Every line of code in OpenBSD has been audited for security holes.
The "illusory advantage" is actually a bit more than someones figment of
imagination, because there are more people who don't understand security
application and implementation, including administrators, than those who do.
See more about this on openbsd.org/security.html
On Monday 06 May 2002 22:54, you wrote:
> On Monday 06 May 2002 07:47, you wrote:
> > Hey Bill, about which BSD are you talking? Linux is good for desk top
> > and playing around with KDE but when it comes to serious work get out
> > the BSD. (FreeBSD for network servers and OpenBSD for security, i.e
> > Firewalls).
> >
> > Unix version loyalty is fine but don't disillusion yourself about
> > capability.
> >
> > Timothy
>
> I am running http, smtp, ftp and ntp in addition to the normal mix of
> desktop apps. I am at the 7,500 hits a day mark with the web server, most
> of which are 320 x 200 graphics. This is well within my capacity. I
> strongly suspect I will be into a much larger pipe before I seriously
> challenge even the single CPU I am using.
>
> Open BSD may be more secure out of the box, but what sysad runs an "out of
> the box" system? I know I don't ... and I am strictly small-time. Running
> an "out of the box" system is the sort of behavior I expect of a
> Microsoftie ... not a Unix admin.
>
> Since that is an illusory advantage, perhaps you would care to elaborate on
> the real advantages of Free / Open BSD over a current Linux kernel.
>
> No illusions here.
>
> Bill
--Steve ________________________________________________________ HTML in e-mail creates out-security, and more spam. By using it you teach others, less knowledgeable, that it's safe to use.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:50:23 EDT