On Feb 17, 2008 11:23 PM, Marco Peereboom  wrote:

quoted text
> Let me take a stab of responding to this...

Thanks for responding...
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 05:33:12PM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:

quoted text
> > 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.

>

> 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.

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

users *buy* CD sets.
> > It just led me to ponder, what is OpenBSD's ultimate goal?

quoted text
>

> 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.

Point well put, and taken.
> > OpenBSD is an OS with amazing security and stability, but it has too

quoted text
> > few modern features.

>

> 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?

The problem that would get solved would be best presented by the

following article http://research.sun.com/minds/2007-0710/
> > It would be great if developers also start working on improving the

quoted text
> > 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.

>

> 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?

Not really, I'm not insulting you or any of the core developers.

What I meant is newer features.

Why is it that our soft-updates based file system can't do background 'fsck'?
> Speaking only for myself I write the code for my own pleasure.  I give

quoted text
> 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.

True, your investment as well as *ours*.
> A frequent complaint is that we don't listen to our user base.  That is

quoted text
> 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.

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

your problems keeping that detail in mind.
> > You might ask what right do I have for this rant, what am I doing for OpenBSD?

quoted text
>

> 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

> > 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.

>

> 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.

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

focused and *completed* what they started.
> > Hope newer features get added, not that I'm unhappy with the OS (it

quoted text
> > 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.

>

> 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.

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