Discussion:
[OT] What the BSD people have to say about Linux
(too old to reply)
No_One
2005-06-17 19:51:22 UTC
Permalink
Found while wasting time on the net....

http://www.forbes.com/business/businesstech/2005/06/16/linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html

(can't help the long url)

ken
Al. C
2005-06-17 20:44:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by No_One
Found while wasting time on the net....
http://www.forbes.com/business/businesstech/2005/06/16/linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html
Post by No_One
(can't help the long url)
ken
" BSD guys make fun of Linux on message boards and Web sites, the gist being
that BSD guys are a lot like Linux guys, except they have kissed girls."

When I was on the Mandrake boards a few years ago someone said that Mandrake
users were Slackware users who had dates last Saturday night.

Al C.
Floyd L. Davidson
2005-06-17 21:04:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by No_One
Found while wasting time on the net....
http://www.forbes.com/business/businesstech/2005/06/16/linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html>
Post by No_One
(can't help the long url)
ken
" BSD guys make fun of Linux on message boards and Web sites, the gist being
that BSD guys are a lot like Linux guys, except they have kissed girls."
When I was on the Mandrake boards a few years ago someone said that Mandrake
users were Slackware users who had dates last Saturday night.
And didn't get any.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@barrow.com
Grant Coady
2005-06-17 20:46:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by No_One
(can't help the long url)
Sure you can :) http://tinyurl.com/7fbzh
--Grant.
No_One
2005-06-17 21:18:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grant Coady
Post by No_One
(can't help the long url)
Sure you can :) http://tinyurl.com/7fbzh
--Grant.
Not unless someone has incorporated a drag and drop in Lynx I don't know
about. ;)

ken
Grant Coady
2005-06-17 22:04:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by No_One
Not unless someone has incorporated a drag and drop in Lynx I don't know
about. ;)
Lynx:
TinyURL was created!

The following URL:

http://www.forbes.com/business/businesstech/2005/06/16/linux
-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html

has a length of 89 characters and resulted in the following TinyURL
which has a length of 24 characters:

http://tinyurl.com/7fbzh

[Open in new window]

Note: For IE 4+ on Windows, the TinyURL is automatically copied to
your clipboard and is ready for pasting (using Ctrl-V). To copy the
TinyURL to your clipboard, either select the text and copy using
Ctrl-C, or right click the link next to the TinyURL and select the
copy link location option.

Enter another long URL to make tiny:
______________________________ Make TinyURL!

copy/paste worked for me :) Just had to see if it worked in Lynx (o:<

--Grant.
No_One
2005-06-18 18:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grant Coady
Post by No_One
Not unless someone has incorporated a drag and drop in Lynx I don't know
about. ;)
TinyURL was created!
<deleted material that proves ken wrong>
Post by Grant Coady
copy/paste worked for me :) Just had to see if it worked in Lynx (o:<
--Grant.
Well I can't get it to work...unless you did the above in the GUI, that's a
problem, I don't use a GUI (normally) or you did it in a VT using screen,
which I understand has a copy paste feature.

So...I'll bite...how???

ken
Franz M. Sauerzopf
2005-06-22 11:48:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by No_One
Post by No_One
Not unless someone has incorporated a drag and drop in Lynx I don't know
about. ;)
...
So...I'll bite...how???
ken
GPM does it for me...
--
Franz M. Sauerzopf
Atominstitut, TU Wien
No_One
2005-06-22 19:01:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Franz M. Sauerzopf
Post by No_One
Post by No_One
Not unless someone has incorporated a drag and drop in Lynx I don't know
about. ;)
...
So...I'll bite...how???
ken
GPM does it for me...
Don't use gpm/mouse in tty. Gpm chockes, sometimes, with my mouse.

ken

Floyd L. Davidson
2005-06-17 20:54:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by No_One
Found while wasting time on the net....
http://www.forbes.com/business/businesstech/2005/06/16/linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html
(can't help the long url)
Let's *not* tar and feather all BSD people just because Theo de
Raadt is foolish enough to mouth off for a low life yellow
journalist like Dan Lyons.

