Performance v.s. Quality

Posted Nov 7, 2005 4:50 UTC (Mon) by cventers (guest, #31465)
In reply to: Performance v.s. Quality by b7j0c
Parent article: FreeBSD Project Launches FreeBSD 6.0

>> they are more than different kernels, they are different operating
systems and different projects.

Indeed, you're right! I'm declaring this to be a *problem* with BSD,
because innovation cannot be easily shared. What if all the developers
for Linux split the kernel into three separate projects? I'd speculate
that each project would still have more manpower than the most developed
BSD, but it would do seriously bad things to Linux's rate of innovation,
which I believe the forking has done to BSD.

>> i don't know him. also if i want to say something like that to
someone, i do it directly to them and with good reason, which is why i
suggested you do so, signed with your real name of course (since you are
insulting him by name). presuming that all you know about him is what you
pulled out of wikipedia, you have no cause for insulting him in a public
forum either.

You pick some really clueless vectors on which to attack me. What makes
you think that my first exposure to Theo is on Wikipedia? Don't you think
there was a reason I thought that might be a good place to look for
someone else's words on the subject?

Indeed, if you had any kind of short term memory, you might remember when
I said:

>> Instead, it seems that the noise I receive from the BSD community
includes things like Theo making arbitrary blanket statements in the
press like "Most people don't know how terrible Linux is"... (not that
Theo speaks for the BSD community at large).

Read this article:

http://www.forbes.com/intelligentinfrastructure/2005/06/1...

I, Chase Venters, hereby declare Theo De Raadt to be an asshole on
account of his childish slander that seems to carry no more substance
than sour grapes.

>> you keep syaing that, even though no one has.

I do keep "syaing" that, because of the claim that sparked this whole
flash of commentary - the statement in FreeBSD's press release that some
unspecified benchmark demonstrates that FreeBSD 6 is faster than Linux in
data throughput. I don't generally believe unqualified numbers, and I
certainly don't believe unqalified numbers from the FreeBSD project.

I'm going to voluntarily stop adding comments to this thread, because I'm
starting to feel like a Slashdot troll, and I'm quite fond of LWN as an
excellent resource.

Performance v.s. Quality

Posted Nov 7, 2005 5:49 UTC (Mon) by b7j0c (guest, #27559) [Link] (5 responses)

>> Indeed, you're right! I'm declaring this to be a *problem* with BSD,
>> because innovation cannot be easily shared.

each project has separate design goals. they are happy to sail in separate directions. these design goals are oftne mutually exclusive. openbsd's performance may not be optimized, but its security features are. i would offer that openbsd is generally considered the most secure open source OS, so forsaking comprimise has worked in their favor. likewise with netbsd's portability. they don't want to adopt code that will forsake this design goal.

the entire point of the BSDs is to provide an implementation of a specific design goal, not to conflate all design goals.

Performance v.s. Quality

Posted Nov 7, 2005 10:49 UTC (Mon) by PaXTeam (guest, #24616) [Link] (4 responses)

as someone else mentioned it already, this is just another meme that some (Open)BSD users keep repeating. what is it exactly that allows a Linux or (say) NetBSD system to be compromised but doesn't allow it on OpenBSD? can you mention a few specific things or have you blindly repeated their propaganda only? and i'd also like to know who 'in general' considers OpenBSD the 'most secure open source OS'? i've spent quite some years in computer security and haven't run across any expert who thinks so. i submit we may differ in the definition of 'expert' here, to me it's the person who knows how to avoid/find/exploit/fix bugs, and has actually done so in a professional manner for a number of years, i.e., actual real-life experience is king and key here (and it excludes quite a few self-described 'experts').

Performance v.s. Quality

Posted Nov 7, 2005 17:01 UTC (Mon) by b7j0c (guest, #27559) [Link] (3 responses)

if you do not understand the security features of openbsd, you should not comment on them.

>> i've spent quite some years in computer security

yet you have never spent any time reviewing any of the information on openbsd in order to submit an informed post on the topic. i'm not saying that its featureset is not subject to criticism, but you aren't even doing that, you're just offering more hand-waving.

Performance v.s. Quality

Posted Nov 7, 2005 18:08 UTC (Mon) by PaXTeam (guest, #24616) [Link] (2 responses)

now where did you figure out that i "don't understand the security features of OpenBSD"? or that i "have never spent any time reviewing any of the information on OpenBSD"? did you read all that out of my post above? google up PaX one day then Mr. i-know-security-and-openbsd. sorry, i meant yahoo or whatever. once you do that and realize what it's been about for the past 5 years, you'll probably also understand why i can comment on their features (and have done so on numerous occasions, check bugtraq or undeadly.org).

also, you ditched my question so i'll ask it again: what is it exactly that allows a Linux or (say) NetBSD system to be compromised but doesn't allow it on OpenBSD? it's funny that you are asking me for submitting an informed post on OpenBSD security (not that this was the best forum for that, mind you), yet you fail do the same? you know what best describes you? your own words: your post is 100% content-free zealotry.

Performance v.s. Quality

Posted Nov 7, 2005 18:20 UTC (Mon) by b7j0c (guest, #27559) [Link] (1 responses)

>> what is it exactly that allows a Linux or (say) NetBSD system to be
>> compromised but doesn't allow it on OpenBSD?

openbsd is not designed to fix netbsd or linux security issues.

i never said netbsd or linux were insecure, you like every other poster here seems to only understand the pepsi-challenge mentality, that one wins and the other loses.

where did i say openbsd closes linux security holes?

where did i say linux has glaring security holes?

Performance v.s. Quality

Posted Nov 8, 2005 17:29 UTC (Tue) by PaXTeam (guest, #24616) [Link]

you said: "i would offer that openbsd is generally considered the most secure open source OS". if it's 'the most secure', then by definition the others are not the most secure, or in plain english, they're less secure. i asked what that 'less secure' is exactly and i have yet to receive an informed post from you. and in case you don't understand the word 'secure', i'll offer a simple definition: security is about information flow control, i.e., i expect you to give specific examples where OpenBSD provides information flow controls where the others don't (and 'provides' implies that such controls are bugfree, non-exploitable, else said controls are just an exercise in vain), and i also expect you to prove that all controls the 'less secure' systems have are also present in in OpenBSD (so that you can in the end prove that OpenBSD security is indeed a true superset of all the others). your turn sir ;-).