Hi,

I am using OpenBSD on a desktop system for about a year now and have
some open questions about the project goals. I have read
http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html , but I think it does not answer some
questions.

One question is what the ideal status of OpenBSD would be. Right now
there are core applications (which include also Sendmail and Apache) and
the ports. Would it be a goal for OpenBSD to provide most functionality
as part of core? I mean its clear that the ports and packages are not
audited as the applications in core are. But generally there is no
argument for why one application should get more auditing than another,
except when you say that you want to provide only one of a kind.

Maybe this question is not OpenBSD specific but merely a question of
what a goal of an operating system should be. The goals on the project
homepage focus more on what is different on OpenBSD. My understanding is
that OpenBSD (most BSDs and Unices and also Plan9) strive to provide all
basic functionalities as part of the core distribution. And on Linux the
mentality is rather that the operating system is rather a collection of
different parts - and that each part is an individual package - so there
is generally no sense of a "core" besides the Linux kernel and maybe the
base-files package.

Another interesting and realted question is what should be provided by
default. OpenBSD got some criticism that it has  not enabled many
services by default and does not take into account non-default installs
of some random packages or ports when it comes to security leaks. But
OTOH  OpenBSD provides Apache and Xorg/Xenocara as core file sets, which
I think no other operating system does? As far as I looked other BSDs
provide Apache and Xorg as ports rather? So one could also say that
OpenBSD is actually providing not less but more. Most Linuxes will
install and Xorg plus a desktop like KDE or GNOME by default - but then
all those are just distribution-provided packages which are not audited
well on most Linuxes.

Right now I see the wholeheartedness on working on the operating system
as what makes up OpenBSD and differs it from other OSes. I think
although security is a focus this is really more a benefit of the
development process. I mean security does not come from statements and
also not from having it as a goal. I would say that the Debian guys wont
say that security was unimportant to them, nor would any OS state that.
The difference lies in how people act - and maybe also how much progress
is seen of just providing the latest and greatest.

Regards,
Thilo

Reply via email to