Largely because people still buy their BS. People still think they need one when in most cases they don't.

People want porn and a state government lacks the controls to prevent people from accessing it.

Although I sure look forward to watching them try.

Yeah, I didn't realize this was the case. Fair enough.

Yup, my bad. I normally do at least read summaries, but was sure I had seen earlier headlines saying the US and EU had approved the deal.

That sounds about right given Quebec's wacky and desperate laws. Canadians can just buy from the US store anyway.

Why not, if it means they can trade in the rest of the world with a population of around 2 billion, at least, and make far more money doing so?

The US and EU approved it. The UK wanted out of the EU, so it's fine to ignore them honestly.

Surely, the money made in those markets operating after the purchase, is going to be significantly more than what they would gain by not going ahead with the deal but deciding to stay with the UK?

Besides, the UK would likely ask Microsoft to come back eventually anyway.

Because they operate in the UK.

If the UK doesn't approve, then they can't operate there.

I've had discussions with you in the past, and despite you having a career in infosec (as do I), you made it clearly you have a pretty poor understanding of unix type OS security concepts, and this post is no exception.

OpenBSD is great for writing clean code and trying to prevent bugs, but it offers almost nothing in the event that there is a bug. chroots and securelevels and such are inadequate, while pledge and unveil require the developer to opt-in.

Honestly, If I wanted a BSD that I could feel more confident in locking down, I'd probably opt for NetBSD. VeriExec does more to lock down a system than anything OpenBSD provides.

You realize Slashdot doesn't support unicode right? Your comments are a mess.

That aside, unveil is not at all the same thing, since it requires software to opt in. That's a fundamentally different approach quite useless for trying to protect against software that doesn't bother to make use of unveil, like pretty much everything on github and any commercial software.

Not sure why you're taking it so personally and trying to equate a snarky summary with domestic violence.

That's pretty weird.

The entire OS is barely locked down, stop being such a zealot.

When OpenBSD had that remote root hole in the default install, if someone got root, there had absolute free reign.

OpenBSD has nothing to really protect against that, at least nothing close to what Linux offers.

Securelevels, pledge, unveil, chroot, none of that is sufficient.

This is patently untrue. Linux has a lot more bugs and sloppy design decisions, but has far more security features.

OpenBSD puts a lot of effort into writing clean codes and eliminating bugs, but is sorely lacking in security features.

I don't really use Linux much aside from Void or Alpine, and otherwise I use NetBSD (which actually has some practical security features that OpenBSD would do well to incorporate).

That hasn't been true for a very long time.