Why is he so smug?

Attached: openbsd.gif (800x725, 293K)

Other urls found in this thread:

gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
csoonline.com/article/3250653/open-source-tools/is-the-bsd-os-dying-some-security-researchers-think-so.html
blog.netbsd.org/tnf/entry/network_security_audit
youtu.be/UaQpvXSa4X8?t=1081
xenocara.org/
github.com/davidlind/taas/blob/master/insults.json
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

He knows he's superior to everyone around him for using the OpenBSD operating system

OpenBSD is a meme
>Filesystem
default FS doesn't even support SSD TRIM, and I don't think OpenBSD supports anything modern like ZFS or BTRFS.
This is a problem because OpenBSD claims to be about security, but forgets that security is made up of three parts: confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
In this case, availability seems to be the one that's lacking. Who cares how hack-resistant your system is if the data you're protecting is corrupted?
That's not even getting into the volume management stuff that's missing, and the snapshots, and the everything.
>Security
"Only two remote holes in the default install!!!!!!!"
Yay!
I hope you realize that this literally only applies to a base system install with absolutely no packages added. In other words, not exactly representative or meaningful towards... anything really
>Sustainability
A few years ago, OpenBSD was actually in danger of shutting down because they couldn't keep the fucking lights on. How could anyone see this as a system they could rely on, when it could be in danger of ending at any time?
>Standards-compliance
"B-But OpenBSD is written in strictly standards-compliant C! Clearly that's better than muh GNU virus!"
So you're not allowed to create extensions to the standard? You should only implement the standard and nothing more? Keep in mind that this is nothing like EEE, as the GNU extensions are Free Software, with freely available source code, as opposed to proprietary shite. People should be allowed to innovate and improve things.
If you're gonna be anal about standards-compliance, then why let people make their own implementations anyway? Why not have the standards organizations make one C implementation and force everyone to use it?

Attached: NOpenBSD.png (1000x1000, 168K)

>written by the developers, for developers
>developers have zero tolerance for proprietary foolery and cut off communication with companies that play the NDA game
>stellar record for correctness, usability, and security
>world-class documentation
>developers have a track record for doing things right and not chasing the latest trends

he has every right to be smug

>GNUfags on my board

Attached: stallman.png (369x276, 55K)

gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

Struck by the small number of reported BSD kernel vulnerabilities compared to Linux, van Sprundel sat down last summer and reviewed BSD source code in his spare time. "How come there are only a handful of BSD security kernel bugs advisories released every year?" he wanted to know. Is it because the BSDs are so much more secure? Or is it because no one is looking?

van Sprundel says he easily found around 115 kernel bugs across the three BSDs, including 30 for FreeBSD, 25 for OpenBSD, and 60 for NetBSD. Many of these bugs he called "low-hanging fruit." He promptly reported all the bugs, but six months later, at the time of his talk, many remained unpatched.

"By and large, most security flaws in the Linux kernel don't have a long lifetime. They get found pretty fast," van Sprundel says. "On the BSD side, that isn't always true. I found a bunch of bugs that have been around a very long time." Many of them have been present in code for a decade or more.
Source:csoonline.com/article/3250653/open-source-tools/is-the-bsd-os-dying-some-security-researchers-think-so.html

Also from your link:
>van Sprundel also praised OpenBSD's response to his bug findings, saying that De Raadt responded within a week, and OpenBSD patched the flaws within a few days.

So much for reading comprehension, eh?

This. BSDs are 'secure', because nobody uses them. They likely have so many kernel bugs all over the place.
Linux at the very least has more eyes on it so things get found quickly.
Of course none of the above systems would have nearly as many of such security issues in the first place had they had the sense to adopt the superior microkernel design.

Someone from NetBSD recently audited their network stack and found bugs so old that they existed in the other BSDs as well

blog.netbsd.org/tnf/entry/network_security_audit

The point is, problems do exist, OpenBSD is not the panacea you faggots make it out to be.Besides, with half the features of any other operating system, I would think it would be a much easier feat to accomplish,if it were even true.

>microkernel
>superior

ivory tower academic masturbator detected
back to your useless papers and no actual code

>Linux at the very least has more eyes on it so things get found quickly.
What about shellshock?

No, the point is you can't read properly

>OpenBSD is not the panacea you faggots make it out to be
still has a better overall track record than linux

>half the features of any other operating system
but about 90% of the features that 90% of the users need
works for me, etc etc

>tfw you realize bash is a kernel

>still has a better overall track record than linux
Again, with half the codebase and features, this shouldn't come as a surprise.

ah i misunderstood your earlier post

yes, the code is much simpler with fewer features than linux, meaning it does fewer things but does those fewer things very well.

imo this simplicity is a feature. if an os does everything i need properly, no point in using a more complicated one with no gain for me

Who cares about bugs if they can't be exploited remotely?

eheh this mongo is 24/7 waiting for a openbsd thread

>Why is he so smug?
Because he knows nobody will touch him, much like the OS he represents.

Puffy has every right to be smug.

Attached: 5565475.png (1076x956, 114K)

Your in a club when this guy doesn't let your Intel Core i5 defer a debug exception until after a syscall.

What do?

