1. 24
  1.  

  2. 3

    Oh but ed can run Rule 110 which is Turing complete and therefore indeed ed can run anything (although in a different context than what the OP meant).

    1. [Comment removed by author]

      1. 1

        I am willing to accept it because as the author of rule110.ed writes “The alternative to self-modification is to have the script and the data in separate files”. But I think we digress.

    2. 2

      I want a nix + openbsd mashup OS so badly, I’m getting more and more paranoid about software, but can’t leave the nix package manager anymore. Excuse my while I go check the code of patch.

      1. 2

        I wish FreeBSD chose to adopt nix rather than make pkg. For most ports, I can’t imagine mechanically turning them to nix expressions is that hard. Unfortunately, last I played with it the Nix codebase used a lot of linuxisms. I tried getting it to run on FreeBSD but it required more time than I could afford to put into it. I’m not sure why it requires any linuxisms at all since it’s just building software.

        1. 2

          it’s just building software.

          … which is also how we ended up with autoconf.

        2. 2

          Maybe Nix + ZFS (or similarly-reliable/manageable) + OpenBSD + RAID and ECC + local and remote backups. That should give extra comfort.

        3. 1

          Perhaps the maintainers of GNU utilities should follow the security vulnerabilities fixed by the BSDs, and treat those as if they are security vulnerabilities in the GNU implementation too unless proven otherwise.