Jim Thompson wrote:

> OpenBSD's "security uber alles" was originally a fine thing. Now its
> essentially marketing hype, since the playing field on that front is
> essentially level. Performance will soon level out, except where
> FreeBSD's VM continues to dominate on Intel hardware (and then only for
> applications that are sensitive to VM performance issues.)

Innovation can hardly be labeled legacy. What most people see as a claim
to security I see as an innovative approach to hardening the operating
system on many levels. Was it not the production of a free SSH protocol
package that encouraged users to move away from dangerous r- utils and
telnet? Was it not strict adherence to integrated security, auditing and
rewriting applications, and coding the base platform with safety in mind
ahead of features that gave it the reputation it has today? I feel it is
unfair to dismiss so quickly a platform that has had so much positive
influence on the "other" *nix operating systems everyone runs. I
personally believe that OpenBSD as a project is on the forefront of many
fields that will continue to affect every open source operating system
we know today and that will come. Other operating systems are free to
and will integrate the innovations that come from that camp, but don't
assume the playing field will stay level all the time.

> OpenBSD's legacy challenge remains the issues encountered when dealing
> with Theo, and the wireless HAL damage.

Bah. Atheros isn't the only chipset out there, nor will it keep its
current post forever. As for Theo, I happily run OpenBSD without having
the least amount of interaction with him. I don't see the influence of
one man affecting the project in as severe a way as your portray, and
I've been using it for around 5 years. If I pulled that attitude about
people in Theo's position, I wouldn't use the telephone because the CEO
of Qwest is an ass.

DS