> You seem to imply that security will always result in less speed or less usability, and that is not always the case.
Certainly not always, but often enough and more so than usual with Spectre and Meltdown.
> As an example of simplicity, I am not personally aware of any install that is so simple as theirs. Except maybe ubuntu's, but then with ubuntu you end up with a mess of interdependent packages and it will be a hell to uninstall shit you don't need.
That's an interesting point. How does it compare in terms of simplicity to the other BSDs (FreeBSD and Dragonfly) or something like Arch Linux?
> That's an interesting point. How does it compare in terms of simplicity to the other BSDs (FreeBSD and Dragonfly) or something like Arch Linux?
I'm not familiar with FreeBSD and DragonFly, but I have used NetBSD in the past and a bit of Arch Linux. The system management is way more consistent in OpenBSD, things generally work and are more reliable. The package management system is a pleasure to work with, and when you want to remove unused packages or dependencies of previously installed packages, it's simple and consistent. It actually works. When you are configuring something, most of the time there is one single way to do it, and it's well documented. And the simplicity can't really be compared to Arch Linux. Fire up a vm and install OpenBSD to it, just for the experience. It's mostly just accepting the defaults, extremely simple.
Certainly not always, but often enough and more so than usual with Spectre and Meltdown.
> As an example of simplicity, I am not personally aware of any install that is so simple as theirs. Except maybe ubuntu's, but then with ubuntu you end up with a mess of interdependent packages and it will be a hell to uninstall shit you don't need.
That's an interesting point. How does it compare in terms of simplicity to the other BSDs (FreeBSD and Dragonfly) or something like Arch Linux?