On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 09:39:44 +0100
"Roberto E. Vargas Caballero" <k0ga_AT_shike2.com> wrote:
Dear Roberto,
> You shpuld read those [1] and [2]. OpenBSD *IS NOT* objectively
> more secure. It only had less security defects because it has less
> people inspecting the code. For so many years OpenBSD was running
> with very important vulnerabilities that weren't noticied by anyone.
this is probably the other extreme view to see it. If we only take a
look at e.g. LibreSSL vs. OpenSSL and how the project fared in the last
few years, it's obvious their defensive approach to programming paid
off massively.
Also keep in mind that they have diminishingly less manpower than the
Linux ecosystem. If you take that in regard, the perspective shifts. In
absolute terms the vulnerabilities you pointed to are/were a big issue,
and there will be more of these things in the future.
I'm not saying OpenBSD is without defects. Only a stupid person would
say that. It has a lot of legacy cruft as well. We are not in an
ideal world, but I don't need to repeat that point.
> No. This is how when we complaint about the linux users putting
> #/bin/bash or using GNU extensions in Makefiles. Core OpenBSD
> developers are totally differtent, but OpenBSD is creating a full
> culture of people around that only has a centralized view of the
> world. They don't contrast the point and they don't generate a
> critical actitude, everything that comes from OpenBSD is right,
> and OpenBSD is the more secure system, which is obviously false
> (there are other systems that are more secure and more reliable,
> but maybe less usable, than OpenBSD).
Yes, OpenBSD fanboyism is real and it exists. You are false though to
get the impression that I am such a fanboy, as elaborated above. :P
With best regards
Laslo
--
Laslo Hunhold <dev_AT_frign.de>
Received on Thu Sep 13 2018 - 14:20:53 CEST