It’s two things. 1. Less eyes are on the bsds
reply2. Bsds don’t have the same optimizations that Linux has. Bsds generally try to pursue corrrectness
That being said there were just a bunch of vulnerabilities in freebsd
macOS has had its own dirty cow attack and I know there’s for sure more memory ones just based on the way the xnu kernel works.
So no Linux isn’t really worse per say
Larger target.
replyin many ways:
reply- more people are using it (assuming macos is in its own bucket perhaps) - bigger surface areas (esp NetBSD has in my limited understanding just less stuff that can go boom) - more churn, ie more new stuff than can be buggy released more often.
Of course, because of that, more eyes are on Linux, so I'm not sure where that security tradeoff is.
AFAIU, Linux and the BSDs have basically the same architecture - the BSDs just value secure and simple, understandable code more highly than Linux vs features and performance.
replyThis is really not a correct statement beyond the fact that both are a type of Unix.
replyLinux is not Unix: it is not derived from AT&T Unix.
replyBy that definition, nor is BSD. It's kind of their whole raison d'étre.
replyLinux 2.2 or 2.4 or so (possibly only Suse Linux) even had a kernel startup message "Unix compliance testing by UNIFIX" or something, back when Unix was considered more prestigious than Linux. It is / was by some official definition "a Unix", though not "UNIX the trademark by AT&T".
replyI’m fairly certain they’re referring to POSIX compatibility, not calling a Linux a Unix.
replyOh damn, you are probably right.
replyWhat are the differences? I think of both as Unix-type sytems with macrokernels. I have no practical experience with BSDs.
reply