I Stopped Using OpenBSD

Yes, you are technically right, but you are wrong only in the sense that most packs either do not ship with a selinux policy or ship with some just-added-whatever policy.

> I appreciate flatpak for software distribution

Flatpack is for distributors. Not end users or for the benefit of the end system running them. There are already too much written about this. The lax state of selinux policies is also a result of this focus.

PS: you will see my top comment get downvoted by the distributors who enjoy to offload the burden to end users, without offering any counter argument.

OK understandable ofc.

> Running virtual machines on OpenBSD is really limited, running programs headless with one core and poor performance is not a good incentive to work at staying sharp.

Can someone explain this a bit more? I mean: I also run both VMs and OCI containers (well, Docker really atm) but what's that about "headless with one core" OpenBSD thing?

OpenBSD can run a VM but it's limited to one core and there can be no GPU passthrough? Is that what she means? That she can only access the VMs through the network?

No GPU passthrough would indeed be kinda a deal breaker for me too.

> I moved from OpenBSD to Qubes OS for almost everything

(a bit of a rant but it's related to TFA from a "what a dev may need" point of view)

I like that Qubes OS focuses on security, something which, for example, Proxmox seems to have an interest approaching about zero. Sure you can contenairize and virtualize but the Proxmox host itself, the "hypervisor" has countless ports open by default "because you'll need them for insecure lots of insecure protocols here and the entire Proxmox security seems to rely on only the firewall. Firewall which, moreover, sometimes resets by itself to "ACCEPT" everything by default.

I run Proxmox on a server and I did a proof-of-concept, running Proxmox as my desktop, using GPU passthrough from a VM to my main display (requires quite a bit of setup and settings and may or may not work on some hardware, but it's darn sweet when it works: one GPU for the host, one GPU for the guest(s)). It works. I know some are using that setup (including some Proxmox devs) on their workstation. But, sheesh, does the Proxmox team seem to care more about a shiny UI than security.

So, basically to be too far from TFA: leaving OpenBSD (considered to be ultra secure) for QubeOS... Does QubeOS really deliver more on security compared to another efficient alternative, like Proxmox? (don't get me wrong: I know that QubeOS is meant to be a desktop, which Proxmox not so much... I just wonder if QubeOS is really secure compared to OpenBSD).

In this day and age of AI models (for those who want to run some locally) requiring fat GPUs and lots of configuration on the software side and with the pace at which new models are coming out, I think nothing beats an hypervisor and VMs using GPU(s) passthrough. This way you can quickly test new models, install tens of them, backup working VMs or containers, etc.

I can see how OpenBSD is negatively affected by that: a 4090 or 5090 (or two in the same machine FWIW: a friend of mine runs just that, two 4090 using GPU passthrough) is quite something. The world, atm, shifted towards GPU. That's why NVidia is enjoying such a market cap.

Although Bluetooth and gamepad do not matter, it looks like OpenBSD may be missing something here if the GPU and GPU passthrough story is subpar.

In a "the world is moving" way.

At least in my case, after reading a TFA like this, I don't see why I'd run OpenBSD... Except as a firewall in front of my Proxmox machines (which badly need that) ; )

P.S: don't mistake this rant for me not loving Proxmox. It's just that I wished they cared less about "shiny" and "convenience" and more about not opening every single port and service under the sun on the host. Something which QubeOS may be better at.