What do you think about following OpenBSD criticism?

https://web.archive.org/web/20200509022 … enbsd.html

Many have agendas and usually those who blog about how crap or deficient something is or how another OS somehow got their first when it comes to security features sporting catchy acronyms, all while remaining mostly anonymous, they usually fall into that category.  They have picked apart a single facet of a project/product, focusing only on that, igoring all other aspects - only to suit a very specific agenda.  They write blogs - criticising others' work, instead of patches...

As much as possible can be brought out to several boards with OpenBSD (say DNS, anonymous tunnel, different proxies, SSH gateways to local X86 servers, everything non significant what you see in pstree on your localhost now).

And the things where OBSD is not enough we can run on many Linuxes with a patched libre kernel like grsec or @anthrax and add different mandate controls like AppArmour and other?

Actually Linux is generally needed only for relatively high performance X86 boards to run WINE and some heavy applications, even a desktop can run on a dedicated OpenBSD single board with Xenocara X11 and several sub X11 per each non trusted application like IRC client, browsers, etc.
X11 host can be used for remote rendering without actual application running on it.

There are holes everywhere, from hardware to software. One issue will be closed another one will come out.

We totally are in the complexity trap and should rethink what we really need.
You want everything?
Then you get every bug too!
It is that simple.

What do you think about following OpenBSD criticism?

https://web.archive.org/web/20200509022 … enbsd.html

There is none 100% safety system as the life we live is not 100% guaranteed by countless factors.
In my opinion, Linux critics are even worse than those of Windows, especially on some prestigious tech-forums that are quite weird.

Meanwhile, Linux list it is even longer, consumers still use it.

The question wasn't addressed to me, but I am also giving my 2 cents.

As a BSD newbie , i really don't care that much anymore. I do as much i can to do my duties without being paranoid at all.
There are holes everywhere, from hardware to software. One issue will be closed another one will come out.

Use what makes you feel better and don't live for the other's eye or criticism. Criticize yourself if you want to or ignore by using something else.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200509022 … enbsd.html

Not because I am using Devuan but, this is the best distro/OS out there right now. 

FreeBSD has a great sound package in OSS but it's giving me a torrid time while pulseaudio is very playable.  Yes, I know I can install pulseaudio on FreeBSD but why if OSS is there.

Ash init durbatulûk, ash init gimbatul, Ash init thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.

Preciousssss

(41) ''I thought,'' he said, ''that if the world was going to end we were meant to lie down or put a paper bag over our head or something.''
(42) ''If you like, yes,'' said Ford.
(43) ''That's what they told us in the army,'' said  the  man,  and  his eyes began the long trek back down to his whisky.
(44) ''Will that help?'' asked the barman.
(45) ''No,'' said Ford and gave him a friendly smile.  ''Excuse  me,''  he said, ''I've got to go.'' With a wave, he left.

I think it's too early for last orders. Instead we just should continue to use Devuan.

Kelsoo wrote:

I believe in 10 years time assimilation in all but name will be complete. (This is the main reason I don't run Devuan as my main system.) There needs to be somewhere for distros to go when this happens.

I am not sure I fully understand your argument here.
Do you mean you do not run Devuan because it will be assimilated in 10 years?
Do you mean Devuan is too close to the "evil" or too small to undo the "evil"?
Where do you see distros going to when this happens?

I mean I think Debian will be assimilated and therefore most other distros will be not much more than a RedHat clone in 10 years time. That will make Devuans work even harder, or as you put it "too small to undo the "evil"  I'm not saying I think Debian is evil. Quite the contrary I really care about it. I'm saying it's being forcibly shaped by outside forces and that have their own interests at heart.

I  use a couple Devuan Derivatives. I have installs of Exe GNU/Linux and Gnuinos and use Refracta live CD's.  I really hope they can keep going but would rather put my meagre efforts into something not dependent on Debian in-case my fears come true.

Of the "Big" distros only Gentoo seem to offer any sanity. Heck they even support systemd while trying to remain non-dependent on it, which in my view is what Debian should be doing. Fingers crossed Devuan can ultimately merge back in to Debian and restore some sanity.

