41–50 of 107 posts
A more comprehensive list https://www.openbsd.org/innovations.html
I like how they list W^X as an innovation. 1) It's not W^X. W^X implies read-only pages are not possible, and they are. 2) They "invented" that, what 5-10 years after Linux?
A more comprehensive list https://www.openbsd.org/innovations.html
I like how they list W^X as an innovation. 1) It's not W^X. W^X implies read-only pages are not possible, and they are. 2) They "invented" that, what 5-10 years after Linux?
What? W^X implies that Write and Execute or mutually exclusive, can't have both active at the same time.
> They "invented" that, what 5-10 years after Linux?
It's not so much that they "invented" it, but that they're much more diligent about making sure all the base system and ports use it. It's enforced that unless your file-system is mounted with "wxallowed" then any process that tries to mark a page both writeable and executable will fail.
A more comprehensive list https://www.openbsd.org/innovations.html
I like how they list W^X as an innovation. 1) It's not W^X. W^X implies read-only pages are not possible, and they are. 2) They "invented" that, what 5-10 years after Linux?
What? That doesn't seem implied to me-- just means a page can't be w and x at the same time.
A more comprehensive list https://www.openbsd.org/innovations.html
I like how they list W^X as an innovation. 1) It's not W^X. W^X implies read-only pages are not possible, and they are. 2) They "invented" that, what 5-10 years after Linux?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like how they list W^X as an innovation. 1) It's not W^X. W^X implies read-only pages are not possible, and they are. 2) They "invented" that, what 5-10 years after Linux?
> It's not W^X. W^X implies read-only pages are not possible, and they are What? That doesn't seem implied to me-- just means a page can't be w and x at the same time.
Some people find the ERL's performance isn't sufficient to pass packets and also host services such as radius or that the passive heat management on the edgerouter isn't sufficient. In that case Protectli.com [5] makes appliances with monster heat sinks on top and despite running an old ATOM processor can push data at gigabit speeds [6] thanks to onboard Intel NICs.
Finally you can just grab any refurb wintel box, add a couple of Intel NICs and throw away the windows license.
The great thing about OpenBSD is particularly for its typical roles of firewall, load balancer, edge gateway, authentication server, etc it doesn't require much CPU or storage.
I recently rebuilt a laptop with Windows from a USB 3 stick to an Intel M.2 NVME SSD. It took less than 5 minutes to go from booting to install to reboot. OpenBSD's footprint is so small you'll see similar build times particularly when you leave off X Window.
[1] https://www.openbsd.org/octeon.html
[2] https://codeghar.com/blog/openbsd-network-gateway-on-edgerou...
[3] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B013CCTM2E/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_U_...
[4] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N0LMWGQ/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_U_...
[5] https://protectli.com/4-port/
[6] https://tech.mangot.com/blog/2018/11/08/showing-a-gigabit-op...
What are the desktop GUI environments or window managers available on OpenBSD that are comparable to those on Linux? I see a mention of running X as a user, but nothing more. What about desktop hardware support? Does it have working drivers for different WiFi chipsets, video cards, trackpad, etc. (referring only to x86 based systems)?
>What are the desktop GUI environments or window managers available on OpenBSD that are comparable to those on Linux? I'll answer this honestly; All of the X11 based ones until SystemD and wayland came about are essentially supported or working. Gnome created a hard dependency on systemd and thus can't be used any longer on openbsd. Wayland (and thus; Sway) is not supported by OpenBSD. But i3, xmonad, KDE4, XFCE4 and…
Is this lack of support philosophical or due to prioritization?