Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Starch Linux: OpenBSD Atop Arch's Linux Kernel

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by moilami View Post
    I loled.

    They say one picture can tell more than thousand words.
    It's so true. You can replace Tux by M$ or crapple as well and it will still remain valid.

    Comment


    • #17
      bsd sucks dicks!!!!!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Cthulhux View Post
        Ah, that's why it gets security updates.


        Only your Linsux b$ needs AppArmor. Advanced operating systems are secure by default.
        There, Just relying on the barely OS to have no holes and thus no layers of protection.

        NEWSFLASH: NO ONE CAN MAKE AN OS ENTIRELY BUG FREE. Security experts should know that and thus it looks like OpenBSD devs/cunts are not security experts and looks like they live their own fairy land.

        edit:
        And while we're at it, there are no "third party apps" in ports. All ports are home-grown and checked manually before being added.
        Stop bull shitting, you mean they port Linux applications to their shitty as fuck portstree? thats what I meant by third part apps.

        It's been announce on their website, third party apps are not checked for security vulns. The same for FreeBSD, NetBSD and DragonflyBSD.

        Linux check their apps. Thus Linux is more secure then BastardsSuckingDildos.
        Last edited by BSD SUCKS DICKS; 01-25-2013, 07:32 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
          One more thing: even Linux chroot is more secure than bsd jails, so don't compromise yourself further.
          Thats true, in fact Linux (Not BSD) invented the chroot. BSD cunts manage to lie to everyone that they invented the chroot. No, it was Linux FULL STOP.

          BSDs just copied the chroot. Their jails are also apparently copied of a Linux developer except they also removed the code that makes the feature good and secure. So BSD jails are a shitty downgraded copy of an invention from Linux.

          Linux didn't implement that feature cos the developer though it didn't mean expectations. So he went on to develop LXC which was implemented in Linux and is far more secure then anything.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Cthulhux View Post
            Ah, that's why it gets security updates.


            Only your Linsux b$ needs AppArmor. Advanced operating systems are secure by default.

            edit:
            And while we're at it, there are no "third party apps" in ports. All ports are home-grown and checked manually before being added.
            Cthulhux can only spit out childish insults on forums, which is a typical characteristic of a BSD cunt.

            Seriously, ALL ASSOCIATED WITH BSD SHOULD BE BANNED FROM FORUMS.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by kraftman View Post
              It gets them, because it's far more popular than bsd crap and more people are looking at it.
              Linux code is far more audited then BSD code. It's far more cleaner and correct, more bug-free and more maintainable. BSD code is not just old, it's buggy, slow, a mess and shows signs of shitty programming and to make it compiler-able with clang, the code has gotten even worse. the FreeBSD Kernel is now >300MB compared to linux's which is only 70MB and yet linux is more portable, has more drivers, more features (superior features) then BitchesSickingDick (BitLight's mom sucking my dick)

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                No, idiot. Show me BullShitDaily comparable security mechanism like Linux has. Linux is far more secure than your toy OS. BSD is no way advanced operating system! It's legacy OS that lacks ANY real world security protection. There's a reason why Linux was chosen by National Security Agency. One more thing: even Linux chroot is more secure than bsd jails, so don't compromise yourself further.
                I don't know for BullShitDaily, but FreeBSD has SEBSD.
                Also this mechanisms are too complex to be useful.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by BSD SUCKS DICKS View Post
                  Stop bull shitting, you mean they port Linux applications to their shitty as fuck portstree? thats what I meant by third part apps.
                  They do. But actually they review it before doing so. I maintain some ports myself, I know that.

                  Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                  It gets them, because it's far more popular than bsd crap and more people are looking at it.
                  So why did KDE recently have a 10 years old bug fixed? More people looking at it, eh?
                  FAILed QA.

                  Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                  No, idiot. Show me BullShitDaily comparable security mechanism like Linux has.
                  It just does not need them like your Linsux does.

                  Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                  There's a reason why Linux was chosen by National Security Agency.
                  Because Americans are too stupid to handle Unix?

                  Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                  One more thing: even Linux chroot is more secure than bsd jails
                  How?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by BSD SUCKS DICKS View Post
                    1. OpenRC is SHIT. It's slow, BSD licensed. Systemd is way better.
                    systemd is "way better" for those who only cares about speed. But, yes, it is technically better.

                    2. musl and uClibc are jack fuck shit compared to glibc. glibc is robust, versatile, lightwieght and secure.
                    GNU libc has more features than both musl and uClibc but its not lightweight. Its pretty bloated if you compare.

                    3. Both pacman and apk-tools are far superior to the rusty ports used in all BSDs.
                    I bet you never used apk-tools.

                    OpenBSD is not more secure then Linux, its actually less secure because they do not have anything like AppArmor or SELinux. They rely on the hopes of their OS being bug free so if it isn't, there's no layers of defence.
                    I disagree. OpenBSD does a pretty good job with security and Linux' pluggable security model is overrated. If you want a secure Linux kernel, have a look at Grsecurity patch.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                      One more thing: even Linux chroot is more secure than bsd jails, so don't compromise yourself further.
                      Linux chroots were never intended as a security feature and should never ever be used as such. bsd jails is more like linux containers and linux containers are like chroot, not intended for security isolation so use those with care.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by BSD SUCKS DICKS View Post
                        There, Just relying on the barely OS to have no holes and thus no layers of protection.
                        This is directly false.

                        They were pretty early with propolice and stack smashing protection. They implemented W^X and they are pretty good with privilege separation. (read about why they wrote their own ntpd and invented BSD auth instead of PAM and the privilege separation ideas they implemented there).

                        Basically, they assume that the software that runs is buggy and tries to make it hard to exploit those bugs. Thanks to this they have discovered many bugs in 3rd party apps and thus contributed that Linux userland has become safer.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by ncopa View Post
                          This is directly false.

                          They were pretty early with propolice and stack smashing protection. They implemented W^X and they are pretty good with privilege separation. (read about why they wrote their own ntpd and invented BSD auth instead of PAM and the privilege separation ideas they implemented there).

                          Basically, they assume that the software that runs is buggy and tries to make it hard to exploit those bugs. Thanks to this they have discovered many bugs in 3rd party apps and thus contributed that Linux userland has become safer.
                          Shhhh! You are attempting to defeat a troll with logic! [/sarcasm]

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Does this mean that some people will hate it for the Linux kernel while others will hate it for the OpenBSD user space?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              It is fake

                              It's fake. Look at the project core repository (http://mirror1.starchlinux.org/pkg/core/) recomended for update. It install standard utillinux and coreutils packages. Nothing used from OpenBSD.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                It's fake project. In repository only packages utilslinux and coreutils, nothing form OpenBSD.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X