Guix may offer some refuge. Seems to be getting very popular and like Gentoo as a source distro offers options.

Slackware can't cope with Gnome and I can see them struggling with KDE.

I'm taking the belts n braces approach I'm going small.  I still use Dragora 2.2 (way to old) and Hyperbola mostly while I wait for  Dragora 3 to actually get out of beta. It will have TDE to try and remove it's self from the ever increasing growth of corporate upstream power, and fetches and builds packages from source or prebuilt by the community like Arch Linux AUR. There are no community repos yet qire the package to fetch packages was only built this morning!

Dragora 3 has the init scheme divided into 2 parts to make it more reliable.
1 Process number 1 (sysvinit) is limited to manage the stages for boot and shutting down the system, but nothing more.
2 Supervisor service (Perp) The control of services is done using Perp only. This way if the service supervisor dies the system should still run.
http://b0llix.net/perp/

Anyway fingers crossed Debian and Devuan find some common ground

I believe in 10 years time assimilation in all but name will be complete. (This is the main reason I don't run Devuan as my main system.) There needs to be somewhere for distros to go when this happens.

I am not sure I fully understand your argument here.
Do you mean you do not run Devuan because it will be assimilated in 10 years?
Do you mean Devuan is too close to the "evil" or too small to undo the "evil"?
Where do you see distros going to when this happens?

mmaglis wrote:

forcing adaptation of software or features without any option to alternatives or the ability to disable them.

By this I do mean hard-coded dependencies in software, but it goes beyond this. Pushing for agendas and platforms, setting default core system software that re-define what GNU+Linux is, without considering interoperability to others. Their interest is to dominate the Linux world with their platforms, tools and architecture.

mmaglis wrote:

It is the effect of commercial interests and the  influence they excercise on so many vital projects for their commercial needs and targets.

I believe this article from Forbes expresses it in more detail: The Impact Of The Tech Giants On Open Source

The power of the multinationals is the reason we have systemd and it's ilk. Debian would back in the day have supported multi inits as a matter of course. To support user choice. Now they can't compete against the corps. RedHat simply can gain the system by chucking more devs at it. It may be a free-software package but volunteers simply can't keep up with the work required to maintain user choice. I believe in 10 years time assimilation in all but name will be complete. (This is the main reason I don't run Devuan as my main system.) There needs to be somewhere for distros to go when this happens.

We also see a rise in anti copyleft from the big corps. Show me a big 7 that uses copyleft by default where they have a choice. This is about the same thing. Control and power. The only time I see big corps using copyleft is where they don't want other big corps to not share the code! 

I think Hyperbola recognise this and simply don't try and kill them selves chasing rainbows. They just drop non-free packages and packages that try and obfuscate no matter what they are and try and work on the things they can do. They choose their rainbows carefully like the firefox, where they maintain the iceweasel-uxp packages. It's easier to maintain that than try to keep fixing each new "feature"  firefox either inserts or removes. That said I think their plan to fork OpenBSD is very ambitious and I'm not sure it can be realised. I hope they succeed but have my doubts.

HevyDevy wrote:

yeti wrote:

So porting a De??an sibling to e.g. the NetBSD kernel, just would revive the old dreams.

—▷ https://www.debian.org/ports/netbsd/index
—▷ https://www.debian.org/ports/netbsd/alpha

Besides those links show they have abandoned all such efforts in porting bsd's so the point is rather moot. Hypothetically, if a team of talented devs were to undertake such an endeavor then this might not be a moot point.

This one is not dead yet:
https://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/

Check the mailing list archive and you'll see that the mailing list is still active.

Phil

Someone needs to clean up the dubious spam posts on those lists.

forcing adaptation of software or features without any option to alternatives or the ability to disable them.

By this I do mean hard-coded dependencies in software, but it goes beyond this. Pushing for agendas and platforms, setting default core system software that re-define what GNU+Linux is, without considering interoperability to others. Their interest is to dominate the Linux world with their platforms, tools and architecture.

I believe this article from Forbes expresses it in more detail: The Impact Of The Tech Giants On Open Source