Linked by bcavally on Mon 21st Dec 2009 17:18 UTC
BeOS & Derivatives Today there are many operating systems available. Every vendor or community round it tries to make it as good as possible. Having different goals, different legacy and different cultures, they succeed in it more or less. We (end users) end up with big selection of operating systems, but for us the operating systems are usually compromise of the features that we would like to have. So is there an operating system that would fit all the needs of the end user? Is is the BeOS clone Haiku?
Thread beginning with comment 400659
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Code style...
by pepper on Tue 22nd Dec 2009 09:33 UTC in reply to "Code style..."
pepper
Member since:
2007-09-18

"It might be a spaghetti code, or it might be well-written, well-documented and well-tested code."

Haiku always strives to have a clean code base ...


Unfortunately, this does not say much about security. So what, you have less buffer overflows than average code? Just use a sensible programming language! So your code is much easier to manage? Well, lets wait until it becomes mainstream and 5 years old..


*Good* OS security means powerful mechanisms at lower levels(mikrokernel, capabilities, ...), state of the art architecture/paradigms on system level(Bitfrost uses some known but little investigated ideas) and good application design(usability, one tool one task, least priviledge, isolation of critical subsystems, ...)

The result of this could be more secure. (For average personal use, the low-level stuff is probably least important. Targeted, skilled attacks against low-level subsystems are the least of our concerns today, even though Linux has a notable amount of bugs per month. But once everything else is fixed, it would be useful if the bluetooth driver can not compromise the firewall subsystem..)

Reply Parent Score: -2

RE[2]: Code style...
by strcpy on Tue 22nd Dec 2009 09:42 in reply to "RE: Code style..."
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20


The result of this could be more secure. (For average personal use, the low-level stuff is probably least important. Targeted, skilled attacks against low-level subsystems are the least of our concerns today, even though Linux has a notable amount of bugs per month. But once everything else is fixed, it would be useful if the bluetooth driver can not compromise the firewall subsystem..)


Actually, I would argue for the exact opposite. Due to the large amount of so-called pro-active security measures (ASLR, NX, SSP, MAC/SELinux, and so on) in the userspace, the low kernel-level is currently the weak spot in all *nix systems.

Reply Parent Score: 2