All right fags, let's have a BSD circlejerk
#boat on rizon
News: The smtpd config changed and all I got was this invalid mail queue. It's working now and probably for the best to split match and action statements
All right fags, let's have a BSD circlejerk
#boat on rizon
News: The smtpd config changed and all I got was this invalid mail queue. It's working now and probably for the best to split match and action statements
>The smtpd config changed
Stick with sendmail.
It's what the big boys do.
t. freebsd dev
why would you even have this shit in base in 2018
Why wouldn't you?
All the cert advisories in the dawn of the internet boom has been fixed.
OpenBSD is a meme
>Filesystem
default FS doesn't even support SSD TRIM, and OpenBSD doesn't support anything modern like ZFS or BTRFS.
In the CIA triad of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability, 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.
"b-b-but MUH BACKUPS!!"
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?
>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?
TRIM when?
ZFS when?
Multicore firewall when?
NFSv4 when?
Let's go into those:
TRIM is vital to properly supporting SSDs. Without it, deleting a few pages from the storage would require the deletion of the entire block before putting it all back, creating unnecessary reads and writes and ultimately causing a faster degradation of the SSD.
ZFS, and other filesystems like it, provide numerous features both for better management of your data with subvolumes, as well as better security. The security features include snapshotting, checksumming of all data and metadata, bitrot protection, excellent implementation of software RAID, and so on. Backups should of course always be made, but they can be complimented with a better FS. I can just imagine it now: An OpenBSD admin routinely backing up his system, unaware that data is being silently corrupted. By the time it's a problem, it's too late. Imagine how far back he'd have to roll back to get to a stable state? If only he had a filesystem that wasn't written in the 80s, and actually did something to protect his data. OpenBSD has best security? I think not.
PF, at least on OpenBSD, does not support more than one core of one processor. Linux's netfilter on the other hand, does. Not much else to say.
It's been 18 years since NFSv4 was originally standardized, and OpenBSD has still not gotten around to implementing it. This is quite a deficiency, as NFSv4 now allows you to authenticate connections with Kerberos, and even encrypt the data transfers. Once again, you would think such a security-focused OS would care about such benefits, but alas, no.
>not using qmail
Who's paying these anti-OpenBSD shills? Always the same posts. I wonder why they would try so hard to shut it down...
no one is paying him, he's simply mentally ill
Who's paying these pro-OpenBSD shills? Always the same posts. I wonder why they would try so hard to keep it up...