Re: OpenBSD Project
Am 22.09.19 um 20:52 schrieb Mihai Popescu: >> No. > > Security, privacy or too messy? > Theo's answer was deep going, detailed and terminal. Nothing to add.
Re: OpenBSD Project
No means no. Sent from my iPhone > On 22 Sep 2019, at 20:54, Mihai Popescu wrote: > > >> >> No. > > Security, privacy or too messy?
Re: OpenBSD Project
> No. Security, privacy or too messy?
Re: OpenBSD Project
>Sorry guys for continuing this stupid thread, but a small question related >to the racks and hardware from Theo's basement: >There is a photo (probably from that basement) on the main page : >https://www.openbsd.org/images/rack2009.jpg >I assume it is from 2009, so it is quite old, is it possible to see fresh >photos from that basement ??? No.
Re: OpenBSD Project
Sorry guys for continuing this stupid thread, but a small question related to the racks and hardware from Theo's basement: There is a photo (probably from that basement) on the main page : https://www.openbsd.org/images/rack2009.jpg I assume it is from 2009, so it is quite old, is it possible to see fresh photos from that basement ??? Thanks On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 2:40 PM Mark Jamsek wrote: > Ingo Schwarze wrote > > Avstin Kim wrote: > > > >> My question is, how is the OpenBSD Project governance structured; > > > > There is no formal structure and no "governance". > > > > ... > > > > If your choice of operating system depends on any kind of formalities > > rather than on technical quality, OpenBSD is not the project you > > are looking for. > > > > Yours, > > Ingo > > This is one of the ardently appealing factors of OpenBSD; technical quality > isn't compromised or superseded by other arbitrary and subjective measures. > > The singular focus on technical quality and correctness is reassuring and > consistently produces a reliable, performant product. > > It's certainly a quality that I find appealing and keeps me looking to > contribute > however I can to the project. > > Ingo articulated this response so well, I wanted to remark on how I feel > the > OpenBSD approach is received—at least for me. And to say thank you for the > many contributions made these last 25 years. > > Thanks. > > > > -- > Sent from: > http://openbsd-archive.7691.n7.nabble.com/openbsd-user-misc-f3.html > >
Re: OpenBSD Project
Ingo Schwarze wrote > Avstin Kim wrote: > >> My question is, how is the OpenBSD Project governance structured; > > There is no formal structure and no "governance". > > ... > > If your choice of operating system depends on any kind of formalities > rather than on technical quality, OpenBSD is not the project you > are looking for. > > Yours, > Ingo This is one of the ardently appealing factors of OpenBSD; technical quality isn't compromised or superseded by other arbitrary and subjective measures. The singular focus on technical quality and correctness is reassuring and consistently produces a reliable, performant product. It's certainly a quality that I find appealing and keeps me looking to contribute however I can to the project. Ingo articulated this response so well, I wanted to remark on how I feel the OpenBSD approach is received—at least for me. And to say thank you for the many contributions made these last 25 years. Thanks. -- Sent from: http://openbsd-archive.7691.n7.nabble.com/openbsd-user-misc-f3.html
Re: OpenBSD Project
Hi Theo,
Theo de Raadt wrote on Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 02:00:20PM -0600:
> Nice rant. Now get back to work. :)
As you wish, Your Grace. =;c)
Ingo
Log Message:
---
Slowly start implementing tagging support for man(7) pages, even
though it is obvious that this can never become as good as for
mdoc(7) pages. As a first step, tag alphabetic arguments of .IP
macros, which are often used for lists of options and keywords.
Try "man -O tag=g as" to get the point.
Thanks to Leah Neukirchen for recently reminding me that exploring
how much can be done in this respect may be worthwhile: it is likely
to slightly improve usability while adding only small amounts of
relatively straightforward code.
Modified Files:
--
mandoc:
Makefile.depend
man_term.c
tag.c
Revision Data
-
Index: tag.c
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/mandoc/mandoc/tag.c,v
retrieving revision 1.23
retrieving revision 1.24
diff -Ltag.c -Ltag.c -u -p -r1.23 -r1.24
--- tag.c
+++ tag.c
@@ -151,11 +151,11 @@ tag_put(const char *s, int prio, size_t
s += 2;
/*
-* Skip whitespace and whatever follows it,
+* Skip whitespace and escapes and whatever follows,
* and if there is any, downgrade the priority.
