with a nice installer and they have some interesting tools of their own for desktop systems. Outside of that if you can install and run Arch, Gentoo, or any other minimal GNU system then you'll do fine with FreeBSD itself.
There's a nice guide people always recommend too
https://cooltrainer.org/a-freebsd-desktop-howto/
That all being said I have friends who use OpenBSD on their desktop systems and enjoy it a lot, I haven't gotten around to trying it myself since I'm too content with Free. I use it on my desktops, laptops, and various other systems.
http://www.openbsd.org/papers/hackfest2015-pledge/mgp00023.html
Fuck I love this shit. Kind of like the permissions thing on android/Ios. I want it to take off. Too bad nobody will ever implement it.
>>51278333
False. Pretty much everything non-essential is turned off by default. The less services you have running, the more inherently secure the OS is going to be.
>>51279022
>how outdated their browsers are
>firefox 42
>chrome 46
>>51279713
>The less services you have running, the more inherently secure the OS is going to be.
bullshit
>>51279408
>This is often at the expense of speed
That's actually mostly because Theo and co run it on their laptops and thus set the ticking rate to 100hz (as opposed to 1000!) in order to preserver battery.
Proof: kern.hz
>>51279691
Oh shit that's actually great.
>>51279880
I don't know if I agree with the original statment but the opposite is certainly true.
>the more services you have running the less inherently secure the OS is going to be
More services is just more potential vectors of attack regardless of how secure you think they are.
>>51279880
the common meme is "openbsd disables all the services by default, so you have to enable stuff/install packages as soon as you install, so it's useless"
this is a lie from linux types and not what openbsd means by "secure by default"
"secure by default" is covered in the OP, it means unlike selinux that everybody turns off, openbsd focuses on security features that you can't turn off and don't have any reason to turn off, because it has no effect on the user experience
things like w^x, aslr, pie, stack protector, privsep/privdrop, and pledge
>>51279691
maybe it might. pledge is the renamed tame(2) that got put into openbsd 5.8 after all.
>>51279507
I tried PCBSD a few years ago and hated it. It just seemed sluggish and unresponsive. I do like FreeBSD itself though. It's a lot easier (maybe less frustrating or tedious would be more fitting) to install than Arch, and way easier than Gentoo, in my experience.
I just prefer OpenBSD over it, because it's what I'm used to. Having a better variety of packages, and better compatibility with Linux would be nice though.
>>51278791
>we're autistics who knows nothing about design
>let's use the shittiest font and pretend we're doing it ironically so people wont call us on our autism
Freetard logic
>>51278305
>>wanted to deploy openbsd for a decade
>>because linux hobbyists control foss, i'm forced to use linux on almost everything
>reminder that linux is a hobby os for ricers
Are you me? It has even kept me from considering it despite its brilliant reputation (would only take a mod to kern.hz to fix the ticking rate).
I don't even know if OpenBSD has proper vaapi and open source radeon drivers.
>>51278339
>thinking Theo is gonna let you override comic sans for your own fonts
Nice try.
>>51278400
>can I still use OpenBSD as a daily use OS? code correction and being well documented being the main philosophy behind the OS is very appealing to me.
Don't forget to patch the ticking rate in kern.hz by changing it from 100 to 1000 (standard for AMD64 cpus).
>>51280070
>I don't even know if OpenBSD has proper vaapi and open source radeon drivers.
OpenBSD has open source radeon and intel graphics drivers. Actually has the best support for those of all the BSDs.
>>51279993
PC-BSD has gotten much better in recent times and is finally getting some popularity (and thus support). I still don't recommend it to anyone who can install things themselves but if people need a hand-holding distribution it's alright for that until they get their bearings.
I'm real excited about NeXTBSD myself but that's unrelated. Bunch of MacOS tech coming back into BSD like launchd but with lessons learned (UCL instead of XML etc.).
>>51280105
>OpenBSD has open source radeon and intel graphics drivers. Actually has the best support for those of all the BSDs.
Can I build radeon-git normally as I would on GNU/Linux, and use DRI3?
>>51280211
dunno. maybe. kind of doubt it, the drm is not the bleeding edge linux version
>>51279911
how do I fix? will it be faster than linux?
>>51280247
They said in the post, and nigga you know that shit depends on the task.
>>51280247
http://www.bsdnewsletter.com/bsda-book/Modify_a_kernel_parameter_on_the_fly.html
No idea, benchmark it and post it here.
