What I dislike about these sorts of articles is that they try to pretend as if *BSDs weren't heavily dependent on the wider FLOSS community, which is mostly Linux-based.
They instead focus on minuscule differences, which you could maybe argue are a bit better from a design perspective, (the default file system layout for example), but in practical terms matter little.
On the other hand, they don't mention the fact that the reason OpenBSD is so "secure", is because their marketing focuses on the default install, which has almost nothing.
So the moment you install the minimum amount of packages to get your work done, the "only two remote holes" thing no longer holds.
When you point out the practically abyssal modern laptop support in FreeBSD, they just shrug because "macOS's also BSD".
Then there's the whole smugness towards Linux as if they weren't dependent on GCC for years, as if GNOME/KDE etc. wasn't a primarily Linux effort and as if ZFS was somehow their invention.
They'll sing about BSD Jails and how Docker is strictly inferior, (also ignoring LXC), while not having any even remotely equivalent frontend for BSD Jails.
They'd laugh at the systemd debates, while talking openly about maybe them doing something similar.
Now Linux also heavily depends on some parts of BSD, but you'd see hardly anybody thrashing OpenSSH, just because it's BSD.
It's just not a community I want to be a part of, that's before I get into the whole BSD vs GPL debate, but I do understand that the appeal is there for some and that's perfectly fine.
> On the other hand, they don't mention the fact that the reason OpenBSD is so "secure", is because their marketing focuses on the default install, which has almost nothing.
Which in my opinion rather shows that to be (rather) secure, the system has to be kept as minimal as possible. This is (in my opinion) a lesson that the GNU/Linux advocates should learn and embrace (just to mention one emotive word: systemd).
> as if ZFS was somehow their invention.
ZFS was an invention of Sun/Solaris, not the Linux ecosystem.
There are various kinds of Linux distributions, some super minimalist, others not so much. The point of having various distributions is exactly that, you have a choice.
> systemd
It indeed tends to be an emotive word, but just saying 'systemd' as if that's automatically saying something isn't helping either.
There's things one could criticize about systemd, a lot systemd has going for it and many would argue that having a predictable, well-defined, declarative service definition syntax, that's consistent no matter the package or system, vs various sets of init shell scripts that probably wary quite widely in quality and are just slightly different across the *BSDs to possibly surprise you, is what makes systemd in fact better.
As for ZFS not being invented in the Linux ecosystem, I haven't claimed that, just that it wasn't FreeBSD either.
Better ZFS support would be a good technical reason to use one system over another, so it makes sense to mention it. I did not get the vibe of ZFS being FreeBSD thing either.
PS: I use both Linux (CentOS) and FreeBSD (home server with ZFS).
> What I dislike about these sorts of articles is that they try to pretend as if BSDs weren't heavily dependent on the wider FLOSS community, which is mostly Linux-based.
>> What I dislike about these sorts of articles is that they try to pretend as if BSDs weren't heavily dependent on the wider FLOSS community, which is mostly Linux-based.
> You do realize none of these originated with any of the current BSDs, right?
You do realize that that there was a wider FLOSS community before Linux came around, right?
We're all "building on the shoulders of giants" as they say, and Linux is no different here than BSD.
The point was about who contributes the wast majority of the work nowdays.
Also, before GNU there indeed wasn't much of a FLOSS community in the modern sense, it was much closer to colleagues sharing program tapes with their modifications as a courtesy.
So sure, there were programmers sharing code between each other, but that was kind of informal sharing, more because nobody placed much value on software alone at the time and university labs didn't always wanted to start from scratch.
In fact the reason RMS started GNU in the first place was precisely because he felt that kind of sharing culture was being eroded.
> They instead focus on minuscule differences, which you could maybe argue are a bit better from a design perspective, (the default file system layout for example), but in practical terms matter little.
Why do you even bring this up? This article is pretty technical and in depth. Why would you bring up something that annoys you about comparisons of "these sorts" while this comparison does no such thing?
> What I dislike about these sorts of articles is that they try to pretend as if *BSDs weren't heavily dependent on the wider FLOSS community, which is mostly Linux-based.
What does that even mean? There was FLOSS before Linux. There would also be FLOSS without the BSD's. There would also be FLOSS without Linux.
> They'll sing about BSD Jails and how Docker is strictly inferior, (also ignoring LXC), while not having any even remotely equivalent frontend for BSD Jails.
Ironically I remember all to well that ease of use via a UI was the argument Microsoft primarily made against Linux in the 90s and 00s when the mantra was definitely NOT "nobody ever got fired for using Linux" .
> On the other hand, they don't mention the fact that the reason OpenBSD is so "secure", is because their marketing focuses on the default install, which has almost nothing.
