---- Original message ---- >Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:19:11 +0200 >From: chefren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: OpenBSD's own compiler >To: misc@openbsd.org > >On 08/01/06 16:48, Anton Karpov wrote: > >> This world sucks. We're living in a dark ages, playing with the same >> technologies as 20 years ago. UNIX is still here. Gcc is still here. C is >> still here. And it will always be the same. >> This world needs something really new. Maybe nuclear war is the answer? >> Oh, no, I'm not smoking crack.... > >Nuclear war wouldn't help, leaves only less resources while we need >more... >
this is the funniest post i've read on misc@ in a while. anton's suggestion that a "cataclysmic" event could drive people out of the current groupthink within which they exist is a good point. i can't quite tell if the last sentence is sarcasm or a wilted exclamatory. >I believe focusing on security and correct code the way Theo&Co do is >a basic requirement for the future. Thinking security can be build in >afterwards is nonsense or another way to say "rebuild" > the security and correct code that we currently enjoy precipitated from conflict with the status quo, be it FreeBSD, NetBSD or the Roman Empire. >Real shortage of people producing usable code keeps the OpenBSD >project in the current state. That state isn't bad at all compared to >alternatives (I'm still amazed) but I fully agree this is Turd >Polishing, (TP), and Mickey is terribly right with his "you (and your >kids) will go greyhair before you get halfway thru it" concerning an >"OpenCC". A C-compiler is like a Cathedral, where OpenBSD is more or >less a bunch of concatenated sheds. They do keep users dry, they are >usable but there is no luxury at all, now and in the foreseeable >future, at least not without a new bold plan and usable code. > mickey is right to be skeptical of such a project and its ability to achieve its goals. is it necessarily wrong to ignore the skepticism of others? next thing i know you're going to tell me the US really did land on the moon! ;) >This primitive situation does resemble the dark ages and I believe we >should design a path to a more decent/civil situation, bring >enlightment and ban stupid beliefs based on hear say. As far as I see >it a better compiler is definitely part of a brighter future but >better can more economically be reached by enhancements of details >(more checks and automatic, proven correct, generation of more parts >of code) in GCC than building an own compiler. (An idea that probably >might compete for the most stupid idea ever posted here?). > even the wildest ideas are only stupid in hindsight. i'm willing to wager a great many people said the same thing of the OpenBSD project from the get go. only now, after a "status quo" has been manufactured is it clear to all but a small group that the idea was a great one. >As far as I see it the most realistic real big thing to design and >build is a "world database (file) system". Universal secure access, >replication/synchronisation(backup) of data between servers, version >control and a world class userinterface for it (mom&dad compatible >like Apple produces for most of it's products). > sounds like it's already under way with google "monitor me six ways from sunday" desktop. overt centralization of anything is dangerous, especially chipset manufacturing ;). who would provide this FS? would that organization have root? whoever provides this database would be under immense pressure from political bodies to let them control it within their country. this is not to say it's a bad idea, just that every idea has problems and needs energy to be driven to a satisfactory solution. i think GCC is pretty satisfactory for my purposes, others obviously see it differently. it's clearly not the best time investment from my standpoint so i direct my energy elsewhere. >That's a project not the size of a cathedral but definitely comparable >an increcibly large and usable central place of a very large city. > >Amen > >+++chefren