How is OpenBSD for watching media? Can I watch all my chinese cartoons on it? Does it have mpv?
>>51280393
yes, 0.12.0
>>51279923
All of the BSDs have smaller, less bloated, base installs than any Linux distro. Everything included in the base is part of the OS itself, but not necessarily essential. OpenBSD is more conservative about what it has running by default than the other BSDs, but then again it has the largest base installs of them all too. This is why they are all inherently more secure, and OpenBSD takes it even further by intentionally focusing on security, and code correctness.
>tfw BSDNow is a shitfest with hosts that don't know what they're talking about anymore
Where can I get BSD news now?
>>51281044
That's the only one I know about unless you mean tech talks which even then it's sporadic. I look at iXsystems' YouTube stuff and check Phornix (inb4 moronix) via RSS. There's just not that many people reporting on it in any flashy way, checking the actual project sites themselves really does give a good idea of what's happening.
>>51278374
>I think the BSD community is mostly made up of people such as myself who just want their damn computers to work.
You wouldn't be using BSD if you cared about your hardware working.
There is no free-as-in-freedom BSD. So I won't use it.
>>51281238
I'll take openness over faux-freedom any day.
>>51281217
Are you pretending to be older than you are or something by making late 90's references?
>>51281287
To be fair, and I am not the poster, the BSD licence is literally 'Kekold, the licence'.
>>51281298
The problem still exists. Just because you don't need decent graphics performance doesn't mean the rest of us don't need it. A computer user in 2015 expects a hardware accelerated UI that runs smoothly without tearing. I can barely get that in Linux with bleeding edge proprietary drivers.
>>51281308
I don't think it's fair to consider licenses at all when discussing this topic, it's legal not tech, it's impractical to choose software not based on merit but based on the license. GPL people couldn't care less about technology or software, they only care to derail discussion of everything non-GPL and discuss business ethics or legal process. It's stupid and I hate it.
>>51278339
It's rendered from slide software. It's probably a slide from a talk, m8.
>>51278347
Are you for real?
>>51280041
OpenBSD used to get flak for its plain, unthemed, information-rich HTML pages. So rather than engage in navel gazing webfaggotry, they ramped up the shittiness for comedic effect.
>>51280112
>Bunch of MacOS tech coming back into BSD like launchd
This is not a good thing.
>>51281308
Stale forced meme.
>>51281334
>hardware accelerated UI
No.
>A computer user in 2015 expects
Speak for yourself.
>>51281378
>Stale forced meme.
It's not my fault you can't look past memes, the analogy is perfect.
>>51281334
FreeBSD has the same proprietary drives as Linux, you couldn't have picked a worse example.
Nvidia is still supporting Solaris, they're not going to stop supporting FreeBSD anytime soon.
>>51281391
Actively wanting people to make derivative works of software you contributed to (rather than being dissuaded by the GPL) is being a cvckolding fetishing now, is it?
OpenBSD doesn't have trouble with companies taking code and giving nothing back, by the way. The problem they HAVE had a few times is that their code gets wrapped in the GPL and they can't take any changes from that.
>>51281422
*fetishist
>>51281378
>This is not a good thing.
Why do you feel this way? Having experiments like this at worst will at prove to be a learning experience, at best we get more options for a better experience. I see no harm in trying to improve the init and service management, mach messages seem interesting as well.
The BSD community has turned in the 2002 Linux community, just constant whining and making comics of their mascot engaging in anal sex with another operating systems mascot.
>>51281471
I think the OpenBSD community is justified in their whining, security is a real issue that people seem to care about less and less despite current events.
>>51278173
You can only use Comic Sans when presenting something with potential to win a Nobel, or you risk to look like a retard.
>>51281448
I'm all for experiments, but launchd and the IPC in OS X have proved to be poorly designed shite. launchd is redundant because init(1) is already great, and would be straightforward to augment with whiz-bang parallel startup, and used alongside a daemontools clone.
We've already got an IPC and RPC abstraction that fits perfectly with the Unix model that the BSDs inherited (open, close, read, write, ...): 9P. This needs to be driven harder into the BSDs.
It would be cool if the BSDs added namespaces (private to the process and its children).
>>51281422
>Actively wanting people to make derivative works of software you contributed to (rather than being dissuaded by the GPL) is being a cvckolding fetishing now, is it?
