On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 05:09:46PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > 1) Do you think that OpenBSD 's repuation as a secure OS is > justified? Does the secure part of OpenBSD provide a useful platform > for your needs? Would SELinux meet or exceed the needs for a > secure OS for you? I think that regular Debian equals or beats the exact claims made as to openbsd's "security" (which aren't much - just regarding holes in the default install that can lead to a remote root compromise). Note that this mostly says "We have a default install that doesn't do anything, too". In terms of real-world security there appears to be no difference between Debian and openbsd at this time. SELinux would be significantly better, but Debian can hardly claim to support that at present. > 4) Do you think that network performance of the BSD's is better than > that of Linux, including that of the 2.6 kernels? What about NFS > performance? Somebody benchmarked local system performance fairly recently, and Linux 2.6 mopped the floor with the competition (anybody have a reference to that one?). Only freebsd even came close (about on a par with 2.4); openbsd was a *joke*. Network performance is usually bounded by the hardware. > 8) Is the hardware support for the BSD's as good that of Linux? Nowhere near (specifically device drivers, or lack thereof). The BSDs are still where Linux was five years ago. > Does > NetBSD support more architectures than Linux does? Only by redefining "architecture" (one Linux architecture is many architectures to netbsd). It's really about the same by count of platforms, each supporting a few minor platforms that the other does not. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature