Pretty snarky comment in my opinion. From my understanding, OpenBSDs main reason for not supporting things (apart from the obvious lack of resources) is that they are not free (require blobs etc.).
Security concerns are typically solved in software by them as long as they can get access to the hardware in a free (as in freedom) way.
I actually applaud them for their hard stance and am happy that we have this end of the spectrum as well as the Linux end (pragmatic, just get devices to work somehow, willing to accept some non-freedom). It's certainly not the easiest path to follow.
> Pretty snarky comment in my opinion. From my understanding, OpenBSDs main reason for not supporting things (apart from the obvious lack of resources) is that they are not free (require blobs etc.).
Your comment reads as someone who doesn’t really interact with the OpenBSD ecosystem very much.
I’m pretty sure the commenter you’re replying to was referring to the fact that hyperthreading is disable by default on OpenBSD systems out of caution: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17350278
And as for their attitude toward firmware blobs, while they ideally prefer them to be free, they only require them to be redistributable; this is a less hard stance than GNU. Plenty of OpenBSD drivers require proprietary blobs to function.
Security concerns are typically solved in software by them as long as they can get access to the hardware in a free (as in freedom) way.
I actually applaud them for their hard stance and am happy that we have this end of the spectrum as well as the Linux end (pragmatic, just get devices to work somehow, willing to accept some non-freedom). It's certainly not the easiest path to follow.