Here's another story, titled "BSD cognoscenti on Linux", with
comments by OpenBSD's de Raadt as well as NetBSD's Christos
Zoulas. A much more informative and well rounded set of
comments.

http://os.newsforge.com/os/05/06/09/2132233.shtml

Of course, that was preceded (perhaps to give the other two a
goal to aim for, or at least an example of integrity) by this
article which asked Linus Torvalds the same set of questions:

http://os.newsforge.com/os/05/06/09/2128249.shtml
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@barrow.com
No_One
2005-06-18 18:28:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd L. Davidson
Let's *not* tar and feather all BSD people just because Theo de
Wouldn't do that. Some of my best friends are BSD people, though, I
wouldn't want my sister to marry one....
Post by Floyd L. Davidson
Raadt is foolish enough to mouth off for a low life yellow
journalist like Dan Lyons.
Theo de Raadt is clearly a single minded man with a mission...a zealot

However Zoulas make a comment about Linux that I found true when I first
started using Linux -- the lact of proper documentation and a unified help.

Imagine someone who has been using DOS/Windows for years, run of the mill
user, asking a question about ping and being told to man ping. Have you
seen the discription for ping in the man pages? It could be written in
Esperanto...yeah, I know there's an Esperanto How-To.
Post by Floyd L. Davidson
http://os.newsforge.com/os/05/06/09/2132233.shtml
Of course, that was preceded (perhaps to give the other two a
goal to aim for, or at least an example of integrity) by this
http://os.newsforge.com/os/05/06/09/2128249.shtml
Better articles!

ken
Loki Harfagr
2005-06-18 18:53:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by No_One
However Zoulas make a comment about Linux that I found true when I first
started using Linux -- the lact of proper documentation and a unified help.
man lact ;-)
No_One
2005-06-18 21:03:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Loki Harfagr
Post by No_One
However Zoulas make a comment about Linux that I found true when I first
started using Linux -- the lact of proper documentation and a unified help.
man lact ;-)
One of the downsides of being of two finger typist.

ken
No_One
2005-06-18 21:53:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by No_One
Post by Loki Harfagr
Post by No_One
However Zoulas make a comment about Linux that I found true when I first
started using Linux -- the lact of proper documentation and a unified help.
man lact ;-)
One of the downsides of being of two finger typist.
^^
and so is this


ken
Floyd L. Davidson
2005-06-19 00:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by No_One
Post by Loki Harfagr
Post by No_One
However Zoulas make a comment about Linux that I found true when I first
started using Linux -- the lact of proper documentation and a unified help.
man lact ;-)
One of the downsides of being of two finger typist.
Hell, that's no downside! I use all 8 fingers and both thumbs too,
and that just measn I can amke tpyos 5 timse as fast as ouy.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@barrow.com
Üurgüu
2005-06-17 22:08:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by No_One
Found while wasting time on the net....
http://www.forbes.com/business/businesstech/2005/06/16/linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html
Seems like Theo De Raadt was actually trapped by a Forbes
journalist who does not like Linux one bit. See the flame
fests on /. or OpenBSD Journal for more info on that.

Theo has admitted in the past that he has *never* used Linux
but he has also maintained a fairly aggressive stance :

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=111902578006133&w=2

All in all, I believe Theo has some valid criticisms, but he
misses the point: like Linus Torvalds said in a recent article
"Linux is good enough"... for, let's say, 90% of users. For the
10% of users who demand iron-clad security out of the box, OpenBSD
is the king of the hill.

It really is a case of opposite worldviews. It seems to me that
Linux users are satisfied when the puter works as advertised and
does not crash, while OpenBSD users are not satisfied as long
as there is the slightest risk of malicious hacking.

As far as I am concerned both philosophies are valid: I use
OpenBSD when security is priority #1 and Slackware (or Debian)
when performances are required. YMMV.

