[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Why Linux, Why Debian

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

>  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

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: