Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 55

Thread: Starch Linux: OpenBSD Atop Arch's Linux Kernel

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Ghent
    Posts
    198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ultrich View Post
    It's fake project. In repository only packages utilslinux and coreutils, nothing form OpenBSD.
    look closer.

    The "coreutils" is not the GNU coreutils but rather an assembly of suckless.org "sbase" and OpenBSD utilities.

    I guess they have used the name "coreutils" for Arch compatibility reasons.

    https://github.com/StarchLinux/starc...utils/PKGBUILD
    Last edited by staalmannen; 01-25-2013 at 10:28 AM.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by staalmannen View Post
    look closer.

    The "coreutils" is not the GNU coreutils but rather an assembly of suckless.org "sbase" and OpenBSD utilities.
    Look at github.com/StarchLinux/coreutils
    In it only few utils like bsd tr and sed, nothing more.

    Main utils based on util-linux from kernel.org
    github.com/StarchLinux/starch-ports/blob/master/core/util-linux/PKGBUILD

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kristian Joensen View Post
    Does this mean that some people will hate it for the Linux kernel while others will hate it for the OpenBSD user space?
    It's for people who hate GNU, but like Linux.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Ghent
    Posts
    198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ultrich View Post
    Look at github.com/StarchLinux/coreutils
    In it only few utils like bsd tr and sed, nothing more.

    Main utils based on util-linux from kernel.org
    github.com/StarchLinux/starch-ports/blob/master/core/util-linux/PKGBUILD
    I looked through the packages in my starch chroot and the majority of the unix utilities originate from sbase.

    For the util-linux utilities: It is natural that some of those will have to be included since the distro is dealing with a Linux kernel (and thus Linux file systems).


    The significant remainders of GNU would be GCC, gmake, gfindutils
    Strangely enough bash is still included but mksh should (become?) the default system shell.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    350

    Default

    i see everybody including Michael missed the point so il' put it bold


    ITS A PROJECT FOR A STATIC VERSION OF ARCH LINUX !!


    its not about BSD or linux or what libc it uses, its just a project for making a statically linked userspace

    musl is chosen cuz glibc dosent fully support static linking
    bsd tools are chosen cuz GNU are made with glibc in mind
    etc etc


    y'all should at least check their web site before ranting nonsense

  6. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhux View Post
    They do. But actually they review it before doing so. I maintain some ports myself, I know that.
    And you think Red Hat, Suse, Oracle don't do this? Go home.

    So why did KDE recently have a 10 years old bug fixed? More people looking at it, eh?
    FAILed QA.
    Much more than on BSD. In contrary there were 25+ year old bug in bsd.

    It just does not need them like your Linsux does.
    Oh, it does need the same protection genius, but it's meaningless OS, so nobody cares to make it secure.

    Because Americans are too stupid to handle Unix?
    Because they're too smart to use Unix or Unix like OS while there's Linux. However, they're not smart enough, because many of them is using Windows.

    How?
    Described in another thread already.

  7. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ncopa View Post
    Linux chroots were never intended as a security feature and should never ever be used as such. bsd jails is more like linux containers and linux containers are like chroot, not intended for security isolation so use those with care.
    It's exactly opposite. Even Linux chroot is more secure than bsd jails. Not to mention containers. There's also many more options on Linux that are more secure.

  8. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ncopa View Post
    This is directly false.

    They were pretty early with propolice and stack smashing protection. They implemented W^X and they are pretty good with privilege separation. (read about why they wrote their own ntpd and invented BSD auth instead of PAM and the privilege separation ideas they implemented there).

    Basically, they assume that the software that runs is buggy and tries to make it hard to exploit those bugs. Thanks to this they have discovered many bugs in 3rd party apps and thus contributed that Linux userland has become safer.
    Don't make us laugh mentioning thing that are something common. It's Linux that made bsd userland far more secure, because 99.9% of bugs in applications are fixed thanks to Linux. Ask KDE why bsd is worthless to them when comes to fixing bugs.

  9. #39

    Default

    Starch Linux piqued my interest, so I took the time to actually install it in a chroot. It is minimally functional and it needs a great deal of work. However, what Starch Linux's developer(s) have accomplished so far is a fairly good start for a distribution that is doing something genuinely different. This is especially true when you consider how limited the man power behind Starch Linux is.

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    It's exactly opposite. Even Linux chroot is more secure than bsd jails. Not to mention containers. There's also many more options on Linux that are more secure.
    chroot is insecure by design. You can get a perl script that demonstrates this:

    http://pentestmonkey.net/blog/chroot-breakout-perl

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Don't make us laugh mentioning thing that are something common. It's Linux that made bsd userland far more secure, because 99.9% of bugs in applications are fixed thanks to Linux. Ask KDE why bsd is worthless to them when comes to fixing bugs.
    Various *BSD port trees usually lag behind KDE upstream, so any bugs that the *BSD maintainers fix likely are no longer relevant. :/

    The same can be said for RHEL and other Linux distributions that tend to lag behind upstream.
    Last edited by ryao; 01-25-2013 at 12:59 PM.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ryao View Post
    Various *BSD port trees usually lag behind KDE upstream, so any bugs that the *BSD maintainers fix likely are no longer relevant. :/

    The same can be said for RHEL and other Linux distributions that tend to lag behind upstream.
    Wrong, RHEL and other Linux distros contribute fixes that often also effect the current development version of KDE as they do not lag very much behind.

    BSD ports tree lacks so far behind that the bug fixes made to them were already done in Linux. And even more, they do not contribute back to KDE, they keep the fixes to themselves.

    Thus they are holding KDE (and for that matter, all open-source projects) back. But luckily, GNOME has taken the smart decision to ignore BSD and focus on linux instead. This gave them the choice of implementing linux-specific features which give superior performance and characteristics like udev and systemd.

    it's interesting cos the majority of BSD desktop users are gnome users so they be forced to switch to linux which is good.

    I also strongly think that all other open-source projects should forget about BSD and should implement feature which require the linux kernel so that would make it hard or impossible to port them to BSD. So BSD with have no apps and thus can die quicker. If they don't like it, I'll give them a noose.

    It should serve them right for holding back linux and at the same time spreading anti-Linux FUD.
    Last edited by BSD SUCKS DICKS; 01-25-2013 at 04:54 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •