Sometimes you don't have a choice in running software that doesn't use the 'protections' an obscure OS offers. If someone wants to run Oracle, pledge and unveil is irrelivant, as where other security solutions can still protect Oracle without requiring opt-in, and to a far greater extent.

> https://man.openbsd.org/chflags.1 lists such a flag

It's too blunt, it's an all or nothing approach. You have no way to say process A can append only, but privileged process b should have no write access at all.

> That's trivial by setting group/world permissions on any unix-like.

Only in the bluntest of terms. There is no way to allow, say, a webserverto have read access to a file while not allowing a cat processes, spawned as a subprocess of that webserver process, to not have access.

> So, https://why-openbsd.rocks/fact/noexec/ ?

No, not even close. I mean allowing user a to run /bin/ls to execute while not having access to execute /bin/rm, and at the same time allowing user b to execute both, and user c to run /bin/rm but not /bin/ls

> Etc etc etc.

No, not really, since you didn't make any point that were not based on misunderstandings.

Kind of weird for you to defend a product if you've never even been to their website.

I'd say OpenSSH is a great tool, arc4random was great and pledge is interesting although doesn't do much for code that wasn't compiled with it (and they are still really lacking in ways to lock down apps for a 'security focused' OS), the rest is just their implementation of stuff that already existed not something they innovated.

Most of their reputation comes from a time when linux distros and windows had every service enabled and exposed by default, it just developed it's own momentum the way many myths do.

More so their marketing.

The 'heh' indicates a misplaced smugness.Our elections actually result in a change in leadership. There is a lot of yammering, but no evidence the US is about to become an actual dictatorship.

> So easy to point and jeer and say "they're bad, but over here the circumstances are different!"...

Because they are drastically different. You're just trying to downplay that because it breaks your entire argument.

Eh, you'd be wrong. It's a different issue in the US, half the population believe and vote for nonsense, the other half are strongly against it.

> What proof do you have, or do you "just know it"?

Friends with Russians, and try to read useful sources like Meduza. It's absolutely very much the case that most of that population are brainwashed and believe the state propaganda.

> Meanwhile in Russia, protesting will get you arrested and probably be sent to the frontline (as a man) or prison (as a woman).

Yes, so an armed uprising is necessary if voting is not an option. But if there is no will, there will be no effort.

> Meanwhile in America, there's a political party using the Nazi playbook to subvert democracy and succeeding.

America will still have elections, and we won't have to deal with our Putin-wannabe again after their term is up.

>

    He never made the argument that goto was considered harmful (the title was not his), the letter itself is a solid argument for why the unbounded goto (as opposed to the, typically, function or lexical scope restricted goto) creates programs that are hard to comprehend. He also, if you read the letter, does not argue for abolishing goto, it's part of the larger case of going toward structured programming.

    If you learned programming after about 1990 (probably some time in the 1980s was the real inflection point, but by 1990) you would have been learning structured programming and the argument was moot, because it had won. Every major language used after that time (outside of assembly languages which are inherently unstructured as a language) was already using structured programming so the argument seems superfluous or you end up having people compare the goto he describes to the modern restricted goto, which is not something he would have (strongly) argued against (though certainly against its overuse in some cases).

You could make your own tiny Windows 'distro' building on Tiny 11.