Hi,
NOTE: No intention to behave like a troll.
I've been following the "multi-threaded ssh/scp" thread and read Ted's

comment that he's stopped working on the kernel threads code because

he doesn't have the time for it nor does he need it any more.

Also that multi-threaded ssh/scp would weaken security features within the OS.
It just led me to ponder, what is OpenBSD's ultimate goal?

Is it just to become the worlds most secure OS with as few remote

holes in the default install?

Shouldn't it also be our goal to be the best UNIX-like operating

system which is in tune with the current needs of users?
It would have been great to have a threaded kernel, there are

developer's I'm gathering around who wanted to change the TCP/IP stack

to make it higher performance, more like "Project FireEngine" under

Solaris 10.
OpenBSD is an OS with amazing security and stability, but it has too

few modern features.
It would be great if developers also start working on improving the

features currently offered by OpenBSD.

Else, we would end up becoming the world's most secure OS which is

used by just a handful of us faithful users.
You might ask what right do I have for this rant, what am I doing for OpenBSD?

Well I can't donate code directly as I'm a Java programmer and my C is

quite rusty (haven't coded in it in over 7 years).

But, yes, I do donate my time and money, indirectly, by recruiting

good C developers to the cause as well as buying stuff for core

developers off their wish lists.
Hope newer features get added, not that I'm unhappy with the OS (it

does almost everything I need an OS to do for me), but it would be

great if we had *more* smart developers and a wider base of good users

who get attracted to the OS for its robustness as well as feature-set.
Best,
~Mayuresh

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 17:33:12 +0530
What, exactly, is yours?  
I've read thru this thread and you are remarkably obscure

about your intentions, but it seems to me that OBSD somehow

does not fit your marketing plan, which seems to have a lot

in common with "New, Improved, Diamond-shaped Shreddies".
Dhu

My ultimate goal is to have an OS which would give me;

stability,

security,

a better default window manager,

something as good as DTrace,

something as good as FireEngine,

a file system which would hold a lot of big files, you can assume it

to be porn if you want :-)

and, a system which is as free off GNU software as possible.
That's the reason I've been gathering good C developers, so that they

could either;

1. take up complex projects like FireEngine/DTrace,

2. write replacements for as many GNU tools/utilities as possible,

3. be a landing stage for newer developers who get intimidated by the
I've clearly pointed out what I've wanted since my second mail to the thread.
I don't *have* a marketing plan, I'm a developer, remember?
~Mayuresh

I'm following this thread with quite some amusement, but one thing is

not in the least clear to me: why do you think you want "something as

good as FireEngine". Heck, even under the assumption FireEngine is

Really Good (TM), you should compare it to  the *new* stack of FreeBSD,

whose marketing blurb has at least a bit more meaty than Sun's.

http://www.meetbsd.org/storage/kris.kennaway_meetbsd2007.pdf
SO now do you want FireEngine? Or rather SMPng networking? Or

would you like ReallyHyperFastZoomStreamCyberWoosh?

You can't decide?
You have not even shown a corner case, much less in general why

it would be desirable to completely throw away the current

architecture. I use OpenBSD since 3.0 on very small CPUs and also

on rather big ones (all i386 and amd64, though), and I don't remember

a single case in which network stack performance wouldn't at least

have met my expectations.
What performance difference are you expecting? Do you know

the implications, which the different approaches impose on the

kernel architecture? Even if there would be a developer,  who would

in principle be open to the idea, you have to show her that it is worth

the hassle. But you don't even know what you're talking about.
If *I* were a developer, I would be offended by the notion that

AnotherSolution is *that* *much* *better* (as you imply) _without_

showing any evidence.
--knitti

Now that you've brought it up, I would really like a

ReallyHyperFastZoomStreamCyberWoosh TCP stack.  Just make sure it

doesn't require 1.2Jigawatts of power and have interesting side

effects when it gets to 88mph.
--

http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk

"This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity."

-- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation.

"Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or

internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks

factory where smoking on the job is permitted." -- Gene Spafford

learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0&feature=related

But ReallyHyperFastZoomStreamCyberWoosh is designed for processors with

the HyperVirtualFuzzboxVoodooDoubleStream extension. Porting it to

OpenBSD would seriously impact performance of OpenBSD on mundane

processors.
Miod

Nonsense, as long as you can plug in some plutonium, things should be

fine.

Are you tellin' me this sucker is nuclear?
--

jakemsr@sdf.lonestar.org

SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org

doug.

Now, where is that chisel. I'd like to see some bubbles here.
-sm

good luck with that.  be sure to let us know when it's all done, ok?  thanks.

If thats sarcasm its really not warranted.

If its not sarcasm, then we'll be posting to the list about our progress.
Also, Ted, I'm sorry if you felt offended by my ranting about you not

completing kernel threads, but the loss of those developers really

felt bad.
~Mayuresh

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:47:54 +0530
Looks to me like your "Tivo Box" project might need to actually pay someone

to write a threads library.  
Dhu

Download OpenSolaris from sun.com or ask Sun to send by mail, it's free

of charge,  and dont break anymore.

A bunch of developers work every fuckin day to give us a good operating

Again, use OpenSolaris, in Sun new developers and core developers are

Are you a java developer right? Perfect, work on OpenSDK or Glassfish

project. Or at least for javadesktopsystem.

I hope this thread need to be closed, this thread smell like a fish

after four days.
Francesco
PS = You dont understand my english, ok, but i think this post it's

sharp.period.

'Modern' is an adjective used by and on people subject to the

influence of advertising and PR.  "All New!"  "Now in an Orange

Box"  "We've changed our logo!"  Engineering adjectives are:

correct, useful, secure, high-performance, low-latency, scalable,

small footprint, etc.  These are challenging adjectives in that

they demand that someone be able to evaluate and compare technical

attributes, not merely read a calendar.
--

Monty Brandenberg, Software Consultant                             MCB, Inc.

mcbinc@panix.com                                             P.O. Box 426188

mcbinc@pobox.com                                   Cambridge, MA  02142-0021

617.864.6907

Hey folks,
i have been writing software about 6 year since i "finnished" my

university course. OpenBSD has always been impressive to my eyes.

