On Tuesday 28 December 2004 10:29, Ralf Ronneburger wrote:
Hi Allen,
Allen wrote:
It does, they can brag how secure it is over other OSs in a default state. Which is shit anyway, an OS should come with a more useable state than secure, and it should be up to the admin to secure it as needed. Which is why I don't like Open BSD. They have code audits, big deal so does SUSE, they ship it with everything turned off..... Big deal, you can do that with any Linux / BSD. It's shitty.
it's not shitty, it's clever. For most people it's an easier job to open up some potential holes in order to get something running than to close all of those potential holes in order to get secure. That's the same way every good firewall should work - drop by default and open up what you need. With your arguments - you can also make windows secure, somehow ;-).
Except BSD isn't a firewall, it's an OS. If you couldn't make Windows secure, Hotmail would be hacksered as much as people try.
Besides that the OpenBSD-Team writes good (secure and functional) open source software that's quite often used under Linux, too. I'd not use OpenBSD on the desktop (besides old hardware), but I recommend to consider it for servers.
So how many have you actually set up using Open BSD? None? -- ----------------------------------------------- http://www.misfits.com Punk Rock, Opiates, and SUSE Linux. das Blut in den Adern erstarren lassen. Kuerbis der Zuhaelter