So, Martin, what is your point ?
On 2014-04-07, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> previously on this list Stuart Henderson contributed:
>
>> > If a port is considered dangerous like wireshark was it
>> > is removed to avoid encouraging it but users can still build it of
>> > course.
>>
>> There's a problem with *not* hav
On August 27, 2014 10:16:21 PM CEST, Kevin Chadwick
wrote:
> ...
Kevin, FYI, your time is horribly off...
previously on this list Riccardo Mottola contributed:
> Yes, sysmerge is really neat.
Perhaps I should expand as to why if it has been so long without him
using.
sysmerge handles everything in /etc! via etc??.tgz and xetc??.tgz and
lets you do quick diffs (which I shamelessly copied from for my
previously on this list Stuart Henderson contributed:
> > If a port is considered dangerous like wireshark was it
> > is removed to avoid encouraging it but users can still build it of
> > course.
>
> There's a problem with *not* having it in ports too, if people do compile
> it
On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 03:38:17PM -0700, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
> Chris Bennett [chrisbenn...@bennettconstruction.us] wrote:
> >
> > X is also built in.
> > Gee, base is so insecure!!
> >
>
> X is a security disaster
>
Most of the internet sites I use work just fine with lynx.
vi works ok.
I
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 7:00 PM, staticsafe wrote:
> On 4/6/2014 18:38, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
> > Chris Bennett [chrisbenn...@bennettconstruction.us] wrote:
> >>
> >> X is also built in.
> >> Gee, base is so insecure!!
> >>
> >
> > X is a security disaster
> >
>
>
<> ?
Naaah it's just bad.
(stil
On 4/6/2014 18:38, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
> Chris Bennett [chrisbenn...@bennettconstruction.us] wrote:
>>
>> X is also built in.
>> Gee, base is so insecure!!
>>
>
> X is a security disaster
>
http://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2013/30C3_-_5499_-_en_-_saal_1_-_201312291830_-_x_security_-_ilja_v
Chris Bennett [chrisbenn...@bennettconstruction.us] wrote:
>
> X is also built in.
> Gee, base is so insecure!!
>
X is a security disaster
On 04/03/14 22:04, Martin Braun wrote:
...
> Maybe I am just plain stupid, but could someone explain to me the point in
> "bragging" about only two remote holes in the default install, when the
> default install is useless before you add some content to the system,
> unless you're running a web ser
Hi,
Martin Braun wrote:
By easier to maintain it means "apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade" which
is freaking neat!
You can say what you want about Debian, but their apt system is
exceptional! Especially between versions.
it is getting a bit off-topic, but yes... I stand to that. I tinker wit
Hi,
Can you please give an example of a maintenance task
that is easier then the comparable/analogous task in OpenBSD?
^
Because I remember Debian kinda sucked when I used it in 1998.
apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade between
On Apr 05 00:06:56, yellowgoldm...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> but eventually began using Debian
> >> because it was much easier to maintain
>
> > Can you please give an example of a maintenance task
> > that is easier then the comparable/analogous task in OpenBSD?
^^
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 07:48:50PM -0400, John D. Verne wrote:
> On Apr 4, 2014, at 18:06, Martin Braun wrote:
>
> >>> I used OpenBSD back in the 3.x days,
> >
> >> The last 3.x release was 8 years ago.
> >> Are you fucking serious?
> >
> > Yup.
> >
> >>> but eventually began using Debian
> >>
On Apr 4, 2014, at 18:06, Martin Braun wrote:
>>> I used OpenBSD back in the 3.x days,
>
>> The last 3.x release was 8 years ago.
>> Are you fucking serious?
>
> Yup.
>
>>> but eventually began using Debian
>>> because it was much easier to maintain
>
>> Can you please give an example of a ma
> No!
>
> By easier to maintain it means "apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade" which
> is freaking neat!
>
> You can say what you want about Debian, but their apt system is
> exceptional! Especially between versions.
Yes, truly exceptional.
I had a blast upgrading from Sheesh to Whoosy, or wha
apt-get though seemingly simple, brings in shit load of libraries with names
resembling alien species. Try doing a dpkg -l | wc -l and you'll get the idea.
Even a default Debian system can have hundreds of libraries of dubious origins.
Would I trust my important data to it? Definitely not.
Don'
>> I used OpenBSD back in the 3.x days,
> The last 3.x release was 8 years ago.
> Are you fucking serious?
Yup.
>> but eventually began using Debian
>> because it was much easier to maintain
> Can you please give an example of a maintenance task
> that is easier then the comparable/analogous ta
So you had a good time.. great!
So I guess you're running a clean OpenBSD box without any kind of
thirdparty application? In that case great.. otherwise go suck on a
lollypop!
2014-04-04 12:18 GMT+02:00 Andy :
> Hahahahahahahahahaha.. Reaallly!!! :)
>
> You should have sent this a couple of
No!
By easier to maintain it means "apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade" which
is freaking neat!
You can say what you want about Debian, but their apt system is
exceptional! Especially between versions.
2014-04-04 12:18 GMT+02:00 Tito Mari Francis Escaño <
titomarifran...@gmail.com>:
> By ea
On 2014-04-04, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> If a port is considered dangerous like wireshark was it
> is removed to avoid encouraging it but users can still build it of
> course.