Since correctness/security is "conditio sine qua non", i disagree as a

group of developer has it as goal. Goal should be performance,

portability usability. But correctness/security should be a

requirement.
I am very confident about software i wrote. But in order to obtain

paramount performance i am taking a totally different approach. Since

process and even thread are not a good ideia. i am working now to

learn a little bit more about SDL (specification and description

language). Not only my systems became faster, a lot faster but also,

very, very, very modular.
I am not in kernel design/implementation, so i would like to hear from

you all about an approach driven by this method.
I was thinking about the advantages of having very modular part of a

OS, being executed on each processor (of a SMP system), and like. It

sounds very interesting to me.
thanks.

Come on guys, calm down, just stay what you are currently.

Just do your job.
Make OpenBSD the best router/firewall/server OS ever, you have the right

features for that now,

and I hope you will extend it in the nearest future.
And do not listen to those trolls.
Thank you all for what you do guys.
--

With best regards,

    Gregory Edigarov
--

With best regards,

    Gregory Edigarov

For each message in this thread that I consider insulting (10 so far), I

will donate 1 euro to OpenBSD to compensate for lost developer time

reading such messages. Being a student my budget can't take more, but at

least I try to be grateful.
Keep up the good work making an OS that is only fixed when it's broken.
--

Jussi Peltola

I'm student too, so why not, i wondering to spend 20 euros for last

tshirt, why not another 2 euros for OpenBSD ?

Jussi you have a very good idea... Thanks
Francesco

Let me take a stab of responding to this...
Ted had an itch that rthreads scratched.  He worked on it and

unfortunately for all of us he ran out of time and even more

unfortunately he ran out of steam.  In OpenBSD land that means that

someone else needs to pick it up.  Let me reiterate that this is

extremely unfortunate but not not unusual.
We, the consumers of Ted's code, can not dictate him what to do and

when.  He is very busy man with wide interests.  When you and I get to

use some of his code, FOR FREE, we should thank him instead of

complaining.  I have had the pleasure of working with Ted on several

pieces of code and I am thankful for his time.  I learnt quite a few
OpenBSD does not have an ultimate goal; this is obviously silly and has

proven to be bad throughout history.  A good example are labor unions,

they started out with good intentions and when they reached their

"ultimate" goal they were no longer relevant and had to be reinvented to

remain relevant.  Obviously this is pure human nature to try to hang on

to power as long as possible.  All this aside that is not how OpenBSD is

run.
There is no "ultimate" goal but there is a vision as to where we should

be heading.  This vision is definitively not rigid; OpenBSD as a whole

will head into "the right direction" not a predefined one.
All that said, as a contributor to the code base I only have limited

time to work on OpenBSD.  You get what I have time to write, for free!

Most people who work on OpenBSD are in that same boat.  Life simply gets
Sure, but this always means "most" users.  I want to do things where

OpenBSD does not help me.  So I write the code and make it do whatever

it is what I needed.  This code is obviously not useful for others and I
Why is it great to have a threaded kernel?
I'll be more than happy to talk through the caching and scheduling

implications of what you just said.  And then we'll add another 14
You are talking about nebulous features that are over hyped and

under prove...
[ message continues ]

Its good to know that Ted did indeed try to scratch an itch of his and

laid down some ground work for future developers to take it beyond its

basic level.

But, it would have been *nicer* if Ted had put in some more of his

time and effort to complete what he started.

Also, we don't get to use his code for FREE, I suppose most of the
The problem that would get solved would be best presented by the
Not really, I'm not insulting you or any of the core developers.

What I meant is newer features.
Agreed, but wouldn't it be better if there was some kind-a list of

features most requested by users who can't/don't code in C?

Then you core people could keep an eye on that list and think through
Nothing of that sort, I don't _expect_ developers to do what I ask

for, in fact I've got very few needs above what the system is offering

me right now, just that it hurts to see rest of the projects getting

some nice features which we too would've got had the developers
I'm not belittling the developers, just that I really got irritated

when I lost 5 of the best developers (who were going to start work on

a new TCP/IP stack) I'd gathered because Ted lost interest in his own

work.
Best,
~Mayuresh

It would also be nice if you would learn C and code up your new TCP/IP

stack yourself.  We don't always get everything we want.
His code is free to anyone that wants it for free.  Do you not
What specifically about the OpenBSD TCP/IP stack is too slow for your

needs?  Perhaps some simple sysctl tuning or using a different NIC
This comes up once every few months.  The general consensus is that

lists are a waste of time that's better spent coding.  Posting such a

list implies that developers are actually interested in and/or
If the system does what you need, why do you care about writing this

brand new TCP/IP stack then?
As far as other projects getting these features, so what?  If they're

that critical to you, go use that project instead.  If it's

BSD-licensed code, kindly ask if someone can import it to OpenBSD, but
Such is the nature of open source development.  Have you spoken with

Ted or any other developers regarding this?  Perhaps they might regain

interest after hearing your proposal, or at the very least provide

some critique on its merits.
--david

This is weird isn't it?
It gets stranger.

How is a bare bones code ever going to be useful to a non developing user?

Its useful to them only when its part of an overall system.

And that overall system in a really usable state is only available via

CDs which need to be purchased.

I'm not saying that this purchase it if you want model is bad, I find
I never said its an inherent flaw, its just that its dated.

Better to have something that is more in tune with what is needed in
Because I said, "I've got very few needs *above* what the system is

offering me right now".
~Mayuresh

Goodness, what have you been smoking?  Free, online install from

mirrors has been available with every OpenBSD release for the last
So there's no flaws, it's just old, you say.  If it's old and it

works, why would you ever want to replace it?
Can you give anyone a legitimate, specific, real-world problem that

you're trying to solve with this new stack?  Because without one, it

just sounds like you simply bought into some Sun marketing hype.