The GPL doesn't dissuade people from forking software, but BSD style licences allow greedy kikes to use that software as a proprietary module.
>The problem they HAVE had a few times is that their code gets wrapped in the GPL and they can't take any changes from that.
That's only because it would make those portions of the code unavailable to the proprietary dickwads who want to use free software.
>The problem they HAVE had a few times is that their code gets wrapped in the GPL and they can't take any changes from that.
So it's the same as the companies that close the code. :^]
This is only the case because BSD wants to ensure those companies are STILL able to use their software, which would not be possible if parts of it got GPLd. Get good, çuck.
>>51278791
I don't think you need to be a "font dweeb" to think comic sans looks retarded
>>51281529
>The GPL doesn't dissuade people
It dissuades people from even USING that project in their own software, because it's complex and has stringent copyleft requirements that are easy to fall foul of. Even when I'm modifying GPL software (e.g. ioquake3) I avoid adding GPL libraries like the plague because the license is pretty suffocating and the people who wrote the software are generally jumped-up little hitlers who will flame you for using their shit (despite the legal entitlement to). Permissive licenses, on the other hand, make clear that the author is relaxed about you using their software. Permissive licenses tend to make software far more attractive to developers than copyleft licenses do.
>That's only because it would make those portions of the code unavailable to the proprietary dickwads who want to use free software.
What?
>>51281577
>So it's the same as the companies that close the code. :^]
That's the point, they don't have that problem. Theo has said again and again that they have found that companies don't close up derivative works and refuse to give back patches. People who put their derivative works under the GPL, on the other hand, do.
>>51281526
Fair enough but I still feel like this is a step forward more than anything else. I do think a lot of what's going on in Plan9 is interesting and maybe better overall but I'm sure you understand the practical considerations of adopting those over something already heavily used.
>>51281422
>OpenBSD doesn't have trouble with companies taking code and giving nothing back
>The problem ... is that their code gets wrapped in the GPL and they can't take any changes from that
Well, they should make up their fucking mind! Are they ok with others taking the code and not giving back or not?
How the fuck are they ok with proprietary stuff but not ok with GPL? It's the same fucking thing to them: they can't use it.
Whiny bitches!
>>51281630
If you're bitching about comic sans then you are by definition a font dweeb. If you're bitching about OpenBSD's use of comic sans for comedic effect then you've had a humorectomy as well.
>>51281529
>The GPL doesn't dissuade people from forking software
I'll tell you anecdotally that it does for me and people I know. I don't know how you can even begin to think you speak for everyone with a statement like that.
>>51281650
>What?
They wouldn't contribute back, which is required by the GPL.
LGPL masterrace.
>>51281678
This.
>>51281678
They're fine with it, but they're putting down the sanctimonious claim that GPL advocates are generous and All About Sharing Changes In A Communal Environment.
>>51281577
>GPL zealots promote it as freedom
>it's inherently non-free
wew
>>51278164
Call me when openbsd developed even a single mitigation, as they claim they do.
>>51281737
wot
>>51281734
I'm an LGPL advocate. Regardless, it's not non-free, it just doesn't let you use the code if you don't plan on making your improvements available, forcing it to stay free.
>>51281696
You're lying. It doesn't dissuade you from forking. It dissuades you from making a buck no-strings-attached on someone else's code by using it in a proprietary application. Big difference! You can either pay the author for a custom license or play nice and give the changes back. But you don't want to do either of those, do you? Sucks to be you!
Hehe, still remember when the microsoft tcpip stack was a shameless copypaste of BSD's, remote exploits included.
>>51281730
GPL users are anything but communal, I think their forking nature demonstrates this very well. They bicker so much with each other that they are forced out of one project clique and form their own, it's like a horribly fragmented schoolyard, that's anything but a community.
This anti-bsd behavior exemplifies this really well too, they care more about their ideology and legal nonsense than they do about software and its users.
>>51281737
>Call me when openbsd developed even a single mitigation, as they claim they do.
? It's literally the point of this thread, pledge().
>>51281748
pledge (aka tame) is just a really shitty jail. A thing that, mind, the openbsd crowd (including theo the rat himself) were laughing at until tame became a thing. They have always believed that it's "bloat" because who cares about mitigation? All that matters is auditing!!11 Just write good code lmao xd.
Same reason there's no mac/rbac/cap in openbsd.
