On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 07:47:20PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 05:37:05PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
> > Henning Brauer wrote:
> >
> > > It never can be as secure as OpenBSD. Have a look at the sources.
> >
> > "Having a look at the sources" certainly isn't a justification why one
> > is better than the other. What specifically about Linux is broken as
> > compared to BSD?
>
> Really have a look at the sources. You'll see the difference very fast.
> There are strong rules for code on OpenBSD, style(9) is just a tiny excerpt.
> The code is just written with "correctnedd" in mind, and with paranoia.
> Reading the linux kernel sources you'll see that there is big confusion,
> much to much people coding and not talking to each other.
Regardless of the supposed better coding and auditing practices on the BSD's,
I don't see that their kernel has proven itself to be more secure than the
Linux kernel. Linux distributions in general seem to have more exploits
available for them, but this is mainly due to stupid distributors installing
unneeded services by default, and running services in an insecure manner (for
instance, running cfingerd as root instead of nobody, which led to the latest
cfingerd exploit on several distributions).
There are some things that BSD does better than Linux, and most of them can
be attributed to the fact that BSD is an older and much more maturs OS.
There are also some things that Linux does better, and the recent addition of
good, journaling filesystems for Linux is obsolescing ext2fs.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Help stop animal abuse at Petco!
http://flounder.net/publickey.html | http://www.mickaboofriends.org
GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA |
38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A |