Reinventing the wheel without a good reason does nothing but waste

everyone's time.
--david

That's your problem.  Nobody on the OpenBSD team owes you anything.
---

Jason Dixon

DixonGroup Consulting

http://www.dixongroup.net

Did I ever in any of my mails mention that anybody on the OpenBSD team

owes me anything?

Jason you are equally weird.
~Mayuresh

aehm, hello ? I do buy the cd's, they look nice on my shelf. but most of

the time when installing I use ftp. this statement of your's does not

make any sense to me.
-sm

The two sentences above demonstrate that you are clueless and, more
Again, offensive beyond reason. Who the fsck are you to tell someone

to complete something which he was doing of his own accord and
This last sentence of yours, Mayuresh, makes me believe that you have

more at stake personally than you are owning up to. What do you care,

really? And if these 5 best developers that you speak of quit because

Ted lost interest, then how good could they really be? You are not

being straight with the community and you are exceedingly ungrateful

to boot.

The point is not about being ungrateful at all.

I love OpenBSD and that's why I do what I can without being told about it.

If it was just about buying CD sets, don't you think I would've
You are contorting facts.

Ted *was* doing great work, just that he left his stuff unfinished.
Yes indeed, I've got more at stake that what I'm owning up to.

What's at stake is my reputation with those 5 developers whom I

managed to snare for OpenBSD.

I'd told them a lot about how good and dedicated the OpenBSD

developers are only to be delivered a low punch by one of its foremost

developers.
And then add to that weirdos like you who go off at tangents.

Yeah, it makes my day (sic).
~Mayuresh

Saving Sun?

You do. They =give= software to you, for free, and you say it's not good

enough. The only reason I reply is that in general your posts are refreshing

but on this you are plain wrong.
"5 of the best developers" get real, if so they why didn't one of them wrote

the thread library too?
Someone with good enough brains wired in the right direction needs about 2

years to get enough fluent in C to be a serious developer. Those 2 years can

concurrently be used to get a good idea of how OpenBSD works and how threading

works and should/could work with OpenBSD. And then such a person would need

just a few very inspired weeks to write the thread library.
As far as I know a few people have tried it and none succeeded very well.

That's a pity, but please don't complain: Donate! Code or money! If you really

believe Ted is the right person, donate lots of money to him.
If you have 5 of the best developers: Let them one of them write the thread

library.
+++chefren

Mayuresh, about that I have to dissent.

How you fuckin tell that the money that me, you, and all OBSD fans and

core developers spend with stikers, tshirts or cd sets it's enough to

support *OBSD* development? OBSD community isn't a .com like red hat

ubuntu or mandrivia or what the hell it's name was, that have enough

founds doned by ibm, eclipse and a thousands of big company happy to

finance a linux o.s.

OBSD it's a FREE (you can install from ftp server or make your own

cd/dvd set) without spends an euro/dollar or what is your currency.

That community need help, so, if you can donate a fuckin amd64 or a

quadcore or a fuckin monitor, because you have enough money to brought,

it's your right to donate to community, but it's stupid to have a

personal payback.

All of us need to be proud to have a good, stable, secure and, hell ya,

a *FREE* (as BEER) operating system on your machine.

OBSD not run very well on your machine? Have a enought confiance with C?

Work on it, to help all of us. Dont wait another person to do what is

your wish, just because you boring to do that. You dont have a C

skills?  Right, help on debugging, on testing, or simply help a people

to do the best for us, for free, and some times, send an email to obsd

programmers just to say thanks for his work.
it's just my 2eurocents to us...
Francesco
PS = Just for note, i agree with you Marco, on all the line, in your

last post, in this thread.

Raven, learn to write understandable English first, then try to reply

to my mails.
~Mayuresh

I will try, thanks for a suggestion, english not is my mother tongue.

Francesco

English isn't my native tounge either.

And you're still a weirdo. :)
~Mayuresh

I can see several _public_ answers to _quite private_ letters. Is it

something specific to this list? Didn't see something like this before.

--

				pozdrawiam / regards
						Zbigniew Baniewski

sorry, my mistake. i press "reply to all" and not just "reply".

I'm really sorry. But, it's what i think.
Francesco

If only they did. A miniscule percentage of the user community buys

CD's, and the sales are dropping. The vast majority of users simply

download the code. The faster internet connections get the fewer CDs

are sold. Not complaining, we provide the code for them to do that,

but ...
If all our users bought a CD set there would be a *lot* more

development going on by dedicated/paid developers. If corporations

needing paperwork to donate would contact www.openbsdfoundation.org

and donate there would be a lot more development going on. And if pigs

could code as well as fly all our problems would be solved.
.... Ken

Ken, in that case why don't you and rest of the team, led by Theo take

a concious decision to stop downloads?

Why are you harming yourselves by allowing people to also download?

I for one buy CDs every year, year after year.
Best,
~Mayuresh
~Mayuresh

OpenBSD is introduced (e.g., on the main web page) by three,

adjectives.  It might be worthwhile to grasp the first of

those before advancing suggestions.

If there were no downloads, there would be less users who donate. I'd

dare to claim some people have just downloaded and donated instead of

buying the CD - in my case it makes sense since I can afford very little

and the production of CDs would eat some of that little. I miss the

stickers, though.
PS. I'm at 14 euros now... keep complaining.
--

Jussi Peltola

The CD sets you buy must be different than the ones I buy; mine don't

come with a ballot for voting on features. 
Please proxy vote for me and check "[ ] Moderate misc@ list" if that

option exists.
 Gord

If we stop allowing downloads people will just cvs themselves a tree

and build releases themselves.
If we stop people cvs'ing themselves the source we cease to be a

free software project.
If we cease to be a free software project I and most other

developers would leave.
If we all left the project would be over and there would never be a

chance to implement the changes you want.
I for one would love to see a cage match between you and the equally

vocal complainers who can't understand why we make life hard for

them by not providing a raft of downloadable ISO images of our CDs.