Just my US$0.02, of course.
prodigal1
2005-06-18 03:06:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Üurgüu
All in all, I believe Theo has some valid criticisms, but he
misses the point: like Linus Torvalds said in a recent article
"Linux is good enough"... for, let's say, 90% of users. For the
10% of users who demand iron-clad security out of the box, OpenBSD
is the king of the hill.
ding! we have a winner folks!
Realto Margarino
2005-06-18 12:28:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by prodigal1
Post by Üurgüu
All in all, I believe Theo has some valid criticisms, but he
misses the point: like Linus Torvalds said in a recent article
"Linux is good enough"... for, let's say, 90% of users. For the
10% of users who demand iron-clad security out of the box, OpenBSD
is the king of the hill.
ding! we have a winner folks!
Actually, XP Home is good enough for 90%. Linux is good for about
5% of all users and for the real pros, (5%) XP Pro is recommended.

cordially, as always,

rm
Menno Duursma
2005-06-18 13:51:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Realto Margarino
Post by prodigal1
Post by Üurgüu
All in all, I believe Theo has some valid criticisms,
Yes. The flames are more in the way it's represented.
Post by Realto Margarino
Post by prodigal1
Post by Üurgüu
but he misses the point: like Linus Torvalds said in a recent article
"Linux is good enough"...
At doing what?
Post by Realto Margarino
Post by prodigal1
Post by Üurgüu
for, let's say, 90% of users.
Users of what kind of applications?
Post by Realto Margarino
Post by prodigal1
Post by Üurgüu
For the 10% of users who demand iron-clad security out of the box,
No. since is not _verifiably_ correct (like GEMSOS or EROS are.)
Post by Realto Margarino
Post by prodigal1
Post by Üurgüu
OpenBSD is the king of the hill.
It is a *free* general purpose Unix-like system (just as Linux) in _that_
category of OSs, it has the best security track-record, yes.

However it lacks security /policy/ enforcemrent features (like ACLs.)
Post by Realto Margarino
Post by prodigal1
ding! we have a winner folks!
Actually, XP Home is good enough for 90%.
No it's not. Particularly its default settings and the implementation of
its security model, are inadequate (for things like banking, or just email.)
Post by Realto Margarino
Linux is good for about 5% of all users and for the real pros, (5%) XP
Pro is recommended.
Recommended to be used for which purpose?
--
-Menno.
Üurgüu
2005-06-19 19:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Menno Duursma
Post by Realto Margarino
Post by prodigal1
Post by Üurgüu
but he misses the point: like Linus Torvalds said in a recent article
"Linux is good enough"...
At doing what?
Anything. IMHO, Linux is excellent as a workstation, and
excellent as a [web|database|file|print] server.
Post by Menno Duursma
Post by Realto Margarino
Post by prodigal1
Post by Üurgüu
for, let's say, 90% of users.
Users of what kind of applications?
See above.
Post by Menno Duursma
Post by Realto Margarino
Post by prodigal1
Post by Üurgüu
For the 10% of users who demand iron-clad security out
of the box,
No. since is not _verifiably_ correct (like GEMSOS or EROS are.)
True, but IMHO, I think you contradict yourself with the
Post by Menno Duursma
It is a *free* general purpose Unix-like system (just as Linux)
in _that_ category of OSs, it has the best security track-
record, yes.
And a track record is what you are looking for, if you want
some serious security. EROS, for instance, may be 'correct'
(whatever that means), but AFAIK, it's not used much outside
of a very small academic community.

If you know large corporate/governmental users of EROS, I'll
be happy to be corrected. OpenBSD, on the other hand, is used
by many corporations (Adobe Software, for one) and by
governmental agencies both in the USA (DoJ) and outside of it.
Post by Menno Duursma
However it lacks security /policy/ enforcemrent features
(like ACLs.)
Well, if ACLs were the be-all and end-all in security, Windows
would be very secure, since it implements fine-grained ACLs.
But here are two dirty little secrets about them:

1/ They are only as good as the OS they are implemented on.
Windows implements ACLs, and it's still insecure.

2/ In a production environment, ACLs can be a pain in the
neck to configure correctly. A newbie SysAdmin can actually
open security holes if he incorrectly configures ACLs on his
machines. UN*X three-tiered authorizations (owner / group /
everybody) are (still IMHO) easier to maintain and configure.
Post by Menno Duursma
Post by Realto Margarino
Post by prodigal1
ding! we have a winner folks!
I still don't know if this is irony or not. :-)
Post by Menno Duursma
Post by Realto Margarino
Actually, XP Home is good enough for 90%.
No it's not. Particularly its default settings and the
implementation of its security model, are inadequate
(for things like banking, or just email.)
I could not agree more (with Meno).
Post by Menno Duursma
Recommended to be used for which purpose?
Well, I have to admit that Windows XP is almost adequate
as a worstation. Stability is (barely) acceptable *if* you
don't install junk on it, and on *quality* hardware, with
the correct drivers, it (almost) manages to be nice for
day-to-day usage.