Attached: 4534665.png (980x695, 111K)

...

nice

youtu.be/UaQpvXSa4X8?t=1081
because theo can actually keep his cool when autists screech at him irl

Except hardware debug registers matter and make for a much better experience than pure software debugging. This is a straight downgrade.
Oh, and did you know that clang ASAN (address sanitizer) does not work on OpenBSD? Good shit, now you can't even find your own buffer off-by-ones.

if you think the openbsd team are all about features over security, then you misunderstand the point of the project.

people have been doing fine without that feature for decades.

>he
Oh sweetie no

is there a better version of this?

unfortunately most BSD conventions are filmed by nerds who don't really understand A/V so probably not

1. You can sell gpl licensed software
2. You can distribute it on your own and tell him to fuck off.

Attached: bsd.jpg (2518x1024, 392K)

isn't this referencing how the FSF takes ownership of programs

OpenBSD base includes an audited version of x.org, a neat window manager, full development toolchain, some games, and a full suite of networking and internet services desgined for exposure on raw public networks.

doesn't include rogue anymore though :(

No, but it does include Hack. BSD games is a nice little touch keeping the Unix lore alive. I also like that tmux is now integrated in base too what a great platform.

Plenty of OpenBSD auditing filters back to the others too, such is the nature of free software.

oosh

Attached: autistic screeching BSD.jpg (1747x1080, 183K)

I thought BSD didn't come with it's own desktop environment so you had to grab something like xfce

comes with their own WM, cwm. it's pretty good.

>SystemD
>screeching man has a Gentoo logo on his shirt

Attached: flat,800x800,070,f.jpg (800x800, 47K)

>convenient cpu features and performance are more important than correct practice and security

This is why OpenBSD has a reputation for being secure and Intel is a laughing stock.

it's that namefag

fpbp

>OpenBSD base includes an audited version of x.org

this is a bad meme, right?

no

If I ever need to expose a service on my Ubuntu PC such as SSH to retrieve files remotely, I do it via an OpenBSD VM running on that host. Ubuntu is setup to only accept connections from the VM.

xenocara.org/

>exposes an instance of bash that allows for a remote user to poison the environment with bash-specific encoded function exports.

ya no. the fact they fixed it is nice, but people shouldn't have been using bash as some CGI bullshit. hell the whole fucking concept of CGI using environment variables is fucked.

>but does those fewer things very well.

based on what, exactly? "simple" doesn't make things better and can in fact make things very much worse very easily. given that openbsd can't even modern DRM without a linux subsystem or even fucking support SSDs correctly is proof of this.

don't see any "audit" in any of this. literally find it extremely unlikely any one person can even audit Xorg, let alone all of its parts.

Who said anything about just one person?

THAT SMUG MOTHERFUCKER
LOOK AT HIM, WHAT A SMUGLORD

I don't care what you believe and I'm sure as hell not going to spoon fed you facts you little faggot

jesus butthurt much?

there is no way it has been reasonably audited. or is the real trick that it literally doesn't work?

github.com/davidlind/taas/blob/master/insults.json
I dont know you tell me

since when has xenocara not worked

xenocara has a bunch of patches that add privsep to many X programs. hell, xorg itself runs as its own user in openbsd.

>nerds who don't really understand A/V
>lemme get this on my phone jus case I miss sumthin
Ya, cos his purpose for being there was to record the meeting. Whew
>tfw you are actually this f'n dense
Life must be pure agony
Hey grams, how bout u shut that trap... Heyoooooo, here all night folks.

>xorg itself runs as its own user in openbsd.
welcome to like.... what, 2 or 3 years ago?

the point is that they did it first

xenocara also allows them to avoid having to use GNU tools to build X.

11 years ago

You clearly fail to grasp the openbsd methodology of applying a class of fix across the entire codebase.

A full install of x.org may as well be considered a DE. X itself comes with nearly everything a DE has, the only thing it doesn't have is a GUI file manager.

Nice to see those funny little bits and pieces live on. After the Wayland shitshow fully kicks off the Linux wars with an incompatible fork of Linux OS, it will be a small comfort to know that the seeds of Unix live on.

Now as a linux user, i can understand why some winfag hates linux users.

Attached: 1527982670523.jpg (887x900, 232K)

If youre a tech enthusiast you generally jump from windows to linux
If you're into servers you generally jump from Debian stable to openBSD within 5-6 months

>He

I and the entire industry can't follow you. BSD is the past.

Well books are the past too, that doesnt stop them from existing

Yes, that's totally relevant comparison.

So much effort making a comic, just to spread lies. Pathetic community.

This is wrong on so many levels, we could devote an entire thread to it.

No TRIM.

Bloat is harmful, so delete all the code until it can't funtion properly.

And, as I said, no modern volume management features, snapshotting, or bitrot protection
"b-b-but MUH BACKUPS!!"
Are you saying that bitrot all of a sudden doesn't exist anymore? That backups are the one and only thing you should do and should not be supplemented by a more stable filesystem?
You do realize that if the filesystem is not secure and does not protect against bitrot and corruption, your precious backups are going to be fucked, because you'll be backing up corrupted data. Who even knows how far you'll have to roll back in order to get to a clean state?