Maybe the entire crowd would end up groggy enough to actually read

the goals of the project on the web and accept them or move on.
For the groggy: http://openbsd.org/goals.html. Points 1, 2, 8 and 12

in particular.
.... Ken

I am pretty sure they can code as well as they can fly. At least all

the pigs I know.

(except the one which is working hard on it's flying skills)
-sm

Wow...

People should inform themselves instead of writing things like that.

OpenBSD states very clearly that it has a developer culture, and not

an user one. Just be grateful for the code that you get FOR FREE.

Also, if you feel that the project helps you, give something back to

the project (like code or donations) to keep it running, and to keep

it helping YOU.

The developers code and share their code not because they want to be

famous or to receive accolades from the project's users, but because

they are solving the problems that they have an interest. They don't

own the users anything, instead, they give their code for free to

whoever might find it useful.
Is it so hard to understand that?
Leonardo Rodrigues

Leonardo, I've NEVER got any of the code for FREE, I've always paid

for it by buying CDs, unlike you who might have done an FTP install,

you're a cheap-skate aren't you.

Go buy yourself a CD set, contribute to the OpenBSD foundation, or

better still, since you are talking about flying pigs, go code up a

good application in C for OpenBSD or enhance an existing one.
~Mayuresh

Yes, you did.  The code is free.  The CDs are not.

Maybe Mr.Mayuresh Kathe, dont know anoncvs[1].

By a 4.2 release, we can download a bootable iso from ftp site. So, at

least the first cd it's free too :P
[1] http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/

Err... I did not talk about flying pigs.

Please stop assuming things, that's quite childish. For your

information, I do buy CD sets, T-Shirts and books. It's quite

troublesome for me, since I live in Brazil and have to pay all those

heavy importation taxes and currency exchange rates. I do that because

OpenBSD helps me at work, so I try to give something back to the

project. For me, its a matter of moral consciousness.
Never getting the code for free, does not change the fact that the

code is still free, nor does it entitles you to demand anything from

the devs. You payed for the CD with the software and some cool

stickers, you got it. You should think not about the CD you bought,

the money you spent, but the help you gave to the project. The CD sets

are there for that purpose, to help the project, not to add

constraints to it.
This is my last mail. It seems that you're just trolling around, and I

do not want to feed the trolls anymore.
Leonardo Rodrigues

Mayuresh, do you honestly think that the few dollars you spent on that

CD actually paid for any code, as in code development? Are you naove, a

fool, or really that arrogant?
It has been pointed out many times on this list, that CD sales do not

even cover the electricity costs to keep the core infrastructure

running. But given the size of those bills, the sales represent an

important subsidy, allowing to literally "keep the lights on". And I do

not need auditor's reports to confirm that assertion not because I'm

gullible, but because I know from personal experience of running a

similar business just how true it is. Moreover, I know how much time

and money will be sucked out of the project to generate accounting

reports.
Now, to hopefully put an end to these useless rants, let me rephrase

something the others have tried to explain to you:
You can only expect and demand any level of professional performance

from your _employees_ (or subcontractors), i.e. when you are

specifically and directly responsible for paying their livelihood.

Anything else is a mutually convenient arrangement that _either_ party

is free to terminate at any time. Actually, since slavery and bonded

servitude have been abolished all over the world, even employment is

"at will" and your employees may and sometimes will quit without

completing _your_ goals.
To use your own example to elaborate: Did Ted ever acccept any funding

from you for which he specifically promised any concrete deliverables?

I very much doubt that. Did you make a fundamental business mistake by

undertaking a business venture so reliant on his contribution without

making any effort to assure that his contribution will be completed and

forthcoming in accordance with your business' schedule? Absolutely.

Well, all the rantings against the project, Ted or any other developer,

will not rectify _your_ mistake, nor change the fact the _you_ made

such a critical mistake in _your_ business venture. (Next time you

start building your dream house,...
[ message continues ]

What shit are you talking about?

This is an outrageous comment.  You can not expect anyone to do anything

for you.  That simply is not how this world works.  You can wish for

things all day long but that will not make it so.  What will make it so

is by spending huge amounts of time and effort.  He put both in and got

it to a point that was good enough for him.  You can not expect anything

more than that.  This really is where the OpenBSD "shut-up-and-hack"

mentality comes from.  Who are you to tell Ted what to do?
Would I like rthreads?  sure I would!  I even contributed to the code

that's how bad I want it.  But I can and will not ask Ted to do anything

beyond what he wants to invest on it.
Buying the CDs keeps the project going.  Ted does not get paid or

benefit otherwise from the project.  In fact he shows up at hackathons

and invests significant amounts of his own money to do so.  You are

insulting not just him but everyone in the OpenBSD project saying these
I didn't read anything that fixes any problem that exists today.  Sure

it's a neat research project, no debate there.  Whenever or if it

becomes interesting in the real world somebody in this project will
Because what the other projects did is wrong.  A background fsck renders

a system useless.  I don't think having a background fsck that prevents

my machine from booting is about as useful as not having it.  Do I want
How are you investing?  Typing up an email does not constitute
We can make lists all day long but if they are not put to use it doesn't

change anything.  My softraid to-do list is out there and effectively I

have received no help (read code) from outside the project.  Lots of

enthusiast users and great test reports however no code and that is the

hard part.  Several other developers have lists and I am sure they'll
Again you don't get to vote on what another person spends their time on.

I have seen other projects get "nice" features and seen them replace

them later because it wasn't what it was cracked up to be.  One of the

best...
[ message continues ]

I'm not telling Ted what to do at all, you're just assuming it in your

blind fury over me coming out with the truth that most of *your*

coding effort is directly or indirectly supported by non-developer
Marco you are an idiot, you should stick to coding, don't come in the
That's why I called you an idiot.

The project is not a research project, but a real live production
So what you are saying is that what the god father of BSD file systems
The investment is not just from me, its from all those users who don't

code, but still support the project by buying CDs, T-Shirts, make
Actually what Ted has done was utterly disastrous, he knows his own

code well enough to have completed it.

