How about we hold a bake sale?
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Theo de Raadt <dera...@cvs.openbsd.org>wrote: > > 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?