I have a few rules about Windows XP machines connected to
the networks I administer, but these are OT w/respect to
this newsgroup and topic, so I'll keep them to myself...
Menno Duursma
2005-06-19 21:29:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Menno Duursma
Post by Üurgüu
but he misses the point: like Linus Torvalds said in a recent
article "Linux is good enough"...
At doing what?
Anything. IMHO, Linux is excellent as a workstation, and excellent as a
[web|database|file|print] server.
Well, i agree. But what about: Games? Smilies in MSN clients? Etc ...
Post by Menno Duursma
Post by Üurgüu
for, let's say, 90% of users.
Users of what kind of applications?
See above.
Not everybody (or IME even 90%) uses thier computer(s) for those things.
Post by Menno Duursma
Post by Üurgüu
For the 10% of users who demand iron-clad security out of the box,
No. since is not _verifiably_ correct (like GEMSOS or EROS are.)
True, but IMHO, I think you contradict yourself with the following
I don't think so. As "iron-clad security" /no/ Unix-like system can
provide. (Unless you turn them off.)
Post by Menno Duursma
It is a *free* general purpose Unix-like system (just as Linux) in
_that_ category of OSs, it has the best security track- record, yes.
And a track record is what you are looking for, if you want some serious
security.
That depends; "security" about what? That it will run on your 8way server
or that you wount loose your job for using it? And so on. Or a feeling of
that your systems are save from crackers? Or actual correctness?
EROS, for instance, may be 'correct' (whatever that means),
It means the security model it implements can be proven to be valid.
but AFAIK, it's not used much outside of a very small academic
community.
If you know large corporate/governmental users of EROS, I'll be happy to
be corrected. OpenBSD, on the other hand, is used by many corporations
(Adobe Software, for one) and by governmental agencies both in the USA
(DoJ) and outside of it.
That's all very nice (FWIW i use it myself too) but it doesn't change the
fact that its not a secure system. (Nor is Linux or most others.)
Post by Menno Duursma
However it lacks security /policy/ enforcemrent features (like ACLs.)
Well, if ACLs were the be-all and end-all in security,
Thier not. It adds some though, and for company wide SMB file-servers
you might not have much of a choise.
Windows would be very secure, since it implements fine-grained ACLs. But
1/ They are only as good as the OS they are implemented on.
Yep. If you need more then Unix provides, maybe look at: Trusted VMS,
Trusted Solaris, SELinux or whatever.
Windows implements ACLs, and it's still insecure.
So does BOS and (AKAICT) it's programmatically _very_ secure but people
cleartext Telnet and FTP into it: there you go.

MS-Windows has service daemons fully listening/servicing with LocalSystem
privileges (some even kernel-mode) and just the concept of "user" Unix
has, so any process gets the privileges of the user that spawn it: one bug
in any of those apps ... the whole system; any bug in a user app: ...
anything that user had write access to.
2/ In a production environment, ACLs can be a pain in the neck to
configure correctly.
I know.
A newbie SysAdmin can actually open security holes if he incorrectly
's/A newbie SysAdmin/Any SysAdmin/'
configures ACLs on his machines. UN*X three-tiered authorizations
(owner / group / everybody) are (still IMHO) easier to maintain and
configure.
Certainly. So are libwrap (tcp wrapper) network ACLs as compared to PF,
but OpenBSD doesn't implement them either (exept for "sshd" that is.)
--
-Menno.
Menno Duursma
2005-06-20 07:10:23 UTC
Permalink
[ Snip.]
Post by Üurgüu
Post by Menno Duursma
It is a *free* general purpose Unix-like system (just as Linux)
in _that_ category of OSs, it has the best security track-
record, yes.
And a track record is what you are looking for, if you want
some serious security.
Well, that may be what _you're_ looking for but it doesn't say much about
what kind of security capabilities it provides, nor to which extent any
bug (or misconfiguration) would impact the trustworthiness of other parts.
Post by Üurgüu
EROS, for instance, may be 'correct' (whatever that means), but AFAIK,
it's not used much outside of a very small academic community.
Popularity doesn't have have much to do with security (but if it does, i'd
figure it more secure, to use something obscure.)
Post by Üurgüu
If you know large corporate/governmental users of EROS, I'll be happy to
be corrected.
Corporations (or executives therein) think about the pennys more than
anything. This is called: risk management. (How likely is it something
will happen? If something does happen what will recovering cost? Etc.)
Dissisions are made on financial grounds, more then technical ones.

