> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Bob Beck <b...@openbsdfoundation.org> wrote: > > Just to bring this issue back to the forefront. > > > > In light of shrinking funding, we do need to look for a source to > > cover project expenses. If need be the OpenBSD Foundation can be > > involved in receiving donations to cover project electrical costs. > > > > But the fact is right now, OpenBSD will shut down if we do not have > > the funding to keep the lights on. > > > > If you or a company you know are able to assist us, it would be > > greatly appreciated, but right now we are looking at a significant > > funding shortfall for the upcoming year - Meaning the project won't be > > able to cover 20 thousand dollars in electrical expenses before being > > able to use money for other things. That sort of situation is not > > sustainable. > > There's an equation that has to be satisfied here. It has a demand > side and a supply side. You demand a certain amount of electricity and > someone has to supply the money to pay for it. I'm going to be blunt > here, in an effort to be helpful (it's also not foreign to the OpenBSD > style). I get the impression that the demand for electricity is viewed > as a given: you use what you use and people need to step up and > provide the money to pay for it. If I'm wrong, please say so. But if > I'm right, the demand can be adjusted. Sometimes you need to eat > cornflakes instead of caviar. For example, I've never understood why > this project supports the old architectures it does, considering the > associated costs.
The answer to that is not news. On a regular basis, we find real and serious bugs which affect all platforms, but they are incidentally made visible on one of the platforms we run, following that they are fixed. It is a harsh reality which static and dynamic analysis tools have not yet resolved. Now, If you don't realize this is the reason we try to run on the older platforms, I am sorry but you have really not tried to stay in the loop of what makes OpenBSD a vibrant ecosystem. If you aren't in the loop regarding this, then your mail comes off pretty darn preachy. > The recent discussion of a need for a replacement > Vax for package-building illustrates that. The vaxes being asked for draw almost no power, but it supplies the same benefits as the other architectures. Regarding shutting them down, there other social problems. Yes, we remove about 10 of the architectures. We'd slowly lose the developers who like to work on those areas. They also work in other areas, but ... I suspect they would another BSD that supports them. > Perhaps this is an opportunity to reassess the scope of the project > and trim some things that can no longer be justified on a cost-benefit > basis. And maybe we've been doing that assessment continually for two decades. > If the choice is between shutting the project down and reducing its > scope to something sustainable, it's a no-brainer. This project has > made really significant contributions, both in the obvious area, > security, but also to the art of managing and building complex > software that is reliable. To have it go away rather than trim its > sails in way that acknowledges reality would really be a shame. This project "has made"? How about "this project will continue to". I really love how we keep getting advice. Anyone want to suggest we hold a bake sale?