*/
- len = strcspn(s, " \t");
+ len = strcspn(s, " \t\\");
if (len == 0)
return;
Index: Makefile.depend
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/mandoc/mandoc/Makefile.depend,v
retrieving revision 1.44
retrieving revision 1.45
diff -LMakefile.depend -LMakefile.depend -u -p -r1.44 -r1.45
--- Makefile.depend
+++ Makefile.depend
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ main.o: main.c config.h mandoc_aux.h man
man.o: man.c config.h mandoc_aux.h mandoc.h roff.h man.h libmandoc.h
roff_int.h libman.h
man_html.o: man_html.c config.h mandoc_aux.h mandoc.h roff.h man.h out.h
html.h main.h
man_macro.o: man_macro.c config.h mandoc.h roff.h man.h libmandoc.h roff_int.h
libman.h
-man_term.o: man_term.c config.h mandoc_aux.h roff.h man.h out.h term.h main.h
+man_term.o: man_term.c config.h mandoc_aux.h mandoc.h roff.h man.h out.h
term.h tag.h main.h
man_validate.o: man_validate.c config.h mandoc_aux.h mandoc.h roff.h man.h
libmandoc.h roff_int.h libman.h
mandoc.o: mandoc.c config.h mandoc_aux.h mandoc.h roff.h libmandoc.h roff_int.h
mandoc_aux.o: mandoc_aux.c config.h mandoc.h mandoc_aux.h
Index: man_term.c
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/mandoc/mandoc/man_term.c,v
retrieving revision 1.230
retrieving revision 1.231
diff -Lman_term.c -Lman_term.c -u -p -r1.230 -r1.231
--- man_term.c
+++ man_term.c
@@ -27,10 +27,12 @@
#include
#include "mandoc_aux.h"
+#include "mandoc.h"
#include "roff.h"
#include "man.h"
#include "out.h"
#include "term.h"
+#include "tag.h"
#include "main.h"
#defineMAXMARGINS64 /* maximum number of indented scopes */
@@ -92,6 +94,8 @@ staticvoid post_SY(DECL_ARGS);
static void post_TP(DECL_ARGS);
static void post_UR(DECL_ARGS);
+static void tag_man(struct termp *, struct roff_node *);
+
static const struct man_term_act man_term_acts[MAN_MAX - MAN_TH] = {
{ NULL, NULL, 0 }, /* TH */
{ pre_SH, post_SH, 0 }, /* SH */
@@ -534,8 +538,10 @@ pre_IP(DECL_ARGS)
case ROFFT_HEAD:
p->tcol->offset = mt->offset;
p->tcol->rmargin = mt->offset + len;
- if (n->child != NULL)
+ if (n->child != NULL) {
print_man_node(p, mt, n->child, meta);
+ tag_man(p, n->child);
+ }
return 0;
case ROFFT_BODY:
p->tcol->offset = mt->offset + len;
@@ -1147,4 +1153,61 @@ print_man_head(struct termp *p, const st
term_vspace(p);
}
free(title);
+}
+
+/*
+ * Skip leading whitespace, dashes, backslashes, and font escapes,
+ * then create a tag if the first following byte is a letter.
+ * Priority is high unless whitespace is present.
