by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Thursday June 28, 2018 @08:35PM (#56862734)
Microsoft must be so poor that they can't afford to hire security experts to fix Windows. How many years have they been trying to secure their OS? Too many, that's how many. Are they even trying anymore?
You clearly have no clue as to how expensive writing a new Operating System would be. Hell, just look back at when Apple needed to replace Mac OS and had to endure bringing back that smug turtle neck wearing megalomaniac bastard as CEO just to get an OS that wasn't some Open Source cheeseball
Assuming that you really want to know, since I use Linux, Mac, Open and Free BSD I think I can answer objectively: Both OpenBSD and FreeBSD are reasonably easy to download and install and run on pretty much anything. At least, I have not found a server/desktop/laptop computer that it would not run on.
Theo De Raadt has a 'cut the crap' mentality so OpenBSD is simpler, with a smaller repository of programs. However, you can install FreeBSD software on OpenBSD. After a few days of use, you will know how.
OS X is built on Darwin, which has FreeBSD userland, which was forked from 386BSD, which more or less is BSD. If it is so important that we call Linux "Linux," then userland does not matter, and OS X is only xnu, or Mach. Now get off my lawn.
Sorry to have to tell you this, but when Apple needed a new operating system, they DID use cheeseball, open source software as itâ(TM)s base. See, macOS, as it is now called, (previously OS X,) is based on, and built atop one of the descendants of BSD-UNIX, itself a descendant of the original Bell Labs, AT&T UNIX, (NetBSD, I think, or maybe Open-,) and that is definitely open source. All the code underpinning macOS is UNIX, is open source, and that is the source of its power, stability, and secu
Sorry to say but Microsoft doesn't care about this level of security. Their experts have already determined that the effect of current malware is already an acceptable tradeoff, and they continue to put just enough emphasis on security research and prevention to maintain this level.
Poor Microsoft (Score:0)
Microsoft must be so poor that they can't afford to hire security experts to fix Windows. How many years have they been trying to secure their OS? Too many, that's how many. Are they even trying anymore?
Re: (Score:0)
Re:Poor Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:0)
OS X is built on FreeBSD. Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:2)
Which one is a better alternative to macOS? OpenBSD or FreeBSD?
Re: (Score:1)
Assuming that you really want to know, since I use Linux, Mac, Open and Free BSD I think I can answer objectively:
Both OpenBSD and FreeBSD are reasonably easy to download and install and run on pretty much anything. At least, I have not found a server/desktop/laptop computer that it would not run on.
Theo De Raadt has a 'cut the crap' mentality so OpenBSD is simpler, with a smaller repository of programs. However, you can install FreeBSD software on OpenBSD. After a few days of use, you will know how.
In g
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for the comparison.
Re: (Score:0)
Sweet Jesus, no, it wasn't.
Re: (Score:0)
OS X is built on Darwin, which has FreeBSD userland, which was forked from 386BSD, which more or less is BSD. If it is so important that we call Linux "Linux," then userland does not matter, and OS X is only xnu, or Mach. Now get off my lawn.
Re: (Score:0)
Most users only see Quartz, and confuse the interface with the OS.
Re: Poor Microsoft (Score:0)
Sorry to have to tell you this, but when Apple needed a new operating system, they DID use cheeseball, open source software as itâ(TM)s base. See, macOS, as it is now called, (previously OS X,) is based on, and built atop one of the descendants of BSD-UNIX, itself a descendant of the original Bell Labs, AT&T UNIX, (NetBSD, I think, or maybe Open-,) and that is definitely open source. All the code underpinning macOS is UNIX, is open source, and that is the source of its power, stability, and secu
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to say but Microsoft doesn't care about this level of security. Their experts have already determined that the effect of current malware is already an acceptable tradeoff, and they continue to put just enough emphasis on security research and prevention to maintain this level.