BTW, you are as big an oaf as Richard Stallman, you keep ranting about

how you've put in your blood, sweat and tears, but forget to

understand the point that without us users you are nothing.
Best,
~Mayuresh

You are insulting him because he didn't finish what he started.

That's not going to help him or anyone else complete it, and may
Is this how you get things done in the real world?  Name-calling the
Not to beat a dead horse here, but what problem would it fix for you?
You didn't even read Marco's reply!  He is in favor of a
The support is surely appreciated but does not guarantee anything in
What developer would want a user like you?  How would you like it if

people started complaining when you decided to change hobbies?
If you can round up five or more developers to work on a from-scratch

TCP/IP stack, how hard can it be to get a few more that are interested

in completing rthreads?  If they're good enough to write a lockless or

thread-safe IP stack, who's to say they can't do a thread library?
Anyways, if you won't stop ranting, please stop the name-calling.  It

isn't helping anything.
Good luck,
--david

Ehhh... 2 Big Mistakes...
A) Marco does code, as far as I know Richard Stallman stopped doing so long

    time ago. This makes that Marco is by far more informed about what's going

    on than Richard. Richard is the talker who "knows best" =like you!=.
B) Richard Stallman puts users first, =like you!=, Richard Stallman

    =believes= users are more important than coders so coders should be

    enslaved by the users. Which is plain STUPID since without coders there is

    no code at all.
I bet that if you had a button to make Ted finish his thread library you would

push on it. A good OpenBSD'er respects Ted's will and doesn't push the button.
+++chefren

Lies
# Han

Not lies; we have a 5000 emails thread to prove that.

There is a saying "horses for courses". It means use something fit for

the job. You don't have to run OpenBSD across the board (although I wish

I could), if a different operating system can do a better job, in this

case, you are claiming the IP stack.
I will admit that I use Solaris for certain applications where it is not

possible to do with OpenBSD. We also use windows and linux for the same

reasons.
I think this thread should end now.
-- 
Best Regards

Edd
http://students.dec.bmth.ac.uk/ebarrett

Last year i went to a 2 day kernel internals tutorial run by Kirk MsKusik

	and he was more than aware of these issues with background fsck. Kirk said

	that he wished he had the time to fix it so that it didn't hold up booting

	and that it was a result of the expansion of disk sizes: when he first coded

	it there was no-one using terabyte disks so the delays were acceptable, now

	they are not.  He also went on to say that he would be glad to provide guidence

	to any developer who *did* have the time to fix it.
Regards,
John.

None of my code that I commited was payed by CD sales. Honestly your

attitude is atrocious. Most of our coding effort is done in spare time and
Wow, your comparing OpenBSD with a multimilion dollar company.

Btw. did I mention my network stack developement effort code name

"fire extinguisher"?

Fire extinguisher will be fully buzzword compliant including top of the

edge technology like MPLS, VRF, VRF lite, virtual firewalls, L2TP and many

additional things I never heared of. 
But as it is done on spare time it will take some time to finish it -- oh,

no wait we're all payed by the CD sales and can hack all day long like the
Maybe you should go listen to some of McKusik's talks. I remeber him
To make that true a lot more CDs, T-Shirts sales and donations need to

made. I will happily implement user requests when everything is payed by

OpenBSD money and I don't need a real job to rent my flat and get some
Mwahahahahahahahahahahahaha, hahahahahahahaha, hahahahahahaha.

Do you think that Marco needs users to define himself?

So much for me trying to be nice.
My coding effort has nothing to do with users.  First I write something

that I enjoy writing; the fact that you like it or not is not really

relevant to me.  After I am done with it I give it away because I enjoy

that part too.  Now if the community has good suggestions I'll pick them

up and spend my time on those as well because I want/like it.
What the CDs pay for is a small part of the power bill to run CVS.  The

monetary donations is what pays for the rest of the project

infrastructure.  Nowhere in here is anyone getting paid to do this paid

for a living.  Your donations enable the community to be able to share

the fruits of developers work.
I'd like to know where this so called blind fury is.  I tried in the

nicest way to explain to you how this project works.  If you don't like
Yeah I should shun that thing called life altogether and put all my

effort in for thankless shits like you.  In this real world my employer

pays me for my monkey tricks and we have a mutual understanding that he

pays me enough for me to show up every morning.  Also in this world I

spend my time writing code that I give away.  Yes I am the beneficiary
They did not fix a real issue.  Slowlaris is a function of IO not of

network throughput.  Sun is very conservative with hardware so you

always purchase devices that could be considered obsolete by the time

Sun productizes them.  This is a choice that might or might not work for

you.
But you are right; they totally can market their unverified super duper

TCP/IP stack.  Good for them and they'll make some cash of it.  There

was no issue that got fixed though.  It worked well enough that the
No.  I said that background fsck in it's incarnation in other projects

was implemented in a suboptimal way rendering the functionality useless.

Doing a background fsck takes about the same time as it takes for a

machine to be useful when doing a foreground fsck.  So you gained

nothing at increased levels of complexity.  The ...
[ message continues ]

Ha! Good you say so. Now I am absolutely sure you are trolling.
# Han

Shut-up and hack...

in short, that's the best way to make suggestions.
--

jakemsr@sdf.lonestar.org

SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org

I think it is to meet the developers' needs, and to provide them

with a highly enjoyable (irrespective of remuneration) vocation.

The rest of us are along for the ride, and we chip in to keep the

ride going, because we like the ride. 
I haven't seen a developer come out and say that security,

simplicity or stability are incompatible, in principle, with high

performance, modern features and so on.  I have seen certain

developers make specific criticisms of specific measures, however.

Having noted that projects which adopt certain such measures do

not enjoy the same level of "amazing security and stability" as

does OpenBSD, one may still refrain from drawing too general a

conclusion from this circumstance.  It still means that specific

measures will be weighed one by one by developers against their

own interests and priorities.  (And one may still refrain from

drawing the corresponding too general conclusion about the

desirability of high performance and modern features.)