Governmental institutions generally have policys to which systems need to
comply, which may very well rule-out the usage of systems that cannot
enforce them (whether those systems would actually be more secure or not.)
Post by Üurgüu
OpenBSD, on the other hand, is used by many corporations (Adobe
Software, for one) and by governmental agencies both in the USA (DoJ)
and outside of it.
Which doesn't say much, without knowing for which applications its being
used (or if it is properly doeing what they want it to (and from a
security perspective more importantly: if its _not_ doing what they
/don't/ want it to.))
Post by Üurgüu
Post by Menno Duursma
However it lacks security /policy/ enforcemrent features (like ACLs.)
Well, if ACLs were the be-all and end-all in security,
It is no panacea, in fact: no one thing is (execpt maybe simplicity.)
Post by Üurgüu
Windows would be very secure, since it implements fine-grained ACLs.
Indeed it does. But its TCB (trusted computing base) is much to complex.
And so is Linux's or OpenBSD's for that matter, no matter how good the
code, a monolithic structure seems notoriously hard to do (securitywise.)

Here we may get into the microkernel/securitykernel debate, and i'll have
to agree with Andrew S. Tanenbaum on that as far as security is concerned.
I would even argue the performance impact of splitting a kernel's security
functionality over to a separately auditable entity - in another hardware
protection ring, under it - to be negligible on todays hardware.

Another way maybe to use dedicated machines (or Xen domains) for each
computing service provided.

This report i found to be an interesting read:
http://www.csl.sri.com/users/neumann/survivability.html
--
-Menno.
Üurgüu
2005-06-19 19:22:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by prodigal1
All in all, I believe Theo has some valid criticisms, but he misses the
point: like Linus Torvalds said in a recent article "Linux is good
enough"... for, let's say, 90% of users. For the 10% of users who demand
iron-clad security out of the box, OpenBSD is the king of the hill.
ding! we have a winner folks!
?? What do you mean "a winner"? :-)
prodigal1
2005-06-20 01:51:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Üurgüu
Post by prodigal1
All in all, I believe Theo has some valid criticisms, but he misses the
point: like Linus Torvalds said in a recent article "Linux is good
enough"... for, let's say, 90% of users. For the 10% of users who demand
iron-clad security out of the box, OpenBSD is the king of the hill.
ding! we have a winner folks!
?? What do you mean "a winner"? :-)
Carnival game talk. It means the game's over. This guy got it right.
The rest of the thread is noise.
~kurt
2005-06-18 04:11:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by No_One
Found while wasting time on the net....
Many BSDers really believe the ""Linux people do what they do because
they hate Microsoft. We do what we do because we love Unix," statement.
When I used to lurk in one of the FreeBSD newsgroups, Linux was looked
down upon as being as buggy, unreliable, and as sugar coated and bloated
as Windoz. *They* were the real power users. Most of them had never even
used a linux distribution.

You also run across many BSDers who are just pissed because when
they were taking off, they got tripped up on legal issues - around the
same time Linux was being discovered by a wider audience.

Regarding his opinion on the quality of Linux code, this is a pretty
good post:

Message-ID: <efk_7.1135$***@news1.iquest.net>

The entire thread is very interesting, even if it is a few years old.

- Kurt
Floyd L. Davidson
2005-06-18 07:31:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~kurt
Post by No_One
Found while wasting time on the net....
Many BSDers really believe the ""Linux people do what they do because
they hate Microsoft. We do what we do because we love Unix," statement.
When I used to lurk in one of the FreeBSD newsgroups, Linux was looked
down upon as being as buggy, unreliable, and as sugar coated and bloated
as Windoz. *They* were the real power users. Most of them had never even
used a linux distribution.
Some of the more popular Linux distributions certainly seem to
fit that description. Slackware is one which by reputation, and
in fact, does not fit. Which is one reason at least some
Slackware users do in fact use Slackware.

