OpenBSD, one of the more prominent variants of the BSD family of Unix-like operating systems, will be released at the beginning of September, according to a note on the official OpenBSD website. Often touted as an alternative to Linux, OpenBSD is known for the lack of proprietary influence on its software and has garnered a reputation for shipping with better default security than other OSes and for being highly vigilant (some might say strident) about the safety of its users. Many software router/firewall projects are based on OpenBSD because of its security-conscious development process. Most significant among the latest security-related changes for OpenBSD is the removal of Linux emulation support. Prior versions of OpenBSD made it possible to run Linux applications via a compatibility layer, but the release notes for OpenBSD 6.0 indicate the Linux subsystem was removed as a "security improvement."
Talk about useless, does anyone with a job actually use this?
They consider it insecure, same with virtualization. They also need to figure out proper hardware acceleration--until they do that, it'll be an OS relegated to routers and very old hardware.
Hunter Perez
OpenBSD has a native hypervisor
Kayden Jenkins
Now we have the momentum to port all code to OpenBSD, so it will JUST WERK
Christian Russell
...
Jonathan Wilson
That'll end up going as well as the attempted Trannux fork
Grayson Sullivan
also there is some proprietary software on linux that many people need to use that they can't use in openbsd's closed box
Eli Garcia
What ?
Dylan Stewart
Some autists were talking about forking Linux after the CoC, obviously never happened.
Jonathan Powell
That's a good thing in my opinion. It's also really good that a lot of people dislike OpenBSD and don't want to use it. We don't need more people in the OpenBSD realm. Linux tried to include everyone and look where it got them.
Leo Howard
LinuxLibre ;^)
Jordan Allen
I vaguely remember it, were they trannies?
The solution is for us to get good at coding.
Juan Perez
OpenBSD hasn't had binary compat for years. This is old news.
Liam Morales
OP is a retard confirmed.
Jaxson Smith
OP is a transexual SJW in woman's clothes and he should be ashamed of his degeneracy, both in clothing choices and in shitposting.
Mr. Sageman
Ethan Price
It's over The Jews won There are no good operating systems to use anymore. We had a good run folks, but we're old and outdated. All hail the new era of Python and Javascript based interfaces to operating systems as a service.
Noah Taylor
THIS
Sebastian Ramirez
lmao that would be great if the next implementation of UEFI had a native python interpreter so we can all truly make the first python based bootloader and kernel
Jeremiah Davis
At this point nothing would shock me. I've even seen serious people trying to use Python as a language to program FPGAs, so those retards can infest the EE world too.
Owen Baker
Good. Trannix binaries should be never allow on real operating systems.
Parker Sanders
I think I might just spend more time on endch at this point, q-user tier underlings keep ruining these threads. I'd even prefer cuteposter showing back up again.
Ian Sullivan
So? ELF is garbage and so is virtualization. I have the later disabled even on Linux.
Wyatt Rogers
...
Grayson Rodriguez
Why would OpenBSD support Linux binaries? OpenBSD isn't a distribution of Linux or the GNU system; It's completely different OS. This is like saying something retarded like: "Why doesn't Linux support Windows binaries?"
You need to stop samefagging
John Campbell
i saw va-api in wip ports, when is that done?
Zachary Campbell
Just use QEMU or separate disk with Windows instead of contaminating your main os with cancer
Anthony Scott
but it does
Evan Barnes
There already are plenty of forks, almost every distro has their own custom kernel fork, SoC makers have their own forks, etc. The problem isn't forking or maintaining your fork, but rather the difficulty of getting recognized as the main upstream source to which people will send their patches
Jack Clark
no it doesn't.
1) wine isn't part of Linux 1.5) You must realize that OpenBSD had the support inside its kernel 2) Linux doesn't support windows' PE format on its own
Virtualization is vastly superior to using any kind of comparability layers.
Camden James
This has been known for years. You're so behind.
Nathan Sanders
Nice opinion, fagtron. Why virtualize the entire hardware and run another OS when you just need to interpret PE binaries and translate Windows function calls?
Cooper Gonzalez
...
Camden Thompson
Fucking disgusting, you do realize linux binaries are ELF. What they have to do is to be able to link their correct libraries and work on the syscalls by linux since linux has way more syscalls than openBSD has. Also when I think about it, I think its a good decision to not support linux binaries since by adding syscalls to the openbsd kernel they would increase their attack surface.
Sebastian Gutierrez
I just read the thread, my point still stands though. It is a security issue and the reasoning is explained above. I don't know how they handled the syscall part but either way they implemented it, is a security issue.