I think that's key to the understanding.  There are a limited number of

developers, all with their own interests.  They are working on a number of

things that interest them, for example, henning was working on improvements

in tcpip/pf that resulted in almost doubling of performance.  The OpenBSD

developers have made calls in the past for high performance, 10G equipment.

So, to conclude that OpenBSD *needs* a high performance tcpip stack without

keeping this in mind is... naive.
Then, there's the fact that there's a limited number of developers, all with

their own interests (yes, I'm repeating, but it is important).  This is not

linux, where there're tons of paid developers.  Most folks who work on

OpenBSD are volunteers or paid way less than the market rate.  Obviously

they will work on the pieces that they need and interest them the most.  If

you *need* threaded kernel, *you* can work on it, or you can *fund* someone

to work on it.  Else, wait for it to become interesting for a developer.

Mayuresh started out by saying he is not a C developer.  So?  If something

interests you, pick it up.
One very important thing to keep in mind is that the OpenBSD environment is

the code then release.  Not pre-announce, then look for code.  There's no

"FireEngine" project, because "fireengine" type code is expected.  And if

they're working on improvements, they don't declare it to the world "I'm

going to try to double the tcpip stack's performance!", then spend time

trying to do that.  No, they look at things that can be improved, improve

it, then measure it.  The first we'll hear about it is when the developers

say "hey can you guys help test this out?".
For example - softraid.  ccd and raidframe has been limiting for years, and

raidframe has been bitrotting too.  Softraid showed up in 4.2, mirroring

only.  4.3 appears to have softraid with raid 0.  I'm sure work continues on

softraid.  But they're building it ontop of bioctl and all the other things.
But there was no grand pronouncement...
[ message continues ]

eh?

think soft-updates with background fsck,

think a generally usable 64/128 bit file system,

think a FireEngine style networking stack,

think ability to mount FreeBSD partitions off somebody else's hdd

attached to my OBSD system.
~Mayuresh

FWIW, FFS2 and large disk support is being added.  Calls for diff

testing go out periodically, possibly on tech.  If you need it faster,

donate or otherwise help.
--david

you have that much porn that you need a 128bit fs?

Ya I do :)

By this, I mean, developers *are* working on improving the features

currently offered by OpenBSD. In general people work on things which

they will find the most useful first. Sometimes this matches up with

what you want, other times it doesn't.

In this one, short explanation, I got the gist of "OpenBSD's Goals".

It is a system primarily for the core developers.

The rest of us are tagging along because we like what they're doing.
~Mayuresh

Are they willing to take a suggestions from the users side?

--

				pozdrawiam / regards
						Zbigniew Baniewski

Ask them. However, you will get far further with suggestions backed by a solid understanding of each issue, plus funding. The benefits of a broad yet shallow feature set can be found in most alternative operating systems and you are welcome to use them.
Michael.

During last 3 weeks I tried to contact 3 (yes, three) devs. None of them
Who said, it must be about new features? There is an issue, about which I

wrote already - OK, once more:
  I noticed, that default path, where software from binary pkg and "ports"

  gets unpacked, is /usr/local hierarchy - unfortunately, it's also the

  "traditional" default of every individual source *.tar.gz package - such

  way the software ported to OpenBSD gets mixed with any other package,

  which I had installed. Wouldn't be reasonable to create new hierarchy,

  especially for the "native" OpenBSD software (from binary packages and

  ports) - I mean: something like /usr/pkg in NetBSD?
It doesn't need any funding to fix this.

--

				pozdrawiam / regards
						Zbigniew Baniewski

It doesn't need a fix. Set LOCALBASE to whatever you like and build your

own packages. Your problem solved, everybody is happy again and more

important stuff can be done.
Regards,

   Markus

Does the -B option to pkg_add do exactly this?  Or YOU could do the

equivalent and tell ./configure to install to a different base

directory.  This doesn't need any funding either.
--david

Nope, -B is mostly for chroot and flashdist-like installs.

And did I ask for any funding? When?
Of course, that I can - and thousands of other users are able to either -

play with "./configure" switches before compilation of every "non-ported"

package. I just would to point attention, that _one single change_ can save

the time of that thousands people. Instead of playing with "./configure"

switches - they could be busy... porting software to OpenBSD, for example.

--

				pozdrawiam / regards
						Zbigniew Baniewski

I meant, it doesn't need funding because it's a change that you make

to your own install process.
Be realistic.  Thousands or even hundreds of people will not see this

feature change and suddenly decide to contribute to ports.  Aside from

you, I don't even recall people complaining about it on a regular

basis.
They will be too busy complaining about this change.  They'll have to

figure out how to tell their non-ports ./configure scripts to search

for their pkg_added libraries which NOW live in some non-standard

/usr/pkg directory.
That's just my take, good luck.
--david

To the majority on this list -- my apologies if I end up feeding this

troll instead of making him 'go away'. to the OP -- this is why you got

absolutely NO answer from the devs. and now for the archives in the

hopes that at least some of the future would be posters will research

before posting.
First a disclaimer: I am not a developer, but have been using OBSD and

following this list for many years. I do believe what I am about to say

is fairly accurate and is definitely more consistent with the subject

line than some of the incessant whining already taking place.
OpenBSD is an OS developed by very intelligent THINKING people with its

sole target audience being other THINKING persons. For the "thousands"

of lusers too lazy to use an option already made available by the

native tools -- there are thousands of flavors of Linux, at least one

of which will do things consistent with your desires. For the totally

illiterate lusers who cannot even read the docs to find the said option

-- there is always Windoze whose stated goal is "to save the users from

themselves". Personally, I like the fact that aside from an occasional

bug, I am in charge of my computer and NOT the other way around. Sure,

that usually starts with a thinking cap and almost always requires a

fair ability to read and comprehend the best documentation of any OS

bar none. (BTW, genuine bugs get addressed in record time and much

faster than any other OS I know, which is a rather long list.)
And now let's get back to the only real business that we, the users,

have on this list -- testing and reporting on the features and

technical innovations that the developers already put in to the

upcoming release.
---------------------------------------------------------

System Administrator                    admin@bitwise.net

Bitwise Internet Technologies, Inc.

