Windows Strategy

>Windows Strategy
Make shitty code, don't worry the next hardware cycle will run it better, don't ever test anything, bro, it's not worth it

>Apple 's Strategy
Make good code on good hardware, don't worry we'll spend the next 16 months optimizing every component in our software to make sure it runs as fast as possible

>Linux's Strategy
Write the code now, write it so that it conforms to our style guide and fits into our eco system and doesn't break with updates, don't worry we'll keep adding features to the software and you can upgrade it or patch it yourself

>OpenBSD's Strategy
Don't write anything until it's been proven to be secure using lambda calculus, then once you write it don't run it until it passes all tests, then validate it in a secure testing environment before considering it to be an insecure alpha release.

Attached: nothing.jpg (550x550, 71K)

>Apple
>Good hardware.
What.

Every other point is correct though.

>ITT: Jow Forums doesn't understand how cybersecurity works

i said good, not great

>implying there's any rhyme or reason to Windows, Linux, or macOS/iOS development
>implying all three aren't just one big clusterfuck of numale trash bolted on top of legacy shit
OpenBSD is the best OS. You may not like it but that's what peak performance looks like.

For it to be good It would have to pass QoS benchmarks (ie, overheating during basic tasks or throttling on high usage tasks).
Which it fucking doesn't henceforth making it bad hardware, there's shitty ass cheap laptops that overheat and don't throttle as hard has apple hardwared during high usage.

>OpenBSD
>Peak performance

You mean Peak end user security on Base install.

i compile a large open source software project on my 2013 rMBP daily inside a vm which I have allocated 4/8 cores and 8/16GB DDR3 RAM. It compiles in about 8 minutes each time, you're telling me if the fan spins up during that time it's not even as good as a "shitty ass cheap laptop"?

Damn nigga you snowblind af.

>OpenBSD
>Performance
It's a good OS but no you can't really associate those two words.

The OpenBSD team is focusing on making the ultimate, very best, GOAT 90s UNIX system. This is a commendable goal, but it's not really a modern OS.

Apple has the same strategy has Windows: don't spend anything on desktop OS, because it's a dead market. Let Pajeets deal with it, while focusing on mobile/tablet computing.

>Applel
>good code on good hardware
Pick one.

Attached: 1524556018146.jpg (656x611, 83K)

>Don't write anything until it's been proven to be secure using lambda calculus
fuck sake i spent past 2 hours learning lambda calculus, python lambda functions, haskell programming language, my understanding of turing machines all make much more sense now
thank you

>applel best company apparently according to this post
>shitty norman image
back to >>>/reddit/

>Make shitty code, don't worry the next hardware cycle will run it better, don't ever test anything, bro, it's not worth it
Nah, it's "first pass is good enough, there's no time to waste on Q&A or user feedback. CLOUD CLOUD CLOUD".

>Make good code on good hardware, don't worry we'll spend the next 16 months optimizing every component in our software to make sure it runs as fast as possible
Rather, "How do we make this the prettiest? The animations must flow, don't care about anything else."

>Write the code now, write it so that it conforms to our style guide and fits into our eco system and doesn't break with updates, don't worry we'll keep adding features to the software and you can upgrade it or patch it yourself
"Style guide? Style? Nah mate, just cobble together these tools from 1875 that weren't even built for binary computers but still somehow work because everything is a file. Then add some sprinkling of arcane scripting and a little bit of C to catch 2% of the errors."

Agree on OpenBSD, though.

>OpenBSD is the best OS
Gentoo hardened really nice. OpenBSD too old for modern PC and slow as shit pkg_add.

>Let Pajeets deal with it, while focusing on mobile/tablet computing.
>implying anyone at Microsoft even fucking ever glanced at Win10's tablet mode
Windows 10's tablet mode is even more of an atrocity than the task bar in Unity. It is completely beyond my understanding how designs like these could ever be created in the fucking second decade after 2000. Everyone should know better by now.
Doubly so because both cases are continuations of systems that already worked better.

>cannot autorotate screen
Linux 2018 nowadays.

Attached: 30229b386292184e5239632fee83d1ed.jpg (397x391, 68K)

(1/3)
OpenBSD is a meme
>Filesystem
SSD TRIM is vital to supporting SSDs, as without it, they degrade quickly due to unnecessary reads and writes. Sadly, OpenBSD has decided not to support this.
OpenBSD also does not offer a modern filesystem option. You simply get the very old BSD "Fast File System" or FFS.
Why is this important? Because when most people think of a secure system, they think of being resistant to evil hackers breaking into it. But that's only one part of security. InfoSec can be generally split up into three components: Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability.
In this triad, availability seems to be the one that's lacking here. 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!!"
What are you even 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?
"ZFS is one big thing! Very not-Unix! Just combine tools, bro"
OpenBSD doesn't have logical volume management either. Even if it did, FFS doesn't have the checksumming, bitrot protection, etc. Even if it did, OpenBSD softraid doesn't support as many RAID levels as other operating systems' solutions. It's just a worse deal all around.

Attached: puf800X689.gif (800x689, 69K)

(2/3)
>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.
OpenBSD also does not have NFSv4 support even 18 years after its standardization. This is an issue security-wise because version 4 is the only one to offer authentication with Kerberos plus encryption with the krb5p option.
A common retort to this argument is that the NFSv4 protocol is "bloated", and that's why OpenBSD doesn't support it. Going off this, the OpenBSD project seems to think that authentication and encryption are bloat. Take a moment to consider that. It's certainly a very strange stance indeed, for such a "security-focused" operating system.
Let's of course not forget that OpenBSD lacks a Mandatory Access Control solution such as SELinux, AppArmor, or TrustedBSD, which provide benefits that are relevant to companies, organizations, and governments looking to better secure their systems and classified data.

Attached: no-sign-hi.png (600x600, 20K)

(3/3)
>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?
"but it's open source! Someone could just fork it"
Oh yeah because surely they'll be able to maintain the entire OS
Actually now that I think about it, that really depends on the person/organization that does it. And they might actually have some sense and be able to fix some of the issues listed here.
It's official. OpenBSD would be better off if it shut down and was restarted.
>C 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 C 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?
>Miscellaneous
OpenBSD's pf has inferior performance, as it only utilizes one core of one processor. GNU/Linux's netfilter firewall does not have this problem. Neither does pfsense.

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