One problem with such comparisons is that "Linux" is the kernel,
while with the various BSD's each is an entire distribution.

Also, I don't know the current state of the various BSD's as far
as POSIX compliance nor to what degree they use the GNU
utilities. The last time I used a BSD was several years ago and
it was BSDI, which did not use GNU utilities and it drove me up
the wall! Say what anyone likes, but the GNU project has
produced a *fabulous* software base!
Post by ~kurt
You also run across many BSDers who are just pissed because when
they were taking off, they got tripped up on legal issues - around the
same time Linux was being discovered by a wider audience.
That is true, but still... it's a lame excuse and the results
would probably have been the same anyway. A great deal of the
success of Linux comes from exactly *one* source, and the BSD's
just don't have a Linus Torvalds. Linus is one tough act to
follow!
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@barrow.com
~kurt
2005-06-18 07:45:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd L. Davidson
That is true, but still... it's a lame excuse and the results
would probably have been the same anyway. A great deal of the
success of Linux comes from exactly *one* source, and the BSD's
just don't have a Linus Torvalds. Linus is one tough act to
follow!
I just hope the current trend of using the "stable" production
kernel as a development kernel doesn't continue.

- Kurt
Menno Duursma
2005-06-18 14:13:20 UTC
Permalink
[...] A great deal of the success of Linux comes from exactly *one*
source, and the BSD's just don't have a Linus Torvalds. Linus is one
tough act to follow!
I just hope the current trend of using the "stable" production kernel as
a development kernel doesn't continue.
Same here. Currently i consider the latest stable production kernel, to be:

$ uname -ro
2.4.31 GNU/Linux
--
-Menno.
+Alan Hicks+
2005-06-18 12:47:03 UTC
Permalink
In alt.os.linux.slackware, Floyd L. Davidson dared to utter,
Post by Floyd L. Davidson
Also, I don't know the current state of the various BSD's as far
as POSIX compliance nor to what degree they use the GNU
utilities.
I'm not entirely up one POSIX, but from what I've seen of the little
bit of BSD I've played with, they sometimes use the GNU utilities and
sometimes don't. Much GNU software (gmake for one) is not included in
FreeBSD by default, yet is required to compile just about anything (few
third-party developers seem to like the archaic BSD make files) so
you'll find yourself grabbing GNU make from ports almost right off the
bat. I think they all use gcc these days. screen is another piece of
GNU software popular on the BSDs.

Generally speaking, if it's not included in the default install, it's
readily available from ports (often as a binary package from FTP sites)
and is sometimes even required to install a great portion of the ports
tree.
Post by Floyd L. Davidson
Say what anyone likes, but the GNU project has
produced a *fabulous* software base!
Indeed.

- --
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:5
Daniel de Kok
2005-06-18 19:25:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by +Alan Hicks+
I'm not entirely up one POSIX, but from what I've seen of the little
bit of BSD I've played with, they sometimes use the GNU utilities and
sometimes don't.
The general tendency is to replace GPL-licensed software with a
BSD-licensed equivalent when possible. The primary GNU sources in the BSDs
belong to the GNU compiler chain. The sources for NetBSD 2.0.2 pretty much
sum it up:

gnusrc.tgz 77377 KB
sharesrc.tgz 4783 KB
src.tgz 36770 KB
syssrc.tgz 26351 KB
xsrc.tgz 82063 KB

Not counting X the GNU sources and other sources are almost equally large.
Post by +Alan Hicks+
(few third-party developers seem to like the archaic BSD make files)
It is not really archaic, it just has a different syntaxis.
Post by +Alan Hicks+
screen is another piece of GNU software popular on the BSDs.
At least NetBSD and OpenBSD do not have screen in the base system. I
haven't touched FreeBSD last few years.