OpenBSD's focus on security has nothing to do with the "only 2 holes in the default install" slogan. When having to choose OpenBSD will not compromise on security. For example OpenBSD had already figured out SMT (Hyper threading) could never be made secure (and disabled it) before spectre and meltdown came along.
> They'd laugh at the systemd debates, while talking openly about maybe them doing something similar.
Your confusing implementation with concept here. Not many people deny that a system layer type of thing is needed. But there is a big difference between what for example Solaris SMF or Apple's Launchd (system layer implementations) considers to be "in the scope" of such a system vs what systemd thinks should be in scope.
Regarding OpenBSD and security it is far easier to have secure system when starting with everything disabled and only enabling what is needed. When things are enabled by default often disabling them breaks something, and to not waste time creating extra problems most people leave them enabled.
OBSD also has a lot of changes that increase security overall. They prioritise security over performance. It's not just the minimal installation.
Regarding Docker vs BSD Jails (or more correct comparison is LXC vs BSD Jails) is that containers in Linux is combination of namespaces + cgroups. That design gives much more flexibility, but is far far harder to make them secure. There was a submission not long ago taking about it.
> When you point out the practically abyssal modern laptop support in FreeBSD, they just shrug because "macOS's also BSD".
You're wrong. No you don't need to use old hardware. I use a Thinkpad X1 Carbon (5th gen) and everything sans-fingerprint-reader works perfectly with FreeBSD 12.1, entirely built from source and ports. The trackpad even works buttery smooth, with inertial scrolling using the Synaptics X driver.
> as if BSDs weren't heavily dependent on the wider FLOSS community, which is mostly Linux-based
They existed before Linux, and an awful lot of network and systems infrastructure is running BSD derivatives.
Tech is a rich ecosystem not a pissing contest, nor is it a dependency hierarchy, and even if it were I can tell you that Linux is not the fundamental substrate.
This slandering of a community is a baseless and poorly informed rant, and particularly misrepresents the original article through a narrow and dogmatic lens.
For what it’s worth, we see this level of “smugness” from GPL proponents everywhere. Especially the self-superiority. It’s what puts me (not that that has a massive impact on what anyone thinks!), and I’m sure others, off being part of the Linux community. In truth, what we are both seeing is a minority of loud voices that force their opinions, often as fact (this article being an excellent example), onto the world at large and taint it for all concerned. Freedom, especially of speech should never be expressed as a right. It’s a privilege that is all to often abused.
What? How is that an attack on “free” speech. I’m saying that people abuse free speech. Its a privilege to be able to voice your opinions openly. I’m not suggesting it should be curtailed, quite the opposite — it should be revered and treated with respect which, in the age of the internet, it isn’t. Instead of jerking your knee and hitting that downvote button, as several of you have you, think about it.
Free Speech does not exist for us to say nice or reverent things about each other.
I would say the entire point of free speech as a concept is to be able to say things that other people may not like, or approve of, or get offended by. Discourse should be civil, ideally, but there are times when one needs to say something that isn't civil.
Can this get abused by "freeze peach" types? Yes. However I find this a minimal cost when I consider that I won't arbitrarily get jailed by my government for saying something.
You have missed the point I'm making. I actually agree with what you say, but I'm suggesting taking a different point of view, and placing ethical and moral value on speech, by dropping the clearly emotive "free" and replacing it with "privelege". Why privelege? Because living in a society that values expression wouldn't function without being able to express ideas openly. I'm suggesting that the majority of people misunderstand the responsibility that comes with freedom of speech and that is what needs adressing.
Calling it a privilege implies someone is capable of giving that privilege (and thus is also capable of taking it away). Free speech is a natural right, and has nothing to do with privilege, even if not every country recognizes this. This terminology is an extremely important distinction when it comes to defining the powers of government. It's not that the government is giving us the privilege of free speech: the government literally cannot limit our natural freedoms except in the manners described in the constitution where it has been authorized (by the people).
> placing ethical and moral value on speech
Ethics and morals are totally arbitrary, and are the last thing I want governing free speech. All we can do is let people exercise their free speech (or not), and decide whether or not to listen, etc. After all, it's only protection from the government, not from private businesses or individuals' reactions. The courts can decide if it falls under non-protected classes of speech like hate speech, etc.
The statement that free speech is a right is, itself, an ethical statement. Claiming that ethics is arbitrary is basically saying that free speech is inviolable is an arbitrary claim that holds no weight. I'm constantly annoyed by the unfounded post-modernist claims of arbitrariness and subjectivity in ethics. The truth is that ethicality is a "Hard Problem" of philosophy (also an oft-devalued field, but one without which there would be no math or science).
