From owner-freebsd-security Thu Aug 12 21:32:47 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from cheops.anu.edu.au (cheops.anu.edu.au [150.203.76.24]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 972DC14C3B for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 21:31:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from avalon@cheops.anu.edu.au) Received: (from avalon@localhost) by cheops.anu.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA23238; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 14:31:45 +1000 (EST) From: Darren Reed Message-Id: <199908130431.OAA23238@cheops.anu.edu.au> Subject: Re: "Secure-FreeBSD" Idea To: gill@topsecret.net (James Gill) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 14:31:44 +1000 (EST) Cc: tomb@securify.com, andrewr@slack.net, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: from "James Gill" at Aug 12, 99 11:27:24 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org In some mail from James Gill, sie said: [...] > I digress... what's the feasability of comarketing the two OSes? I am > not the most knowledgeable as to the whole concept and direction of > FreeBSD, but perhaps fbsd could take a tack more aimed at what it > seems to currently do well, large and powerful servers and nbsd take > the hardened OS tack. TOGETHER WE COULD RULE THE WORLD! (or at least > have root access) I think you've got the wrong idea. OpenBSD's prime goal is for a secure OS. NetBSD's primarily goal is stability and portability although they seem to discover new security problems more often than OpenBSD people do. By that I mean problems which involve more than program X having a new buffer overflow problem. If you wanted my opinion of FreeBSD (and what's its goals were), it would be to be a better Linux than Linux - i.e. primarily focused on x86 support (I don't see FreeBSD on alpha as being anything serious - especially given the UltraSparc project failure), light weight, user friendly, etc. But maybe that's changing. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message