-- Daniel
Realto Margarino
2005-06-21 16:30:47 UTC
Permalink
+Alan Hicks+ <***@lizella.network> trolled:

Fuck off. You are not Alan Hicks. You are an imposter.

cordially, as always,

rm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
In alt.os.linux.slackware, Floyd L. Davidson dared to utter,
Post by Floyd L. Davidson
Also, I don't know the current state of the various BSD's as far
as POSIX compliance nor to what degree they use the GNU
utilities.
I'm not entirely up one POSIX, but from what I've seen of the little
bit of BSD I've played with, they sometimes use the GNU utilities and
sometimes don't. Much GNU software (gmake for one) is not included in
FreeBSD by default, yet is required to compile just about anything (few
third-party developers seem to like the archaic BSD make files) so
you'll find yourself grabbing GNU make from ports almost right off the
bat. I think they all use gcc these days. screen is another piece of
GNU software popular on the BSDs.
Generally speaking, if it's not included in the default install, it's
readily available from ports (often as a binary package from FTP sites)
and is sometimes even required to install a great portion of the ports
tree.
Post by Floyd L. Davidson
Say what anyone likes, but the GNU project has
produced a *fabulous* software base!
Indeed.
- --
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCtBeKzLTO1iU1uO4RAmYWAKC5kcl7nBaiHHNszH2v/eHas5+yRwCfZK4/
TfhGDpGPKstX/b/0e0+6Q7U=
=5Ufi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Glyn Millington
2005-06-18 13:34:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by No_One
Found while wasting time on the net....
http://www.forbes.com/business/businesstech/2005/06/16/linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html
(can't help the long url)
ken
This is a good page on the same subject

http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php

atb

Glyn
--
RTFM http://www.tldp.org/index.html
GAFC http://slackbook.org/ The Official Source :-)
STFW http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&group=alt.os.linux.slackware
JFGI http://jfgi.us/
geletine
2005-06-18 14:51:48 UTC
Permalink
Menno Duursma :
"However it lacks security /policy/ enforcemrent features (like ACLs.)
"

it does not have uids? or any way of separating root and user?
could you explain what you meant please
Menno Duursma
2005-06-18 15:57:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by geletine
"However it lacks security /policy/ enforcemrent features (like ACLs.)
"
it does not have uids? or any way of separating root and user?
could you explain what you meant please
Much finer grained.
--
-Menno.
Menno Duursma
2005-06-21 22:24:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Menno Duursma
Post by geletine
"However it lacks security /policy/ enforcemrent features (like ACLs.)
"
[ Sorry for that late reply ... But i want to elaborate on this a bit. ]
Post by Menno Duursma
Post by geletine
it does not have uids?
No it (OpenBSD) does, Linux doesn't. As of 2.2.x (or some 2.1.x version)
it implements POSIX.6 - formally: POSIX.1e - for subjects (processes):

man capabilities

Any subject that asks for access to an object (file)- by way of a system
call - gets checked against the Linux-Privs it has, rather then its UID.
The "root" (UID = 0) user concept is implemented as a subject with a full
set of privs.

(Note though POSIX "capabilities" aren't what CS books describe as such.
If you're looking for "real" capabilities try Google for "DarpaBrowser".)
Post by Menno Duursma
Post by geletine
or any way of separating root and user?
OpenBSD: yes (if uid0 = "root".)
Linux: yes. (uid0 defaults to getting a full set of privs.)

The kernels "init" provides a full linux-privs (POSIX capability) set to
user-mode "init". Programs spawn from that can either drop or keep any of
those privileges. The "login" program just drops non-root users to an
empty set of privs, daemons such "vsftpd" drop as much privs as they can
whist still doing thier job (opening sockets port < 1024), and fork childs
with an empty set (as "normal" users) for processing any service requests.
Post by Menno Duursma
Post by geletine
could you explain what you meant please
Much finer grained.
POSIX filesystem ACLs (access control lists) are implemented on Linux too.
Some things that are impossible whith the basic Unix controls include
allowing some group read access, some other group execute and so on:
http://www.enterprisenetworkingplanet.com/netsysm/article.php/10954_3077971_1

Another thing about this is that Samba can translate between POSIX and
SMB/CIFS ACLs, allowing for GNU/Linux to affectively emulate M$ NT server:
http://www.bluelightning.org/linux/samba_acl_howto/

HTH
--
-Menno.
No_One
2005-06-18 18:37:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glyn Millington
This is a good page on the same subject
http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php
atb
Glyn
That's a good url! Thanks.

ken
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...