[HN Gopher] Some OpenBSD features that aren't widely known
___________________________________________________________________
Some OpenBSD features that aren't widely known
Author : zdw
Score : 143 points
Date : 2024-02-24 16:57 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (dataswamp.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (dataswamp.org)
| anonymous_union wrote:
| the install process in OpenBSD has to be the most simple i have
| ever used, it is not surprising that it is easily automatable.
|
| overall such a solid operating system. learning about it pays off
| quickly because they don't change things often, and your
| knowledge will be applicable for decades to come.
| arcanemachiner wrote:
| I definitely want more BSD in my life. But I also like, for
| example, Docker containers. BSD seems like a better OS overall,
| but I already know Linux quite well and I don't have enough of
| a compelling reason to switch (yet).
|
| I also have this fear that Linux is gonna rot if Linus Torvalds
| dies or retires, so it's good to have a nice, clean alternative
| waiting in the wings.
| umanwizard wrote:
| Linux is not going to die if Torvalds retires. The worst
| thing that could happen is it splits into multiple competing
| forks such that there's no meaningful notion of "upstream",
| but even that I think is unlikely.
| doublepg23 wrote:
| If Linus got hit by a bus gregkh would step in the next
| day.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| predictions for the futures of linux : more intrusive
| control, locking and phone-home at BOOT time; more opaque
| binary blobs that enable that and other things; more
| restrictions on international distribution for sanctions and
| other political reasons
|
| BSD ++
| anthk wrote:
| OpenBSD has blobs too.
| somat wrote:
| blobs are closed source drivers, executable software that
| runs on the host CPU.
|
| openbsd has no blobs, only firmware, executable software
| that runs on the device chip. It still sucks, but there
| is a difference.
| mlyle wrote:
| Not everyone defines the words that way. And by your
| definition-- Linux doesn't have blobs, either, in
| mainline.
|
| (Microcode, I guess, is one other category)
| DyslexicAtheist wrote:
| not sure if it's possible to make a comparison between Linux
| / OpenBSD. Maybe only time this problem presents itself is
| when one is asked to design the hardware+OS for a network
| appliance.
|
| Linux, as it stands in terms of security, is an absolute
| joke. Historically we have Torvalds calling every security
| conscious user a master-debating monkey. And even more
| recently (few days ago) we got the LKML / CVE process debate
| - under which logic anything could technically become a
| security bug so we should drown ourselves in CVE because it
| isn't our job to think about whether something might be
| security relevant. This seems like a bad-faith argument from
| the Linux community - and I hope they lose it.
|
| Docker ... is really just a bit of glorified buggy networking
| around namespaces/cgroups. I still remember the days when the
| docker documentation asked users to curl random sh&it into |
| sudo bash while talking about the security-benefits totally
| without blushing. Dockerhub has always been the petridish of
| choice for malware across critical infra and supply-chain
| attackers. Yet the community pretends Linux security is great
| while Windows security is terrible. That old meme was true 20
| years ago. Today even Microsoft as shit as they are are miles
| ahead in terms of Linux security.
|
| Linux is great in embedded domains because here nobody cares
| about security. What is left then is cloud infra which
| security-wise is a joke as we all know.
|
| BSD understands that complexity is the enemy of security. And
| Linux essentially offloads any responsibility for the mess
| they create to the users. This is also because Linux still
| considers itself as just the Kernel. BSD has more control and
| is able to keep the entire system logically coherent (and
| secure). Linux security in comparison is best described by
| Grugq's slide nr. #35 of his "COMSEC beyond encryption" talk:
| https://grugq.github.io/presentations/COMSEC%20beyond%20encr.
| ..
| f1shy wrote:
| So much true, but being downvoted. A pitty
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Linux is a well-funded open-source project in use by every
| major tech organization in the world, as well as the US
| government. Linux is the last open source project I expect to
| see die by attrition specifically. IIRC, and as someone
| mentioned, there are people ready to step up if certain
| higher-ups retire or perish.
| generalizations wrote:
| Not die - rot. All those major tech organizations want
| their own stuff in the kernel, and I'm skeptical they have
| the long term viability of linux at heart - rather than,
| say, the needs of their internal tech, quarterly stock, or
| even a promotion or two. I've seen examples surface even
| here on hn of Linus taking down e.g. google engineers for
| submitting bad code. What happens when Linus isn't there,
| with the leverage to insist on technical excellence? Linux
| won't die, but it will ossify and rot.
| somat wrote:
| It is hard for me to quantify why the openbsd install is so
| good. But as an anecdote. when I need a linux I keep going back
| to void linux, mainly because the installer is modeled directly
| off the openbsd installer.
| dijit wrote:
| void linux in general is great if you are looking for a "no-
| magic" linux install where you can conceivably control all
| moving parts of the system.
| user3939382 wrote:
| pf has had bad breaking changes at times, about which the BDFL
| says "we're in a better place" but in general it's stable.
| slow_typist wrote:
| talk is a really cool (and very old) chat program, also available
| on most Linux distributions and I think it was also standard on
| VMS.
| enriquto wrote:
| ytalk has to be the best user-interface that I've ever known.
| It's a multiplayer tmux! We used it to do pair programming
| remotely around 2003. Your terminal is divided in two parts,
| one half for you and the other half for your colleague. You get
| to see what the other does. It needs no complicated
| infrastructure: just xterm, ssh and talk.
| dtaht wrote:
| someone should update talk to ipv6.
| jmclnx wrote:
| Very nice, apmd backup hook looks interesting
| reramuyc wrote:
| OpenBSD isn't widely known...lol
| karlzt wrote:
| talk is great and cool but why they added it to the base system?
| mike_hock wrote:
| And if it's supposed to be used to talk locally, why doesn't it
| use Unix sockets?
| shawn_w wrote:
| It's not limited to local chat.
| shawn_w wrote:
| Probably in the base installation because it's a standard POSIX
| utility.
| petee wrote:
| Without digging deep, it's an optional POSIX utility; likely
| still included for historical reasons, and/or a couple
| developers still use it somewhere
| hugodan wrote:
| one feature I really liked about talk is that you can see other
| people typing as they type, I miss that in nowadays chat apps, it
| provided for some very cool interactions with friends
| 6c696e7578 wrote:
| Like the BBS chat programs of old :)
| agumonkey wrote:
| you mean every char is streamed real-time ? even typos,
| backspaces etc ?
| bombcar wrote:
| Yes, you get every character (the early implementations are
| extremely simple).
| hugodan wrote:
| No^H^HYes
| daneel_w wrote:
| I'll add "accounting" as another: man 8 accton
| (https://man.openbsd.org/accton.8) man 8 sa
| (https://man.openbsd.org/sa.8)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-24 23:01 UTC)