Starch Linux: OpenBSD Atop Arch's Linux Kernel

[kraftman]

Ah, that's why it gets security updates.

It gets them, because it's far more popular than bsd crap and more people are looking at it.

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

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.

[Cthulhux]

glibc is robust, versatile, lightwieght and secure.

Ah, that's why it gets security updates.

OpenBSD is not more secure then Linux, its actually less secure because they do not have anything like AppArmor or SELinux.

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]

Why? A lot of posts around the Internet has often mentioned the dream of a Linux with BSD userland.

IIRC there have been several approaches of that, some are more mature yet.

[BSD SUCKS DICKS]

Starch Linux seems fairly similar to Alpine Linux.

• Both uses OpenRC
• Starch uses musl, Alpine uses uClibc
• Starch uses pacman, Alpine uses apk-tools (which has some similar things as pacman - but is way faster)
• Starch uses BSD userland, Alpine uses busybox.

Since it is based on OpenBSD I'd assume there are some interest in security. I don't know if Starch has some kernel hardening but Alpine Linux uses Grsecurity in the default kernel.

1. OpenRC is SHIT. It's slow, BSD licensed. Systemd is way better.

2. musl and uClibc are jack fuck shit compared to glibc. glibc is robust, versatile, lightwieght and secure.

3. Both pacman and apk-tools are far superior to the rusty ports used in all BSDs.

4. BSD userland is slow, limited functionality, too heavy (can't be used on mobile platforms) etc.


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.

Also, their third party apps from ports are not audited while linux is. So the more apps you install, insecurity grows exponentially.

Plus like M$, they cover up security flaws and even allow the FBI to plant backdoors

[ncopa]

Starch Linux seems fairly similar to Alpine Linux.

• Both uses OpenRC
• Starch uses musl, Alpine uses uClibc
• Starch uses pacman, Alpine uses apk-tools (which has some similar things as pacman - but is way faster)
• Starch uses BSD userland, Alpine uses busybox.

Since it is based on OpenBSD I'd assume there are some interest in security. I don't know if Starch has some kernel hardening but Alpine Linux uses Grsecurity in the default kernel.

Alpine Linux seems to be much more mature though and have some support for desktop stuff like XFCE, firefox and similar.

[BSD SUCKS DICKS]

When you replace any part of GNU/Linux with BSD crap, use lose superior functionality.

Get that true your fucking heads

[BSD SUCKS DICKS]

Why? A lot of posts around the Internet has often mentioned the dream of a Linux with BSD userland. Hopefully it will clean out some GNUisms in scripts etc so that the end result is that stuff gets more standards-compliant (rather than "de facto standard" compliant). The OpenBSD tools are generally considered very high quality.

I am very curious about this project. Currently I have "chickened out" and only have it as a chroot on my Arch linux system. The opposite with Starch as base system and dynamic Arch as an optional chroot would however be more interesting.

OpenBSD TOOLS ARE SHIT, they have extreme limited functionality. Why use those crap when Linux tools are far superior to any.

[moilami]

I loled.

They say one picture can tell more than thousand words.

[Chewi]

This doesn't seem to make much sense. Is Arch's kernel really all that different? I know Gentoo's isn't. Certainly not different enough to warrant the Arch association. But it does use pacman, which is far more significant. Where does it even say that they use Arch's kernel anyway?

[staalmannen]

Lolwut, doesn't this seem like... backwards?

Why? A lot of posts around the Internet has often mentioned the dream of a Linux with BSD userland. Hopefully it will clean out some GNUisms in scripts etc so that the end result is that stuff gets more standards-compliant (rather than "de facto standard" compliant). The OpenBSD tools are generally considered very high quality.

I am very curious about this project. Currently I have "chickened out" and only have it as a chroot on my Arch linux system. The opposite with Starch as base system and dynamic Arch as an optional chroot would however be more interesting.