Let me take a stab of responding to this...
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 05:33:12PM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
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
things along the way.
>
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
in the way of hacking. Don't attribute malice to someone's good will.
> Is it just to become the worlds most secure OS with as few remote
That is not a goal that is a side-effect.
> Shouldn't it also be our goal to be the best UNIX-like operating
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
wont share it.
>
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
arches to the argument.
>
You are talking about nebulous features that are over hyped and
under proven. One needs a problem first before fixing it. You are
putting it the wrong way around by saying "hey I'd like a super duper
faster tcp/ip stack man!". Why? What problem are you solving?
>
And what makes you think we are not? This is such an insult; you are
telling me what we have done in the past in our sparse free time is not
worth it. OpenBSD is not after whizbang feature ZOMG. Also you are
proposing what I should do with my time; how backwards is that?
Speaking only for myself I write the code for my own pleasure. I give
it away because it makes me happy. I don't owe you anything and
fortunately you don't owe me anything either. We all benefit from my
investment.
A frequent complaint is that we don't listen to our user base. That is
utterly false. We listen and we implement what we have time for and
what makes sense (chances are we have thought through the problem
domain; ever considered that?). A single person's need is irrelevant in
the grand scheme of things. If you need something you need to write it
yourself.
>
Everyone has the right to rant but not everyone gets a vote.
> Well I can't donate code directly as I'm a Java programmer and my C is
Donations are greatly appreciated and are used quite effectively. What
a donation does not give you is a vote. Its a donation not a
pay-for-feature. When you donate you essentially say "I trust developer
X to do the right thing in this area". If you want a specific feature
you can contact a developer off list and request it with some sort of
incentive attached to it. Here is the thing you have to realize, if a
feature doesn't make sense unpaid for, it still does not make sense when
it is paid for. Silly features will not make it into the tree.
>
Newer features are always added. You keep saying that there are no new
features ever added. If that was the case how well do you think the os
would work on new hardware? Stop belittling the developers effort.
>
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| david | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Rob Landley | What still uses the block layer? |
git: | |
| Antonio Almeida | HTB accuracy for high speed |
| Alexey Dobriyan | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