22 Drydock Avenue                     tel: (617) 737-1837

Boston, MA 02210                      fax: (617) 439-4941

It could have been said much shorter: you've got no idea, why I've got

no answer - but you wanted to make a statement "what is OpenBSD" (IYHO).
That's all.

--

				pozdrawiam / regards
						Zbigniew Baniewski

Hm, should be the way you try to contact them, I'm really very happy with all

responses I received over the years. And I can tell you: For very different items.
+++chefren

You mean, a question like: "Hallo, looking for a contact to *** ***, OpenBSD

developer - is this e-mail address a valid contact?" isn't quite proper way?

--

				pozdrawiam / regards
						Zbigniew Baniewski

You're an idiot.
Contrarily to what you think, doing so needs *testing* and a solid upgrade

path.
I've made enough passes of `trivial' changes through the ports tree to know

that any such apparently simple change triggers issues (lots of them).
Remember you're in a thread that praises OpenBSD stability ?
Think about it. We do *not* want the standard location of the ports tree

to be tweakable, because that means more bugs, and more breakage.
So, moving things around to /usr/pkg ? Yeah, right... not that simple. It's

a big change. Yeah, a simple change, in apparence, that requires lots of

testing.
That's the main reason we haven't done it.
Try it, make a list of the issues of doing this (the *real* issues, think

about the people who are going to want to update their machine), make a

start at it.
And then report back. If it doesn't require any funding, *you* can do it,

so show it to us.

Idiots don't think.
If you didn't knew it - you're even bigger idiot, than I am.
Thanks for conversation.

--

				pozdrawiam / regards
						Zbigniew Baniewski

<could_not_resist>

   Oh, but they do! They are just not very successful. ;-)

</could_not_resist>
The suggestion about installing packages into /<whatever> is fine if

stated as a suggestion and/or question. I do not agree, but still I

think the question is valid. However, adding "It doesn't need any

funding to fix this." makes it seem like a mistake that is trivial to

fix, and I can understand if that pisses Marc off.
BTW, think about all ports with hardcoded paths to

/usr/local/<dependency>. One might argue that those ports are broken,

but I'd guess there are quite a lot of them.
/Alexander

...however it was just an answer to Michael Dexters suggestion... (read the
"Hardcoded"? So, changing LOCALBASE could be even dangerous, I'm afraid.

Nothing can I do then with this.

--

				pozdrawiam / regards
						Zbigniew Baniewski

While I guess it would be nice if every package looked for LOCALBASE, I

think that every OS/distro has its own version of hier which you violate

at your peril.  You don't happen to agree that OpenBSD uses /usr/local

for things under the controll of package management.  However, bucking

that is likely more hard work than its worth.
I put my little scripts that I want system wide in /opt/[domain]/usr/...

which leaves /usr/local free for OBSD stuff.  I don't package them up

because then I'd have to package them up for my debian boxes:  too much

effort.
Doug.

Oh, that's an easy one.

 1. Most suggestions go nowhere because those who like them lack

    the skills or the time to implement them, or the time to acquire

    the skills, or are too lazy; while those who have the skills

    don't like them or prefer other uses for their time.

 2. Many suggestions get shot down because someone having a word

    in the matter stands up to say, "bad idea, don't do that".

 3. Some suggestions provoke a "nice idea, i shall do that"

    from someone who in fact (actually!) does it.
So, it's neither "yes" nor "no", but it depends on the suggestions

themselves and on those who might consider doing the work.

Keep in mind that time is ofter scarcer than fantastic ideas.

If you really doubt that, have a look at your own todo lists.
With due respect, but -

that sounds a bit like turning the world upside down:

Lots of work and confusion, but hardly any visible effect after the

settling of all the dust.
Certainly, choosing names (like /usr/local) isn't a big deal

in the first place.  But you try to tell people to change the

meaning of names they are used to for decades.
Besides, it's mostly a non-issue.  Probably, you are rarely

compiling stuff from source without using the ports tree.

In those few cases, specifying --prefix=/usr/mystuff or

whatever to ./configure, or whatever needs to be done for

that particular piece of software, is easy enough.

For example, i use /usr/usta for that purpose.
Except that "fixing" that "issue" has the potential to break all

the existing OpenBSD installations out there.
So that's probably a class 2 suggestion, except that people got

tired of repeating "bad idea".

In essence, this is suggesting to move third party software

installed by the project's third party software management

tools out of /usr/local, so that it is out of the way for

users who want to install software on their system without

using the project's third party software management tools.
I can imagine one response:  Port whatever it is, or else

change where it will be installed if you don't want to port

it.  I can also imagine no response (e.g., because the first

response should occur, sooner or later, to the person making

the suggestion).

Yes, indeed; why not, if you know, that such approach can be a problem for
Yes, that's exactly the problem: it'll be installed (that "non-ported"

software) where all "ported" software is installed already - into

/usr/local. It's default for all source packages since years. So, why not

to install all the ported software into something like /usr/pkg, or

/usr/ported, for example?
It does work in NetBSD - it could work exactly as good in OpenBSD.

--

				pozdrawiam / regards
						Zbigniew Baniewski

Sure it is.  If you have permission to install to /usr/local, you are

not a user, you are an admin.  You can therefore fix the broken

scripts to install wherever you need them to.
If an admin refuses to install their software, users can install it

themselves it to their home directory.
--david

Isn't it just semantics?
OK, I understand, you see no gains in proposed change.

--

				pozdrawiam / regards
						Zbigniew Baniewski

Oh sure ! I'll put it on my todo-list.
With luck, I4ll get to it... about ten years from now. ;-)

Hmmmm ....  related?

