Benjamin Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote:
> > Several people today have mentioned that OpenBSD is more secure. I won't
> > get into that.
> Ever notice that, whenever someone says they're not going to get into
> something, they promptly get into it? ;-)\
Here we go, again! /FLAME=ON :-)
> > Also, almost all of the vulnerabilities you have listed are not part of
> > the base install. They are ports you can add at a later date if you wish.
>
> What, exactly, is the point of an OS that does not do anything? Why are you
> installing OpenBSD if you're not going to use it? Wouldn't you be better off
> with a shoe box?
Good point, but...
An OS is a platform, all it should do is provide services to packages. The only
reason for installing any OS is to run some set of packages. Point is that each
installation will have its own set, and OpenBSD lets you have better control over
the set of vulnerabilities that you get with your set of packages, for two
reasons: first, there are fewer inherent vulnerabilities in the platform;
second, you get to choose your poison rather than getting everything installed and
enabled by default (viz RedHat).
And yes, a shoe box is better. For some applications. Ever tried storing shoes
in a mini-tower system? :-)
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