The openbsd team(s) have NEVER developed a single security-related tool, all they've ever done is copy-paste someone else's work - in particular, work that has been first seen in linux. Every "hardening" crap bsd does is really just a subset of PAX.
>>51281781
pledge is just a capsicum/firejail/rsbac jail clone, nothing they themselves have developed.
>>51281730
But those are true statements: they are generous by giving away code and are all about sharing because the license requires sharing!
>>51281766
>it's not non-free, it just doesn't let you
>forcing
>free
It's fine for you to hold the beliefs you do, it's not fine to redefine freedom and promote something as "free" when it's not. This is the issue I have with these advocates, they're emphatically pushing their license under a false pretense.
>>51281768
>Nobody feels this way
>>I do
>you're lying
Wow.
>>51281805
No it isn't and you would know that if you had read the presentation.
>>51281822
It's free and forces you to keep it that way, faggot.
>>51281840
I read the presentation and that's literally what it is.
>>51281838
Nice reading comprehension. As expected from BSD cuks.
>>51278164
HAHAHA FUCKING LINUX USERS BTFO
http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/11/new-encryption-ransomware-targets-linux-systems/
>>51281768
Fork permissive software -> have flexibility in license. If you want to distribute it under the ISC or whatever else rather than MIT, go ahead.
Fork GPL software -> fuck you, use the GPL. Also, here's a 50,000 word lawyerese license file for you to read.
That is dissuading.
> But you don't want to do either of those, do you?
I have never written a piece of proprietary software. All of it goes out under the ISC license (I used to use the GPL v2 before 2010 though) unless it's a derivative work, in which case it goes out under the existing license.
>>51281766
Forcing.
>>51281774
It still is, isn't it?
>>51281778
>This anti-bsd behavior exemplifies this really well too
Yeah, which is funny because permissive licenses are all GPL-compatible.
>>51281865
>not even linux-related
>>51281789
You're that butthurt cunt who runs the "the truth about BSD!!!!" blog, aren't you.
>>51281857
>I read the presentation and that's literally what it is.
>literally
It LITERALLY isn't, and they LITERALLY explained why here: http://www.openbsd.org/papers/hackfest2015-pledge/mgp00010.txt
>>51281890
>being this buttrekt
Hold unto your anus, make sure too much juice doesn't leak out when you read https://allthatiswrong.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-insecurity-of-openbsd/
>>51281877
>not reading the article
>not seeing the word "linux" in the link
>having such bad eyesight
>ISHYGDDT
>>51281900
Yes that's the blog. It makes perfect sense that you'd have your own blog at hand, too.
>>51281898
Thanks for providing evidence that it literally is.
>>51281901
>jvm exploits are openbsd problems!
>openbsd B T F O F T B
>>51281789
told hard
>>51281840
You're missing the point entirely, probably on purpose. I don't misunderstand your ideological views, I have qualms with the terms and aggressive and often disingenuous nature of the advocates.
Freedom can't be defended or tampered with, that's what makes it free. Even in a situation like preventing slavery, what you say you're doing is "fighting for freedom", which isn't inherently a bad thing, but it is still restrictive and goes against the idea of freedom. It's ironic to say you're defending freedom by taking it away from people. True freedom is true freedom, GPL faux freedom is just that, false freedom. There's no denying or debating that, what you should debate instead are your opinions on certain liberties but these GPL advocates don't, they conflate everything into one issue under the wrong name because it is adventitious for them to do so.
>>51281789
maximum toldness
>>51281918
>Thanks for providing evidence that it literally is.
Literally no. If you're going to argue it's a different, considerably better implementation of the same idea, then sure, but it's not the same.
>>51281947
>unironically defending the freedom to limit freedom
Kek. Sorry, I want everyone to be free, not just the mogul at the top of the hierarchy.
>>51281959
The FSF's lawyer army loves you.
>>51281947
>terms and aggressive and often
Someone's tired.
>>51281959
>defending the freedom to limit freedom
Do you not see the irony in you saying this to me when that's precisely the issue I'm pointing out with the GPL?
>>51281931
>openbsdfags are so sore that they're 100% irrelevant that they invent achievement that aren't even related to them
>>51281948
Openbsd takes 5 years to adopt security measures that are introduced in linux. They laugh at every security measure linux has until then. I like how they project their incompetence upon the general populace though.
>>51281975
>Do you not see the irony in you saying this to me when that's precisely the issue I'm pointing out with the GPL?
You said:
>Even in a situation like preventing slavery, what you say you're doing is "fighting for freedom", which isn't inherently a bad thing, but it is still restrictive
>but it is still restrictive
>and goes against the idea of freedom
Please go.
>>51281959
>Literally no.
Literally yes. It literally says "we're capsicum except with a different interface". No, reimplementing an existing idea is not in fact an innovation or developing a mitigation. It's called "catching up".
>>51281869
>If you want to distribute it under the ISC or whatever else rather than MIT, go ahead.
Yeah right, surely that's the problem! Not the fact that you'd then love to close down that MIT/ISC licensed code without anyone else seeing shit!
>Fork GPL software -> fuck you, use the GPL
And what's the problem with that? The source is still there, visible to everyone. Why does the license matter? I'll tell you why: because you can't use it later in closed source stuff you develop for company X when they hire you as a consultant. Fuck off! Want to make a buck? Use your own code. Don't pretend you're about sharing with "hey guys, let's all contribute to this BSD project" when your interest is in using that "common" code for personal gains.
If I'm wrong and what I'm saying isn't true, then you should have no problem with the GPL. If you only write free software (as you claim further down) then why do you care so much about the license? Could it be the fact that you want the code to be usable in proprietary applications? Why is that?
>>51281869
>permissive licenses are all GPL-compatible
EULA-compatible too
>>51282020
But that's true, are you trying to say it's not? Why don't you use your words to explain yourself instead of just trying to ignore me flatout. You people are all the same.
>>51281931
>pushing into mainstream use
>mainstream
>openbsd
top kek
>>51281865
This has happened before.
It's not even a security exploit IIRC, just social engineering.
>>51282021
>Literally yes. It literally says "we're capsicum except with a different interface". No, reimplementing an existing idea is not in fact an innovation or developing a mitigation. It's called "catching up".
Literally no.
Capsicum:
>Requires intense modification of existing programs
>developers cannot
even agree on file descriptor semantics
Thus,
>It fails: "ease of use", "applicability" and "use could be mandatory"
Pledge is actually easy to use and doesn't take a super good software developer to implement it.
>>51282053
You want the freedom to limit people's freedom and I am not okay with that. That's all it boils down to, and if that's not 'true freedom', then so be it, and let that be the only rule.
>>51281992
>optional security
Laughable.
>>51282021
Read the problems with capsicum listed in the slideshow.
>>51282028
>Yeah right, surely that's the problem! Not the fact that you'd then love to close down that MIT/ISC licensed code without anyone else seeing shit!
Yes I am a greedy jew and simply want to close your GPL software.
>Why does the license matter?
Inflexibility. Just look at the licensing complications with static linkage, and with Linux kernel modules (and their workaround for it).
>>51282079
>You want the freedom to limit people's freedom and I am not okay with that. That's all it boils down to, and if that's not 'true freedom', then so be it, and let that be the only rule.
Please don't make baseless assumptions, I explained my position very clearly. You're being unfair which is par for the course with you advocates, if you're confused on something I'd rather you ask me to better explain myself than for you to make some random assumption.
>>51281789
>pledge is just a really shitty jail
>>51282092
Call me when openbsd has more than 1 exclusive layers of security like any sane system in the past decade has had.
>>51278173
>why is it like an autistic powerpoint presentation
The font looks like something an austic child would like
>>51282114
>multilayered
>complexity
>sane
I think you mean "large attack surface".
>>51280393
Good for anything but HTML5 video, strangely.
>>51281789
(You)
>The openbsd team(s) have NEVER developed a single security-related tool
Why would this be a problem?
>>51282137
OpenBSDfags, everyone! Literally can't understand layers! Protip: the fact that your "mitigations" in openbsd are purely single-layer MAKES IT a massive attack surface. Layering instead makes that false. The only thing you can get by layers is increased security at best, no change at worst.
>>51282175
You probably think runlevels are a fantastic idea.
>>51282169
Inherently, it's not - but coupled with two facts: the first, that openbsd focuses exclusively on securiyt; and the second, that openbsdfags shit on everyone else for being "less secure" than openbsd - makes it significant, because it shows that openbsdfags are purely working on placebo.
>>51278173
>NSA's SElinux
>I already said option security is irrelevant
>>51282092
>Inflexibility. Just look at the licensing complications with static linkage, and with Linux kernel modules (and their workaround for it).
You mean the flexibility to close down the source? Yeah, it's not that flexible. But it shouldn't bother someone that has "never written a piece of proprietary software".
And what complications? Oh, you mean playing nice with proprietary software? That's should be a non-issue because you don't care about proprietary software, right?
>>51282175
>fails to grasp that complexity means more can be wrong in the thing, the thing is harder to configure to a state that isn't riddled with gaping holes, more bugs can arise, harder for a user program to navigate and use (and thus secure itself), and so on
>fails to grasp that a simple security provision is a more robust security provision
>thinks optional security is acceptable
fags in general
>>51282187
>shit on everyone else for being "less secure" than openbsd
They shit on others' reluctance to actually use advances in security and mitigation.
>>51282231
>openbsd
>advances in security
bwhahahaha! tip top! well memed, m8!
>>51282220
I bet you think rdrand shouldn't be used as an additional source of entropy, too.
>openbsd
Not even once!
>>51282237
What was the first OS to enforce (yes enforce) address-space randomization?
>>51282231
That would be cool, but openbsd resist advances in security and mitigation, calling them bloat, or complicated, or unneeded, for 5-10 years before finally accepting them, not the other way around.
>>51282187
To the first point I'd say that developing security software and developing a security system are 2 different things. It's like if someone invented the lock but put it on a door that only goes from the waist up, they still invented it but it didn't secure anything, taking that lock and grafting it onto a real door does protect things albeit not an original invention, just a proper use of a security tool now part of a secure system.
I'm sorry for the analogy but I hope it conveys what I mean.
As for shitting on others, I approve, it breeds competition.
>hey fags we're top dog, do better if you can
Even if the other team does do better we all as a people win. The OpenBSD team cares about security as a concept not just as a badge for themselves.
>>51282248
Found the mossad agent.
I bet you think that /dev/urandom returning with zero entropy is fine too. I bet you think that arc4random is terrible by association too.
>>51282250
GNU
>>51282256
Examples. I want it from the horse's mouth.
>>51282261
arc4random is literally nonblocking random and can return with 0 entropy.
>>51282273
theo the rat on rbac, jails, mac, and patching security holes in non-core ports packages.
>>51282259
>hey fags we're top dog, do better if you can
But the issue is that while they claim that, they're actually bottom dog. It doesn't breed competition, far from it.
So it's just a sandbox desu? Why don't they have MAC like RBAC yet desu?
>>51282306
>It doesn't breed competition, far from it.
Do you really think so? Obviously nobody can say if it truly does or doesn't but I personally would imagine it would either spark competition or do nothing at all, but never impede it.
>>51282380
If you are already the hardest worker around, even if the slacker is daring you to do more work than him, why would you care?
>>51282420
I can't give a general answer, it would depend on the individual I assume. I know a lot of people in security fields like challenges. There's plenty of dumb answers too like spite.
I'd have to ask the opposite, why would someone who knows they're the best be discouraged by the worst?
>>51282292
I want it from the horse's mouth.
No one cares about your buttstung blog.
>>51278386
If people can turn off security, they will so that some crappy application still works. Turned off security = no security.
>>51282596
Windows UAC is a good example of this, not that it helps when it's on anyway but still.
>>51282641
It would had helped if MS actually enforced their rules.
When half your programs constantly request access to the secured folders, then you can be sure most people will be annoyed.
>>51282028
>Could it be the fact that you want the code to be usable in proprietary software? Why is that?
>Why is that?
I believe in freedom, therefore I want people to have the freedom to use it in proprietary software.
I'd consider using BSD, but as this thread shows, BSD users are predominantly histrionic faggots with a persecution complex.
>>51282914
You only accept public domain?
>>51282922
Making choices like that only harms yourself, you should judge things based on their merit not on external factors. I see people do this a lot with video games where they refuse to play a game they might enjoy just because they don't like the developer personally, that is to say they don't like their personality not that they don't dislike their work. You could pass up something you might really enjoy for acting this way.
