You have ten seconds to explain why your using an Operating System made out of garbage.
because it just werks
>>52530335
And the shit OS nobody even knows about I made in college has had 0 exploits discovered ever.
>>52530411
>And the shit OS nobody even knows about I made in college has had 0 exploits discovered ever.
What is it?
I use my own OS that has no security exploits because I haven't released the code. OpenKEK can suck my dick.
I want to learn about OpenBSD but I am lazy
TempleOS > OpenBSD
>>52530335
All of them are garbage. I couldn't do any better, though, so I settle for what gives me what I need
>>52530420
It's a basic OS with a simple shell, a "filesystem", a scheduler and a loader
>>52530335
I am not using garbage. I am using Windows10 : ^ )
Because it works better than your clunky piece of shit OS
>>52530335
How much exploits do each of those OS's have if you compare the numbers relative to their market share on desktop, and on server markets?
Also, which Windows do these tables use, the consumer versions (Win 7/8/10) or Windows Server? The latter should be used, optimally.
>>52530490
>a scheduler and a loader
literally a toy.
>>52530560
exactly, which why it has no exploit
>>52530490
Share?
>>52530560
Just like OpenBSD then :^)
No one uses OpenBSD though
Of course no one bothers to exploit it
>>52530335
>implying shitemdicks adds anything besides pid0 replacements for standard tools that are included in every distribution
>>52530335
>mfw the link to microcuck literally works!
What is this sketchy website?
>>52530335
I use a Mac. Complete security. Zero holes.
>>52530719
Shitty b8
>>52530719
There is one, it's your anus
>>52530428
>I use my own OS that has no security exploits because I haven't released the code
I like your memes, prajeet
>>52530335
Temple OS exploit stats?
>>52531201
Terry: 1
CIA (niggers): 0
>>52531201
It runs in ring 0 so it's basically pre-exploited
>>52530643
it's because the bit after the 26 does nothing, you don't need the /Microcuck bit
>>52530335
That's because so few people use it you fucking idiot.
It's like saying that a certain software has less bugs because there is so few people that report them.
>>52531401
thanks masturbating monkey
>>52530539
>Also, which Windows do these tables use, the consumer versions (Win 7/8/10) or Windows Server? The latter should be used, optimally.
are you fucking suggesting that microsoft will fix the server version but leave the vulnerability untouched in the consumer versions?
are you stupid?
>>52530335
>majority of the exploits for currysoft wendys is code execution
>majority of the exploits for gano/loonatix is denial of service
holy fuck jesus will microsoft ever get their shit together
mfw
>>52530335
because I don't prioritize security,
Will probably set up a comfy ssd with OpenBSD once i need it, docs are godly and installation is incredibly simple. Don't know what to do with the absence of TRIM support.
op why are you still false flagging about openbsd after the other thread tanked
>>52533000
>Don't know what to do with the absence of TRIM support.
either implement it yourself or wait until one of the devs starts caring about it
>>52532955
Could you explain the difference and significance of this difference to a poor newfaggot like myself?
>>52535117
How is this false flagging? Do you mean you ALSO support BSD, but think OP is trying to make BSD users sound like assholes? How is he doing that?
>>52536832
that's exactly what im saying
he's probably the one who made a very similar thread earlier
in honor of this thread here's a picture of two guys who dont like each other standing awkwardly in the same room
openbsd is getting xen guest suppport. winning!
>>52531401
thanks masturbating monkey
>>52530335
OpenBSD has less CVE's because no one uses it.
>>52539901
This
>>52532955
Not a big surprise desu. Windows is primarily a desktop OS, Linux a server OS.
>>52536808
In the internet, servers are there to respond to clients' requests. A denial of service attack aims to stop them from doing so. I.e. if a server crashes, it obviously can't respond anymore, so it's factually useless. It doesn't necessarily means it's broken, though, most times a reboot will fix it.
Code execution is by comparison much harder and much more dangerous to pull off, an attacker can execute his own code in your computer, meaning he can get absolute control. He can then add it to his botnet, log passwords or just erase all your data.
Code execution is obviously easier to pull this off on a desktop pc than on a server, because most users are retards and will click on every blinking gif that catches their eye. Denial of service attacks are only really useful on a server, so it makes little sense to look for one on Windows.
>>52539901
this, a million times.
>>52539901
/thread
>>52530335
In other news there is more crime in a big metropolis than a backwater village in the middle of nowhere that no one lives in.
>>52530335
wincucks will defend this
>>52530428
You're fucking retarded if you think that's how exploits are found.
>>52536808
Microsoft's code is literally shit
"muh source code not released,erybing ok"
>>52530335
Regarding the Linux exploits. How are those exploitable? If I lock down all ports but the one for, let's say, Apache, is the OS still remotely exploitable? Like are those exploits in the NTP client or in wet or apt or in openssl? Or are we talking about cryptic bugs like "if the FAT table in a flash drive contains thus entry, the kernel panics". I guess I'll have to go through the list myself...
>>52540739
I'd like to know this as well
