Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 15:34 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
During the roundtable discussion at LinuxCon this year, Linus Torvalds made some pretty harsh remarks about the current state of the Linux kernel, calling it "huge and bloated", and that there is no plan in sight to solve the problem. At the same time, he also explained that he is very happy with the current development process of the kernel, and that his job has become much easier.
Thread beginning with comment 385652
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Theo de Raadt told it 5 years ago
by Francis Kuntz on Wed 23rd Sep 2009 09:15
in reply to "RE[3]: Theo de Raadt told it 5 years ago"
Member since:2006-09-23
And Linux (or NetBSD/FreeBSD) runs terribly much better on my quad core home machine than OpenBSD ever will.
And OpenBSD have terribly less security holes than Linux.
You can bash OpenBSD for SMP performance, but they can do the same with security. OpenBSD is a pioneer with a lot of security features that has been implemented in other OSes few years after.
RE[5]: Theo de Raadt told it 5 years ago
by vivainio on Wed 23rd Sep 2009 09:46
in reply to "RE[4]: Theo de Raadt told it 5 years ago"
Member since:2008-12-26
You can bash OpenBSD for SMP performance, but they can do the same with security. OpenBSD is a pioneer with a lot of security features that has been implemented in other OSes few years after.
Security is all about what applications you run, and how well the applications can be sandboxed.
Does OpenBSD have anything even close to SELinux, or is it just about using the old & bugfixed versions of the cherrypicked secure applications?
RE[5]: Theo de Raadt told it 5 years ago
by danieldk on Wed 23rd Sep 2009 09:52
in reply to "RE[4]: Theo de Raadt told it 5 years ago"
Member since:2005-11-18
You can bash OpenBSD for SMP performance, but they can do the same with security. OpenBSD is a pioneer with a lot of security features that has been implemented in other OSes few years after.
Security, you mean the absence of a mandatory access control framework? Or even not a standardized kernel authorization framework like Linux and NetBSD (kauth) have had for years? I am a whole lot happier to use my webserver in a sandboxed SELinux or AppArmor environment, than on OpenBSD.
You know, security is not only about disabling every service in the default install and doing a proper audit. Those things help, but other UNIXes have far more preventive security measures. And companies like Red Hat have been pushing the envelope a lot.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-11-18
Right, and there is not much else you can do with it at an acceptable speed. I guess it still does not have a unified buffer cache, does it? Or fine grained locking for SMP systems?
You could as well just download the UNIX V7 source code and tell us how slim it is. But the world has changed, and the 8 core 64 GB RAM world (what we will be running at home in a short time) is just more complex. And Linux (or NetBSD/FreeBSD) runs terribly much better on my quad core home machine than OpenBSD ever will.