>>51282922
the only thing this thread shows is that there's a rather persistent faggot that posts about MACs in every fucking BSD thread to ever exist
>>51282922
>>51283045
>dislike
not that they dislike their work*
>>51282699
Or the fact that MS has no rules for what goes in what folder so developers all put their shit in different places
>>51282933
PD is okay, I like that models made with unmodified MakeHuman are PD. My favorite license is zlib/libpng
Take LÖVE for example. Anyone can use it for commercial or noncommercial, open source or proprietary projects, but unlike PD, the original creators still dictate what makes LÖVE different from a fork, and unlike Do What the Fuck You Want, companies can't copy the code to a proprietary project and then shut down development on the original open-source version.
>>51282922
>hasty generalizations and self spite
wew lad
>>51283081
>My favorite license is zlib/libpng
Not free: "...subject to the following restrictions:..."
>unlike PD, the original creators still dictate
That doesn't sound free.
>>51283045
Well, if something has a fanbase that's mostly sperging losers, you have to wonder if there's something in it that attracts them to it.
>>51283192
>mostly
I think that's an unfair assumption, you're basing your opinion on an unknown sample size. It's most likely that a single thread like this would contain a vocal minority. In this case specifically there's 3 camps under the same name as well, BSD could mean any of these, a license, a particular BSD system, or the whole family of BSD derived systems.
That all being said it doesn't matter since it's your choice to do so, I just personally don't think it's a good way to go through life in general, people get so hung up on other people that they let it take precedent over what they themselves want.
>>51283353
>>51283192
Actually maybe a better way to put that is, don't let a few bad apples ruin your experience. I personal enjoy what I enjoy and I would never let a community of negative people ruin it for me, if they want to be negative and miserable then let them be, I'm not gonna be.
what is it with all the attacks on linus that are coming out all at once?
really makes you think who has the most to gain from all this infighting
>>51283410
I find it ironic that the Unix that gets the most hate and flak had a quote like this
>we need to drop this notion that in order for Apple to win Microsoft has to lose
I have to be honest and say I see infighting mostly from GNU users, and I don't mean GNU v BSD I mean GNU vs GNU, look at all these distro wars as if they're not all the same system underneath, as if we don't all share the same system desires.
>>51281630
It's also a way to weed out the retards.
If you ignore the content and only concern yourself with the presentation of it, it's immediately clear that you have nothing to contribute to a project that focuses on writing good code.
>>51282069
Which ssh implementation are you using?
>>51281217
The complete opposite is true. OpenBSD may not, and probably won't support the latest gpu or WiFi. It will however support them within a year or so, and will support them indefinitely from then on. On Linux and Windows the older hardware gets, the less likely it will continue to be supported, especially in Windows.
>>51283904
Lsh.
>>51283517
A lot of GNU users actually hate GNU, but have to use it because nothing else is supported.
Just try replacing bash with dash or pdksh as /bin/sh. Have fun. Yeah.
>>51284062
I really like how there's actually scripts out there that CANNOT function unless you use bash.
So fucking stupid.
>>51284078
It's fine as long as they specify bash. But they specify sh, which isn't always bash, like only linux with ganoo exists.
Almost as bad as programs that only work with GNU's C extensions.
>>51284110
>But they specify sh, which isn't always bash, like only linux with ganoo exists.
what would work in sh and not bash?
>>51284153
You're reading that wrong, they're saying a script writer specifies sh when they rely on bash extension, so a script executes via /bin/sh which is not always bash.
>>51284201
oh, yeah. people just get too used to the symlink and forget bourne shell is even a thing
(if they ever do a BSD install i bet they won't ever forget again)
>>51284153
>>51284201
Also this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bash_%28Unix_shell%29#Portability
Take into account /bin/sh can't even be assured to be the same shell implementation, although they should all conform to the same standard. A silly example would be Bourne and Almquist.
>>51284312
>A silly example would be Bourne and Almquist.
I thought his real name was David Webb?
>>51284402
I'm talking about the Bourne Unix shell and the Almquist BSD shell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourne_shell#Almquist_shells
I'm not familiar with David Webb, I'm just saying that those 2 are shells that fit the same standard but are different implementations, both are located at /bin/sh and both fit the roll of "the standard system shell".
GNUfags face when android is actually more secure than linux because they have the balls to include and turn on by default the mitigations that Linus refuses.
https://www.duosecurity.com/blog/exploit-mitigations-in-android-jelly-bean-4-1
>>51283410
But he's always acted this way and occasionally pissed someone off. There's a lot more people trying to get stuff into the kernel so more opportunity for someone with delicate sensibilities to get their feelings hurt. Their ages are probably lower too and we know how schools have been pussifying kids lately.
