/sarcasm-like rant thingy
For fairness sake, it says already at the front page that it is a Suckless/OpenBSD/Linux-based distro.
But indeed, it is its 100% static nature that makes me very interested in it. I am considering installing some of its packages on my "standard" dynamic Arch system - especially a shell and Pacman. I have been hit by a broken glibc before, and having the core static would make that much less risky.
EDIT: By the way. If you are interested specifically in OpenBSD "core utilities" port to Linux, you might want to check out obase:
Last edited by staalmannen; 01-25-2013 at 06:24 PM. Reason: just remembered something...
/sarcasm-like rant thingy
il check if they are simple, i like simple code
speaking of simple code check plan9 from userspace
its a port of.. well plan9 userspace
simple programs as they should be, easy to read too
edit: BSD tools look readable and simple too, probably the reason they chose 'em
plan9 is simpler still
Last edited by gens; 01-25-2013 at 10:55 PM.
gens has it right, I think.
Regarding the claim that glibc is lightweight:
1: see http://www.etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html
2: if that doesn't convince you, get back to me when you have booted a Linux/busybox system in 4 MB (mem=4096) and have 2 MB used after boot.
For those who are saying BSD should die:
Could you please check what you can build if you remove all glibc headers containing the BSD license notice?
Also, please remove sudo, ssh, mandoc, the groff mandoc, me, ms, and other BSD-derived macros, mdoc, tcl & tk, ldap, libtirpc, and any other permissively-licensed packages containing code copyright by "the Regents of the University of California"
Plan9 is indeed cool and is in fact my favourite hobby OS. It utilities are unix-like but often not-quite-unix and I have had to build a few utilities from sbase and Heirloom for APE to be able to run configure scripts etc. Starch contains 9base (plan9port without X11 progs). If it is simple utilities that you want, you should look at the sbase ones.
Oh, and another comment:
FreeBSD != OpenBSD.
From what I've seen, OpenBSD is much better than FreeBSD in terms of having clean, bugless code.
If you blindly trust your Linux chroots youre gonna be burned.
I never claimed that bsd jails are more secure, because I don't know those.Even Linux chroot is more secure than bsd jails.
Linux containers (lxc) are not really safe either. There are several known ways to break out from lxcontainers. They are slowly working on fixing those, but again, the main purpose of LXC is not security.Not to mention containers.
True. Grsecurity patch adds various (at least 13) chroot restrictions so that chroot acutallly can be used for security.There's also many more options on Linux that are more secure.
There is also a "container" project that is known to do containers/jails safely: Linux Vserver.
My point is that you should be really careful how you use chroots and LXC - if it safer than BSD or not I don't know - or care. There are many other good reasons to stick with Linux.
You can actually get those feature on Linux too, with PaX patches.
I know those things because I was around when propolice patches entered gcc. (gcc-3.3 -> gcc-4). Both OpenBSD and Gentoo Hardened did lot of good work there.
Check out Alpine Linux. Uses uclibc and busybox and shared libs.