• Boogeyman4325@reddthat.com
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not really. Having heterogeneity among operating systems is better than pure homogeneity. Say, if everyone ran Linux, and some massive security flaw was discovered, we would all be screwed at the same time. However, if we ran different stuff, and some massive security hole was found for just one operating system, then only a small portion of the world is vulnerable at once. Besides, more operating systems can lead to more innovation, as long as there is good competition between them.

  • HellAwaits@lemm.ee
    ·
    1 year ago

    No because as others have already said, why would 1 thing dominating everything be good?

  • Mardoniush [she/her]
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nah, industrial and infrastructure should mostly use BSD. And "Never see a command line" consumer OS's should generally be forks from Linux or other FOSS. Most Linux distros have come a long way and are ready for gaming prime time, but fail the "80 year old grandma who wants to digitise her record collection but is a bit unclear on double-clicking" test.

    • towerful@programming.dev
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why?
      I've tried to Google this, but it's such a general statement I can't find anything about it.
      Is it more mature in that regard? Sane/sensible/safe defaults for networking? More tools as part of the distribution for networking?
      Did FreeBSD (or it's predecessor/upstream/whatever) define the standards, so the implementation is more correct?

      Or is it just that so many firewall applications run on top of FreeBSD (or a BSD flavour) eg opnSense, pfSense, openWRT (is openWRT actually BSD, idk)?
      So, kinda a historical/momentum thing. With the benefits of wide spread specific use

      • LinuxSBC@lemm.ee
        ·
        1 year ago

        OpenBSD is focused on being incredibly secure, and they generally succeed. Firewalls need good security.