Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
The Freedom Box gets off the groundThe Freedom Box gets off the groundPosted Feb 24, 2011 13:25 UTC (Thu) by ortalo (subscriber, #4654)Parent article: The Freedom Box gets off the ground
Why rushing to Debian?
Don't mistake me, I love Debian, I installed 1.0 and am still using it (not 1.0, Debian ;-), and I highly respect the security level they achieve.
However, as soon as the highest-grade security on an autonomous system is a concern, I personally consider that at least considering OpenBSD remains a must.
I fear to start yet another OS flamewar. Anyway I won't participate. I just mean that if I had to engineer such a box, I would consider bringing on it an OS that committed to security in the *first* place (whatever the motivation, name, genealogy or feature set).
(Log in to post comments)
The Freedom Box gets off the ground Posted Feb 24, 2011 17:37 UTC (Thu) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]
Surely once a stack is prototyped, you wouldn't have a problem porting it to OpenBSD, right?
(And what version was it that you initially installed?)
The Freedom Box gets off the ground Posted Feb 24, 2011 18:13 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
The licence kinds ruins OpenBSD for this purpose.
What would be the point of integrating all the software, only to have some company take it, add some features, and sell a binary blob version - complete with free spying, eavesdropping, backdoors etc.
I know that neither OS is completely one licence or another, but with OpenBSD there'll be a lot less copylefted software, and the local devs won't be enthusiastic about helping you get your GPL'd software working.
Debian is a better community to work with when freedom for all end users is your goal.
The Freedom Box gets off the ground Posted Feb 24, 2011 18:49 UTC (Thu) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
> What would be the point of integrating all the software, only to have some company take it, add some features, and sell a binary blob version - complete with free spying, eavesdropping, backdoors etc.
To be honest, they could still do this even if it's licensed under the GPL. If they release the source to the end-users as required, the end-users may or may not find the back doors (see also the = vs == stuff in the kernel many many moons ago; luckily, this was in the mainline kernel, not some obscure distro's patch).
The difference is that the GPL gives the copyright holders recourse if the other company infringes on the GPL, which is a small layer of protection for the end-users (especially if it's GPLv3, since the Evil Vendor couldn't use tivoizaiton).
Of course, if a company is particularly interested in being evil, they could also silently mod the hardware....
|
|||||||||||||