Thread BSD versus Linux?

Originally Posted by daKremlin I have my doubts after reading the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD#Security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCSEC

Welcome to LQ!

Could you elaborate, please? Doubts about... what, exactly?

Well there's also: https://www.linux.com/blog/how-bad-dirty-cow

And who remembers this? https://www.linux.com/blog/cracking-kernelorg

Having any doubts...?

These things happen...

They are also rather rare.

Originally Posted by astrogeek Welcome to LQ! Could you elaborate, please? Doubts about... what, exactly?

Congratulations on the promotion, astrogeek!

Originally Posted by cynwulf Well there's also: https://www.linux.com/blog/how-bad-dirty-cow

True. But, the flaw was patched relatively quickly in most distros.

Originally Posted by hitest True. But, the flaw was patched relatively quickly in most distros.

I wasn't questioning the speed of any Linux distributions in releasing updates for this.

It was in response to daKremlin, who linked to a wikipedia article, covering some security aspects of FreeBSD and expressed "doubts".

Originally Posted by wikipedia Apparently hackers gained access to these servers by stealing SSH keys from one of the developers, not by exploiting a bug in the operating system itself

Which in turn reminded me of:

Originally Posted by me And who remembers this? https://www.linux.com/blog/cracking-kernelorg

This is in fact quite a similar thing (ssh keys were stolen) and in neither case the result of a vulnerability in the OS, but more a case of human error in managing infrastructure.

In the case of FreeBSD however you had complete transparency, a full report and planned action, etc: https://www.freebsd.org/news/2012-compromise.html
(So they get some credit at least)

By contrast Linux's 2011 breach resulted in "radio silence" with kernel.org down for over a month and we still don't know all the facts...

Originally Posted by cynwulf I wasn't questioning the speed of any Linux distributions in releasing updates for this. It was in response to daKremlin, who linked to a wikipedia article, covering some security aspects of FreeBSD and expressed "doubts".

Thanks for the clarification.

Just as an aid to understanding, the word "doubt" has multiple meanings. For a portion of English speakers, it is defined as a noun -- with a meaning similar to "I have a question" and expresses confusion or a request for clarity. But for another portion of English speakers -- particularly North American English speakers -- the word most often is a verb and indicates distrust and disbelief -- to challenge as being false.

This difference in meaning should be kept in mind when we communicate globally, such as here. If we are not careful, we may assume someone is looking for an argument when there was no such intention.

Originally Posted by James Nicoll ...We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.

Originally Posted by jggimi This difference in meaning should be kept in mind when we communicate globally, such as here. If we are not careful, we may assume someone is looking for an argument when there was no such intention.

This is very true, mate! It is easy to misinterpret the intent of a post.

I hate to disagree with you jggimi, because you are such a helpful person, but "doubt" is both a noun and verb in the English language, including North America. I spent most of my life there and people used the word in both aspects. More importantly, if one or more dialects use a word differently than everyone else, the onus is on the speakers of that dialect to realise their usage of words is at variance with the norm and should familiarise themselves with how everyone else uses those words, if they want to communicate with people internationally. Whether it is an Australian using "wollogong" or "yute", or a Scot using "loch" or "kirk", or someone using "doubt" as a synonym for "query", that person should not assume everyone else will understand their peculiar language. When communicating cross-culturally, clarity is important. Otherwise misunderstandings are guaranteed.

While I understand your point of view, I'll respectfully differ.

While it is both a noun and a verb ... I frequently experience the word "doubt" intended as "confusion" or "question" by speakers of English. In particular, speakers of Indian English, Singaporean English, and by Europeans for whom English is a second language.

Originally Posted by jggimi I frequently experience the word "doubt" intended as "confusion" or "question" by speakers of English.

Doubt and confusion have the same meaning when worded as: "I doubt that is true"; and "I question if that is true." However, if "I have a doubt about ..." is supposed to mean "I have a question about ...," that is terrible English. (That will bring out us grammar Nazis. )

I do not recollect ever receiving a written or spoken communication expressing doubt as a question or confusion that also used the word "true" in the same sentence. Instead, I hear (or read) sentences that typically begin "I have doubts about ..."

It is a very frequent occurrence in $DAYJOB, where I deal with terms and conditions in contracts written in English between parties in different countries. (Recently I needed to explain the difference in definitions and usage of two common Latinate abbreviations used in our agreements: "i.e." and "e.g.")

A suggestion. Let us back on topic. The original topic was about comparing BSD and Linux. The OP suggested that BSD is superior.
I would like to see virtual machines in BSD that fully support other operating systems. I'm a Netflix addict. It would be wonderful to be able to watch Netflix on the BSDs.

Well if you're running a virtualised OS then you're not really running a given programme on the host OS if it's running in a VM.

Your other thread with the response from jggimi gives more info on that.