Starch Linux: OpenBSD Atop Arch's Linux Kernel

[ncopa]

Starch Linux seems fairly similar to Alpine Linux.

• Both uses OpenRC
• Starch uses musl, Alpine uses uClibc
• Starch uses pacman, Alpine uses apk-tools (which has some similar things as pacman - but is way faster)
• Starch uses BSD userland, Alpine uses busybox.

Since it is based on OpenBSD I'd assume there are some interest in security. I don't know if Starch has some kernel hardening but Alpine Linux uses Grsecurity in the default kernel.

Alpine Linux seems to be much more mature though and have some support for desktop stuff like XFCE, firefox and similar.

[BSD SUCKS DICKS]

Starch Linux seems fairly similar to Alpine Linux.

• Both uses OpenRC
• Starch uses musl, Alpine uses uClibc
• Starch uses pacman, Alpine uses apk-tools (which has some similar things as pacman - but is way faster)
• Starch uses BSD userland, Alpine uses busybox.

Since it is based on OpenBSD I'd assume there are some interest in security. I don't know if Starch has some kernel hardening but Alpine Linux uses Grsecurity in the default kernel.

1. OpenRC is SHIT. It's slow, BSD licensed. Systemd is way better.

2. musl and uClibc are jack fuck shit compared to glibc. glibc is robust, versatile, lightwieght and secure.

3. Both pacman and apk-tools are far superior to the rusty ports used in all BSDs.

4. BSD userland is slow, limited functionality, too heavy (can't be used on mobile platforms) etc.


OpenBSD is not more secure then Linux, its actually less secure because they do not have anything like AppArmor or SELinux. They rely on the hopes of their OS being bug free so if it isn't, there's no layers of defence.

Also, their third party apps from ports are not audited while linux is. So the more apps you install, insecurity grows exponentially.

Plus like M$, they cover up security flaws and even allow the FBI to plant backdoors

[Cthulhux]

Why? A lot of posts around the Internet has often mentioned the dream of a Linux with BSD userland.

IIRC there have been several approaches of that, some are more mature yet.

[Cthulhux]

glibc is robust, versatile, lightwieght and secure.

Ah, that's why it gets security updates.

OpenBSD is not more secure then Linux, its actually less secure because they do not have anything like AppArmor or SELinux.

Only your Linsux b$ needs AppArmor. Advanced operating systems are secure by default.

edit:
And while we're at it, there are no "third party apps" in ports. All ports are home-grown and checked manually before being added.

[kraftman]

Ah, that's why it gets security updates.

It gets them, because it's far more popular than bsd crap and more people are looking at it.

Only your Linsux b$ needs AppArmor. Advanced operating systems are secure by default.

No, idiot. Show me BullShitDaily comparable security mechanism like Linux has. Linux is far more secure than your toy OS. BSD is no way advanced operating system! It's legacy OS that lacks ANY real world security protection. There's a reason why Linux was chosen by National Security Agency. One more thing: even Linux chroot is more secure than bsd jails, so don't compromise yourself further.

[kraftman]

I loled.

They say one picture can tell more than thousand words.

It's so true. You can replace Tux by M$ or crapple as well and it will still remain valid.

[BSD SUCKS DICKS]

bsd sucks dicks!!!!!

[BSD SUCKS DICKS]

Ah, that's why it gets security updates.


Only your Linsux b$ needs AppArmor. Advanced operating systems are secure by default.

There, Just relying on the barely OS to have no holes and thus no layers of protection.

NEWSFLASH: NO ONE CAN MAKE AN OS ENTIRELY BUG FREE. Security experts should know that and thus it looks like OpenBSD devs/cunts are not security experts and looks like they live their own fairy land.

edit:
And while we're at it, there are no "third party apps" in ports. All ports are home-grown and checked manually before being added.

Stop bull shitting, you mean they port Linux applications to their shitty as fuck portstree? thats what I meant by third part apps.

It's been announce on their website, third party apps are not checked for security vulns. The same for FreeBSD, NetBSD and DragonflyBSD.

Linux check their apps. Thus Linux is more secure then BastardsSuckingDildos.

[BSD SUCKS DICKS]

One more thing: even Linux chroot is more secure than bsd jails, so don't compromise yourself further.

Thats true, in fact Linux (Not BSD) invented the chroot. BSD cunts manage to lie to everyone that they invented the chroot. No, it was Linux FULL STOP.

BSDs just copied the chroot. Their jails are also apparently copied of a Linux developer except they also removed the code that makes the feature good and secure. So BSD jails are a shitty downgraded copy of an invention from Linux.

Linux didn't implement that feature cos the developer though it didn't mean expectations. So he went on to develop LXC which was implemented in Linux and is far more secure then anything.

[BSD SUCKS DICKS]

Ah, that's why it gets security updates.


Only your Linsux b$ needs AppArmor. Advanced operating systems are secure by default.

edit:
And while we're at it, there are no "third party apps" in ports. All ports are home-grown and checked manually before being added.

Cthulhux can only spit out childish insults on forums, which is a typical characteristic of a BSD cunt.

Seriously, ALL ASSOCIATED WITH BSD SHOULD BE BANNED FROM FORUMS.