There's a problem with *not* having it in ports too, if people do compile
it for themselves, considering ho
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Aaron Poffenberger wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2014, at 10:20 PM, Kenneth Westerback
> wrote:
>
> > On 3 April 2014 22:04, Martin Braun wrote:
> >> As we all know on the front page of OpenBSD it says "Only two remote
> holes
> >> in the default install, in a heck of a long
On Apr 3, 2014, at 10:20 PM, Kenneth Westerback wrote:
> On 3 April 2014 22:04, Martin Braun wrote:
>> As we all know on the front page of OpenBSD it says "Only two remote holes
>> in the default install, in a heck of a long time".
>>
>> I don't understand why this is "such a big deal".
>>
>>
> All in all the default install is pretty useless in itself and I am going
> to quote "Absolute OpenBSD" by Michael Lucas:
>
> «You're installed OpenBSD and rebooted into a bare-bones system. Of
> course, a minimal Unix-like system is actually pretty boring. While it
> makes a powerful foundat
Static web pages??
Did you notice that sqlite3 is in base?
So you could run your website off of a database, write your OWN software
in perl, make highly interactive pages, view them in lynx, offer images
to outside viewers browsers, etc.
I'm using postgresql, but I could change over to all base
On 04/03/14 22:04, Martin Braun wrote:
...
> Maybe I am just plain stupid, but could someone explain to me the point in
> "bragging" about only two remote holes in the default install, when the
> default install is useless before you add some content to the system,
> unless you're running a web ser
previously on this list Andy contributed:
> OpenBSD is a learning curve but one which
> will pay off if you persevere (especially if you're trying to use it for
> network services).
This is the best, perhaps only way to answer the question as there are
many reasons mainly coming down to securit
By easier to maintain, it means having regular task of patching the system
here or there a.k.a. job security for system administrators :)
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Eric Furman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014, at 01:47 AM, Martin Braun wrote:
> > The particular issue didn't compromise the web
Hahahahahahahahahaha.. Reaallly!!! :)
You should have sent this a couple of days ago as an April fools, I
genuinly thought it was at first.
Anyway it seems like enough people have already replied so I won't add
any more. Just had to reply because this geuninly made me laugh out loud.
G
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:13 AM, Eric Furman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014, at 01:47 AM, Martin Braun wrote:
> > I used OpenBSD back in the 3.x days, but eventually began using Debian
> > because it was much easier to maintain - yes, I compromissed quality over
> > convinience.
>
> Easier to mainta
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014, at 01:47 AM, Martin Braun wrote:
> The particular issue didn't compromise the web server it only compromised
> the web application, but yes that made me look deeper into operating
> systems and security. I even tested FreeBSD Jails, but lets not go there.
>
> I used OpenBSD ba
On Apr 04 04:04:47, yellowgoldm...@gmail.com wrote:
> As we all know on the front page of OpenBSD it says "Only two remote holes
> in the default install, in a heck of a long time".
> I don't understand why this is "such a big deal".
Look at the history of other systems and their remote holes.
Don
The particular issue didn't compromise the web server it only compromised
the web application, but yes that made me look deeper into operating
systems and security. I even tested FreeBSD Jails, but lets not go there.
I used OpenBSD back in the 3.x days, but eventually began using Debian
because it
On 14-04-03 7:04 PM, Martin Braun wrote:
As we all know on the front page of OpenBSD it says "Only two remote holes
in the default install, in a heck of a long time".
I don't understand why this is "such a big deal".
Not 3 days ago, I isolated suspicious network activity to a "high-end"
netw
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Martin Braun >wrote:
> >
> > > As we all know on the front page of OpenBSD it says "Only two remote
> holes
> > > in the default install, in a heck of a long time".
> > >
> > > I don't understand why this i
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Martin Braun wrote:
>
> > As we all know on the front page of OpenBSD it says "Only two remote holes
> > in the default install, in a heck of a long time".
> >
> > I don't understand why this is "such a big deal".
> >
>
> Because their shit don't stink? Unlike
Martin Braun wrote:
> As we all know on the front page of OpenBSD it says "Only two remote holes
> in the default install, in a heck of a long time".
>
> I don't understand why this is "such a big deal".
>
> A part from the base system in xBSD, OpenBSD - so far - also contains a
> chrooted web
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Martin Braun wrote:
> As we all know on the front page of OpenBSD it says "Only two remote holes
> in the default install, in a heck of a long time".
>
> I don't understand why this is "such a big deal".
>
Because their shit don't stink? Unlike other distribution
On 3 April 2014 22:04, Martin Braun wrote:
> As we all know on the front page of OpenBSD it says "Only two remote holes
> in the default install, in a heck of a long time".
>
> I don't understand why this is "such a big deal".
>
> A part from the base system in xBSD, OpenBSD - so far - also contai
> So we need those third party applications to start the party, yet none of
> these applications receives the same code audit, security development and
> quality control as OpenBSD does.
But unlike on other operating systems, those applications are ALWAYS
compiled with PIE, and the stack protector
The statement holds true though (well, I trust it does, I can't verify).
They're "bragging" about holes, or lack thereof, in their software, not
third party software. It's a matter of personal preference how much needs
to be added to a base install to make it good for your use. I use complete
base
41 matches
Mail list logo