List: openbsd-misc Subject: Re: About Xen: maybe a reiterative question but .. From: Theo de Raadt Date: 2007-10-24 1:14:13 Message-ID: 200710240114.l9O1EDt3003562 () cvs ! openbsd ! org [Download message RAW]
You've been smoking something really mind altering, and I think you should share it.
x86 virtualization is about basically placing another nearly full kernel, full of new bugs, on top of a nasty x86 architecture which barely has correct page protection. Then running your operating system on the other side of this brand new pile of shit.
You are absolutely deluded, if not stupid, if you think that a worldwide collection of software engineers who can't write operating systems or applications without security holes, can then turn around and suddenly write virtualization layers without security holes.
You've seen something on the shelf, and it has all sorts of pretty colours, and you've bought it.
That's all x86 virtualization is.
Anthony Brown
0.00001/10 b8
Xavier Barnes
SURELY now that Linus has been CoC'd in the face, Lord Theo is our new spirit animal!
List: openbsd-misc Subject: Re: About Xen: maybe a reiterative question but .. From: Theo de Raadt Date: 2007-10-24 21:41:25 Message-ID: 200710242141.l9OLfPTZ019994 () cvs ! openbsd ! org [Download message RAW]
It's that extra 4MB of poo code, that is what makes it more secure.
It's slippery and sticky at the same time, so that the application attackers slip and slide and fall into the page boundaries.
If the actual hardware let us do more isolation than we do today, we would actually do it in our operating system.
The problem is the hardware DOES NOT actually give us more isolation abilities, therefore the VM does not actually do anything what the say they do.
While x86 hardware has the same page-protection hardware that an IBM 390 architecture machine has, modern PC machines are a mess. They are architecturally so dirty, that parts of the video, keyboard, and other IO devices are interfaced with even to do simple things like context switching processes and handling interrupts. Those of us who have experience with the gory bits of the x86 architecture can clearly say that we know what would be involved in virtualizing it, and if it was so simple, we would not still be fixing bugs in the exact same area in our operating system going on 12 years.
We know what a VM operating system has to do to deal with the PC architecture. It is too complex to get perfectly right.
And now you've entered into the layered approach where *any error* in the PC model exposed to the client operating system is not just a crashing bug -- it is now exploitable.
It might be nice, but it is stupid. And anyone who thinks there is any security advantage at any level knows nothing about PC architecture.
Regarding gcc, that is the last compiler which is free enough for us to ship. Our hands are tied. And naturally, eventually gcc will probably stop shipping on the architecture you are using, since we have other architectures only using clang.
As to clang, that is the compiler version that was available on the day 6.3 shipped. With more funding from you personally, perhaps the OpenBSD Foundation can purchase the time travel device which is on our wishlist.
I doubt that will happen, so 6.4 is going to also ship with the clang available on that day.
Isaiah Thompson
wtf I love OpenBSD now
Michael Harris
According to the UNIX propaganda, UNIX and C are portable, so your program should run on any form of UNIX. The entire reason for OpenBSD and Linux to be based on UNIX and come with all these shitty "tools" is to run UNIX programs. There shouldn't need to be any "emulation" or "subsystem" in the first place. OpenBSD and Linux both use ELF, which is from AT&T System V and sucks, but weenies say it's portable.
Theo de Raadt thinks everyone is using a PDP-11 at AT&T instead of their own computer where they have access to their own drives. UNIX is not designed for users with their own machines or for real multi-user environments like Multics, so it sucks at both. If he's saying there are security problems caused by mounting a drive without root, he means the whole OS is broken and can't be fixed. The security problems are still there with mounting as root, so it just gives them a chance to blame the user for using root instead of actually solving the problem.
>> As part of my research on the Mach project at CMU, I've>> been working on a program that generates names for future>> versions of the unix operating system. Version 0.1 of>> this program will take a list of words and generate a>> random permutation of those words. Examples are as>> follows:>> >> input> { power, open, open-systems, desktop }>> >> output> >> open power desktop>> open open-systems>> power desktop>> desktop open-systems>> etc.The should also be a subtitle composed of a randompermutation of at least the following: "object-oriented","distributed", "parallel", "standards-compliant", "secure","user-friendly", "portable" and worst of all"backward-compatible". The permutation should then besuffixed with a string generated by the unixoid regularexpression "[A-Z]+-?IX".So now we get things like:open power desktop: a secure distributed portable HI-IXdesktop open-systems: a parallel standards-compliant user-friendly MOKIX.
Henry Perez
lmfao at least make your strawmen believable
Luke Lopez
I came to this thread expecting you to be here and was not disappointed. 10/10 user.
