>The OpenBSD bug on Xenocara which allowed root needed more code, not less.
X was considered and still is a "hack".
>So this is the case with pledge(4) and unveil(4), you need (a little) more code in onder to sandbox setuff properly.
You don't write a graphical subsystem and then tries to sandbox it. Sadly nix advocates won't ever understand this logic.
>NT4 was much more complex than W98SE, yet NT4/w2k was much better on multitasking (by a huge margin). I've seen w98se crawl even with a Pentium 4 and 512MB of RAM with just 3 IE windows open back in the day, while 2k flied.
Let me compare apples with pears, i mean two different approach for OS development which have almost nothing common except the w32 stuff, and let me conclude the newer is better.
I don't really see your point.
X was considered and still is a "hack".
>So this is the case with pledge(4) and unveil(4), you need (a little) more code in onder to sandbox setuff properly.
You don't write a graphical subsystem and then tries to sandbox it. Sadly nix advocates won't ever understand this logic.
>NT4 was much more complex than W98SE, yet NT4/w2k was much better on multitasking (by a huge margin). I've seen w98se crawl even with a Pentium 4 and 512MB of RAM with just 3 IE windows open back in the day, while 2k flied.
Let me compare apples with pears, i mean two different approach for OS development which have almost nothing common except the w32 stuff, and let me conclude the newer is better. I don't really see your point.