Comment by vermaden | Hacker News Reader

Comment by vermaden | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> But also relatively outdated graphics drivers outside the NVIDIA proprietary drivers (yes, I know that there is a branch with Linux DRM drivers).

This was true until drm-next-kmod and drm-stable-kmod ports appeared. Now you have very similar Linux and FreeBSD graphics experience.

> This also means relatively limited support for Wayland, so you have to use X11, which is insecure.

Wayland is enabled by default since recently.

As we talk about security...

* Linux - Vulnerabilities (2103) - https://www.cvedetails.com/vendor/33/Linux.html * FreeBSD - Vulnerabilities (368) - https://www.cvedetails.com/vendor/6/Freebsd.html

About 7 times more on the Linux side, do not mix X11 into that :)

FreeBSD as every system has its limitations, that is for sure, but as I track its developments of the span of 15 years its just getting better and better, in all aspects - including desktop.

Of course there are 'environments' where its all or nothing like 'mobile', Linux has most of the market here with Android while FreeBSD has nothing.

This was true until drm-next-kmod and drm-stable-kmod ports appeared. Now you have very similar Linux and FreeBSD graphics experience.

Which are, respectively, based on 4.9 and 4.11 in ports. The AMD has made large strides since then. In those kernels, the amdgpu driver barely supported Southern/Sea Islands. These work extremely well with recent kernels (much smoother than the old radeon driver). Vega cards only support graphical output since 4.15.

Wayland is enabled by default since recently.

The FreeBSD website states that Wayland is not ready for general use. Wayland has been 'enabled' in many Linux distributions for years, but it took a long time to remove all the wrinkles.

I wonder: did you actually run a full GNOME desktop on Wayland on FreeBSD for a couple of months?

Linux - Vulnerabilities (2103) - FreeBSD - Vulnerabilities (368)

Linux is far more popular and most likely audited more as a result of that. So, it is not surprising that it has more CVEs. Also, the Linux kernel is a fair bit larger, supports more architecture, and more hardware, which means more surface.

About 7 times more on the Linux side, do not mix X11 into that :)

X11 is a permanent security vulnerability. Every application can read each other application's mouse events, key strokes, and do screen grabs.

> Which are, respectively, based on 4.9 and 4.11 in ports. The AMD has made large strides since then. In those kernels, the amdgpu driver barely supported Southern/Sea Islands. These work extremely well with recent kernels (much smoother than the old radeon driver). Vega cards only support graphical output since 4.15.

Yes, its currently little older, but they catching up ;)

> The FreeBSD website states that Wayland is not ready for general use. Wayland has been 'enabled' in many Linux distributions for years, but it took a long time to remove all the wrinkles.

I haven't used it, so I do not know how mature it is.

> I wonder: did you actually run a full GNOME desktop on Wayland on FreeBSD for a couple of months?

I run 'light' with openbox/tint/dzen and do not prefer Desktop Environments, besides, for me it does not matter if it runs on X11 or on Wayland as the end result is the same, but as I did not used Wayland I will stop with conclusions here.

> Linux is far more popular and most likely audited more as a result of that. So, it is not surprising that it has more CVEs. Also, the Linux kernel is a fair bit larger, supports more architecture, and more hardware, which means more surface.

Microsoft Windows is magnitudes more popular then Linux, yet it has less holes, so its not only popularity.

https://www.cvedetails.com/product/17153/Microsoft-Windows-7...

Microsoft Windows is magnitudes more popular then Linux, yet it has less holes, so its not only popularity.

Since the source is not generally available, it is probably inspected less. Also, a lot of device drivers are provided by third parties, whereas they are included in the Linux kernel.

Very few vulnerabilities get discovered by source code audit.

Are we comparing a full software ecosystem to a barebones OS? Further holes being secret hardly means they don't exist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com