I agree with both you and Voltaire, that freedom of speech is an important right that is "inviolable". That is, it posible to infringe that right, but doing so is wrong, and infringement of free expression is ethically subject to defense against the aggression represented by that infringement. In short, even if you don't know what the fuck you're talking about with your use of the word "ethics", and even if you contradict yourself by saying that free speech is a right (an ethical claim) and that ethics "are totally arbitrary", I fully agree with your basic assertion that free speech is a right, and anyone who wants to claim otherwise had better be able to provide a valid, deductive argument from apodictisms (or at least agreeable axioms) -- especially because I can provide such an argument in support of free speech -- before I'll give that claim the time of day.
Just to restate, in brief:
1. Yes, you're absolutely correct in your statement that free speech is a right, and it should be defended, and not deprecated by claims it's a "privilege". Yes, there is responsibility associated with that right, but that doesn't make the right into a "privilege".
2. Your statement that free speech is a right is an ethical claim, so maybe you should re-examine your dismissal of ethics. Thanks in advance for thinking it through.
> 2. Your statement that free speech is a right is an ethical claim, so maybe you should re-examine your dismissal of ethics. Thanks in advance for thinking it through.
I don't see this is contradictory, but I guess I'm having trouble clarifying my thoughts here. I'm not discussing whether or not to have free speech; that was indeed an ethical and moral decision... that got decided already. I don't see the point in discussing that because 1) it got decided 244 years ago and 2) it's enshrined in the constitution. If I disagreed, my only realistic option is to move to another country.
What I was discussing was that I'm against the idea of laypersons or the [non-judicial] branches of government using the guise of "ethics" or "morality" to arbitrarily silence people. I don't see how free speech could be "revered" or similar without making arbitrary conditions.
> I'm against the idea of laypersons or the [non-judicial] branches of government using the guise of "ethics" or "morality" to arbitrarily silence people.
I'll totally accept that "privelege" the wrong way of phrasing it. However, philosophically the difference between what should be an invoidable right and weilding that right is decided by the commons, or at least it is how it is at the moment. I'm trying, admittedly poorly, to reframe that. Free speech comes with great power. That power is open to abuse. The times in which we live see the responsibility of weilding that power because disgregarded because it is an inalienable right. I'm saying that we have freedom of speech becasue of the societal structure that the Western hemisphere has, but it is being abused by the commons, the press and the state. If all don't show it the respect it deserves were are going to lose it, an the power that comes with it, in its very name.
We won't lose the right, period. It cannot be lost. Only the power to exercise it can be lost.
It's true that people are increasingly eager to infringe the right to express oneself freely by using government to curtail the power to exercise that right. It is true that exercising the right responsibly is important -- because failing to do so involves infringing other rights.
In short, there is good reason to differentiate between rights and powers, even though they may apply to the same things. The right is a matter of ethics, and any system of universal ethics doesn't change because of how people behave. The power to exercise a right is subject to social order, and if that power is curtailed the social order is, in that respect, unethical -- but how people behave may change the likelihood of the social order to change in that manner.
Again, point is totally missed! Simple terms, and perhaps a better way of framing my point. Whichever way you choose to look at it, freedom of speech is a responsibility granted by society that is taken too lightly. Society needs to reframe it.
> Ethics and morals are totally arbitrary, and are the last thing I want governing free speech.
>The courts can decide if it falls under non-protected classes of speech like hate speech, etc.Ethics and morals are totally arbitrary, and are the last thing I want governing free speech. All we can do is let people exercise their free speech (or not), and decide whether or not to listen, etc. After all, it's only protection from the government, not from private businesses or individuals' reactions.
Laws come from societal ethics and morality and the judiciary is part of the state/government.
They instead focus on minuscule differences, which you could maybe argue are a bit better from a design perspective, (the default file system layout for example), but in practical terms matter little.
On the other hand, they don't mention the fact that the reason OpenBSD is so "secure", is because their marketing focuses on the default install, which has almost nothing.
So the moment you install the minimum amount of packages to get your work done, the "only two remote holes" thing no longer holds.
When you point out the practically abyssal modern laptop support in FreeBSD, they just shrug because "macOS's also BSD".
Then there's the whole smugness towards Linux as if they weren't dependent on GCC for years, as if GNOME/KDE etc. wasn't a primarily Linux effort and as if ZFS was somehow their invention.
They'll sing about BSD Jails and how Docker is strictly inferior, (also ignoring LXC), while not having any even remotely equivalent frontend for BSD Jails.
They'd laugh at the systemd debates, while talking openly about maybe them doing something similar.
Now Linux also heavily depends on some parts of BSD, but you'd see hardly anybody thrashing OpenSSH, just because it's BSD.
It's just not a community I want to be a part of, that's before I get into the whole BSD vs GPL debate, but I do understand that the appeal is there for some and that's perfectly fine.