E.g. wpa[2] is one of the features I miss because I want to use OpenBSD as

Firewall / Access Point (SOHO customers)... VPN is not an option, because

windowsclients need network at startup.
From my POV there are not many features missing, but I don't use OpenBSD as

desktop-system.
Regards

  Hagen Volpers

If WPA2 is considered secure and widespread, it will likely be added

to OpenBSD at some point.  Even more likely if it's been added to a

relatively unmodified portion of NetBSD or FreeBSD.
Is IPSEC an option for your SOHO customers?
VPN could be an option, though it's definitely not as simple.  OpenVPN

clients are available for both Windows and OS X.  You could distribute

binaries and keys via USB drive or a local SSL-enabled webserver.

There's been other discussions on-list about reducing your exposure to

wireless sniffers.
--david

Hello,
this is not an option to me. My customers don't have administration rights -

AFAIK you can't use openvpn without admin rights, the only solution is to run

openvpn as service. Therefore I need to configure openvpn to poll all possible

locations - I don't think that's the way it should go.

My POV is: there are two "standards" (I know that wpa isn't a real standard,

but AFAIK wpa2 is) to secure wireless lan. It's the easiest configuration

because even an non-administrative user can configure it. I accept that there

are better or more secure ways, but I need a handy solution, too. Some

customers use the AP for there private PCs, too - I don't want to administer

every private device using wireless lan and my customers don't want 20 boxes

@home.

I'm not a developer so I'm not able to do the task on my own - I asked if I

can help with hardware or something like that so the development will start

(or go on?) but it looks like none of the developers (currently) needs

wpa[1/2] :(
Regards

  Hagen Volpers

Improving the file system to be a little more fast than now... for example.

wpa[2] as Hagen Volpers say...
network stack as Mayuresh say...

And i think exists more proposals...
we want to create a new thread titled: "What OpenBSD need to have to be

competitive?" or: "OpenBSD features you want" ?
Francesco

thats exactly my point, our mindset has become that security and

stability aren't related with modern features.
Would it be nice to have a generally usable 64/128 bit file-system?

Wouldn't it be nice to have CMW (compartmented mode workstation)

extensions to the OS?

Wouldn't it be nice to have a high performance networking stack?
~Mayuresh

yeah.

guess what we have?

exactly that.

(which doesn't mean it could be even faster)
--

Henning Brauer, hb@bsws.de, henning@openbsd.org

BS Web Services, http://bsws.de

Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services

Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam

Pardon if I sound ignorant, but isn't our networking stack based on

the 24 year old technology from Berkeley?

Pardon if I sound ignorant, but isn't our Bugatti Veyron based on

the millennia old wheel technology?

The wheel isn't the technology, it is a concept.

An implementation of the wheel concept would be the technology.

The concept is the same, but the technology is certainly different.

Are you saying your Bugatti Veyron is running on wooden wheels?
~Mayuresh

Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnn...............

Rod/

/earth: write failed, file system is full

cp: /earth/creatures: No space left on device

so?
isn't your computer running on >>100 years old technology called

"electricity"?
--

Henning Brauer, hb@bsws.de, henning@openbsd.org

BS Web Services, http://bsws.de

Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services

Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam

But that >100 year old technology used to be DC earlier, then it was

converted to AC because of its inherent benefits.

Similarly, wouldn't it have been beneficial to go for a modern

approach for the network stack?

(not that now I can do anything about it, all's lost for me)

Could you please read http://research.sun.com/minds/2007-0710/
~Mayuresh

If you're going to ask people to read up on the Solaris networking stack, at

least give them a technical document rather than a blog/marketing piece:
http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/features/articles/solaris_networking.jsp
The background section should explain to you why Solaris experienced

performance issues with its STREAMS-based stack, which they have since

replaced with ``FireEngine''. The OpenBSD stack does not exhibit these same

performance problems.
Have you done any benchmarks?

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

             => Joel Sing | joel@ionix.com.au | 0419 577 603 <=

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         "Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time."

          - Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

way over a hundred years ago, yes (except for some small irrelevant 
yeah, i did, lots of marketing blubber, lots of bla bla, lots of vague

indications, nothing concrete, nothing technical.
--

Henning Brauer, hb@bsws.de, henning@openbsd.org

BS Web Services, http://bsws.de

Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services

Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam

Even new york stopped doing it last year.  There is no more DC current
There only is perceived benefit; which clearly mean you fell for the

marketing bullets.  Good, go buy sun stuff and run their OS.  It is as
That piece was more than worthless.  Some ding dong said "ooh ooh I made

it faster".  Well fantastic!  Unfortunately there is no quantification

of faster.  0 x fast is still 0.
Besides if you actually understood the beauty and elegance that is the

OpenBSD TCP/IP stack you wouldn't be yammering about marketing

horseshit.  Old != bad.  Actually, over the last few years in computer

land new == bad (java, xml, c++ etc).

Well
(Also debatable with switching power technologies we have now instead of the

classical bulkey 50/60Hz transformers, often the first thing we do these
+++chefren

I did read this as well, and for my two tiny cents it has to be said that OBSD

runs a great deal faster on my (admittedly rather elderly) Sun boxen than

Solaris ever did.
--

Fergus Wilde

Chetham's Library

Long Millgate

Manchester

M3 1SB
Tel: 0161 834 7961

Fax: 0161 839 5797
http://www.chethams.org.uk

Mostly "Lets fix Slow-aris" is what I saw. Unless you are in a

"slow-aris" situation, moving to whatever they did might not be an

improvement. ;)

and, those data centres and telcos who have worked out that converting

AC-DC-AC-DC (or DC-AC-DC-AC-DC when the power comes from something like

PV cells...) is not the smartest thing they could be doing...

could you please stop this shit and continue the conversation privately?
People registered at misc know well why they are using obsd. We don't

need this discussion.

Touchi!

--

Thanks,

Jordi Espasa Clofent

You do not have a point.

Do you mean that security and stability aren't related with

modern features -- you know, like Microsoft Vista?
Think a bit. If OpenBSD is secure, it is secure for a reason.

Bluntly, because they know better than to listen to idiots like you.