Is Linux for losers?
OpenBSD chad Theo de Raadt seems to think so
Is Linux for Losers?
Is Linux for losers?
funny, because BSDs lost by far
by this logic Windows is the best OS
You were supposed to overthrow proprietary software, not help it by fightning your friends.
based theo, CoCked OSes BTFO
OpenBSD is a meme
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.
"Only two remote holes in the default install!!!!!!!"
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.
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.
"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?
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.
OpenBSD does not support any 802.11 Wi-Fi standard newer than 'n'. It also lacks Bluetooth.
WINE doesn't exist on OpenBSD.
1 shekel has been deposited to your account
OpenBSD chad Theo
My chad Linus will kick ass of your chad Theo!
This angle of eyes makes her look like a cat. Not sure if that's intentional.
It's still all UNIX
GNU IS NOT UNIX
no, Linux has more adoption
cheap little hacks that happen to work.
i think our code quality is higher.
Try BSD. Absolutely NOTHING works.
Fuck BSD. It's fucking useless.
windows even more cuck
Torvalds, via e-mail, says De Raadt is "difficult" and declined to comment further.
everything works out of the box
Thanks for recommending it, it's great!
I can promise you Linux has a lot more marketshare than NT.
gets adoption by reimplementing unix
really makes you think
If Google unleashes fuscia, Linux marketshare will be garbage again. You completely failed at making a desktop due to ridiculous arguments like package managers are good, Windows and Mac do the same thing, etc... Your product is garbage and the status quo of being garbage is defended by autists that can't comprehend what constructive criticism is. Desktop is the only OS that matters.
Why do BSD retards always pretend they're Unix? Does AT&T need to fuck them in the ass again?
Because they're (very much arguably) closer to the philosophy and design of original Unix than the other clones.
Linus was actually in the military, so that's not really a joke even
Desktop is the only OS that matters.
user, how are you visiting this web site? You don't think there might be a server involved there?
Desktop is the only OS that matters
So you don't care about what the supercomputers use? Don't care about what satellites use? Dont care about what cars use? Don't care about what planes use? Don't care about what the military uses?
Is that that big of an achievement?
Ask the Russians brainlet.
Is Linux for losers?
New microkernel OS being worked on by Google.
Everything in that list after supercomputers uses a real time operating system and not Linux.
we know you are transitioning and all that estrogen is fucking with your brain, but please try to be less salty, linus.
do what we say not what we do
Linux cultists have been shitting on everything for literally ever, its like rules for radicals applied to software.
linux is for losers
linux got me a job
Difficult in the sense that if SJWs tried to infiltrate his project he'd blast them into orbit unapologetically. Linus on the other hand...
Fuchsia is the OS. The kernel is called Zircon.
he reportedly killed 505 men (according to other sources he is credited with 542) during the 1939–40 Winter War, the highest recorded number of sniper kills in any major war. Häyhä estimated in his diary that he killed more than five hundred Red Army soldiers in the Winter War. Antti Rantama (Häyhä's unit military chaplain) credited Häyhä with 259 confirmed sniper kills without the use of a scope and an equal number of kills by machine/submachine gun during the Winter War.
All of Häyhä's kills were accomplished in fewer than 100 days – an average of just over five per day – at a time of year with very few daylight hours.
t. Russian American
t. Russian American
Le 1/32 Russian face
Sent a whole Russian brigade to hell.