+ */
+static void
+tag_man(struct termp *p, struct roff_node *n)
+{
+ const char *cp, *arg;
+ int prio, sz;
+
+ assert(n->type == ROFFT_TEXT);
+ cp = n->string;
+ prio = 1;
+ for (;;) {
+ switch (*cp) {
+ case ' ':
+ case '\t':
+ prio = INT_MAX;
+ /* FALLTHROUGH */
+ case '-':
+ cp++;
+ break;
+ case '\\':
+ cp++;
+ switch (mandoc_escape(, , )) {
+ case ESCAPE_FONT:
+ case ESCAPE_FONTROMAN:
+ case ESCAPE_FONTITALIC:
+
Re: OpenBSD Project
In OpenBSD fashion. --- email.orig Sun Jul 21 19:12:04 2019 +++ email.new Sun Jul 21 19:12:38 2019 @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ Perhaps the reason it has worked so long is because we don't have a sentence like this, which some may consider contentious, and use as reason to pick yet another infamous fight where they believe they know -better than a quarter decade old project? +better than a quarter century old project? It is pretty easy to see why people might misunderstand our approach of just getting shit done. When I could not pay for electricity Thanks for all the hard work regardless of the orginizational methods used. Edgar
Re: OpenBSD Project
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 12:40 PM Theo de Raadt wrote: > Perhaps the reason it has worked so long is because we don't have a > sentence like this, which some may consider contentious, and use as > reason to pick yet another infamous fight where they believe they know > better than a quarter decade old project? Quarter century.
Re: OpenBSD Project
>Hi Ibsen, > >Ibsen S Ripsbusker wrote on Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 05:51:21PM +: > >> benevolent dictatorship > >I'm aware you did not call OpenBSD a "benevolent dictatorship", >and i totally see how the term can be used both to shut down >or to incite controversy. > >Yet, i heard the term used several times in the past in relation >to OpenBSD, and merely wanted to mention that i think is misses the >point. Words of the "...cracy" field can be used for systems of >making, adjudicating, and executing laws, laws that limit or expand >what people can and cannot have or do, that directly impact people's >lives. > >Nothing of the kind is at stake here or at the very most, the right >of using the name "OpenBSD". > >OpenBSD cannot make any laws that bind me or cannot tell me what >to do or what not to do, not even in programming, so the question >what kind of a "...cracy" it is is already a moot question to ask. >I'm 100% free to walk away at any time if i'm unhappy with the >colour of the servers in Theo's basement and publish my software >elsewhere. That isn't just a theoretical possibility, it's quite >easy in practice if needed; in fact, mandoc.bsd.lv is already up >and running, and so is bsd.plumbing and other similar places - not >because developers are unhappy with Theo providing free servers in >his basement and fostering a very fertile development community >around them, but simply because having your own site and name with >global visibility is not such a big deal in this day and age. Also, >walking away does not necessarily even uproot you from a development >community - i doubt that people like bapt@ at FreeBSD or wiz@ at >NetBSD or stapelberg@ at Debian or Leah at Void greatly care whether >or not i contribute to OpenBSD this week. > >So, yes, OpenBSD developers form a social group, but not in a way >that (formally or effectively) assigns rights or duties or opportunities >such that describing it as a "...cracy" would make much sense. > >People walking away and doing their work elsewhere under a new name >happens all the time for very diverse reasons and often enough for >good reasons: pf(4), OpenSSH, LibreSSL, heck, OpenBSD itself, and >even NetBSD before that... When it happens, the parent projects >sometimes fade into oblivion - consider pf(4), OpenSSH - and sometimes >live on - consider (so far) the parents of LibreSSL and of OpenBSD >itself as examples. > >See, if you dislike the way Andorran politics is currently being >run, you cannot simply renounce citizenship and set up your own >state in some corner of the country. So in some contexts, asking >about "...cracy" is indeed highly meaningful. For a completely >free software project, no so much. > >Even in a commercial enterprise, the question of governance is more >relevant than in OpenBSD - while in most countries, employees are >formally free to quit, for some employees, that may be a somewhat >theoretical option because some may have few practical chances to >make their living in some other way. And besides, employers *do* >almost invariably tell employees what to work on and how, which >isn't the case here either. > >Yours, > Ingo > > Nice rant. Now get back to work. :)
Re: OpenBSD Project
Hi Ibsen, Ibsen S Ripsbusker wrote on Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 05:51:21PM +: > benevolent dictatorship I'm aware you did not call OpenBSD a "benevolent dictatorship", and i totally see how the term can be used both to shut down or to incite controversy. Yet, i heard the term used several times in the past in relation to OpenBSD, and merely wanted to mention that i think is misses the point. Words of the "...cracy" field can be used for systems of making, adjudicating, and executing laws, laws that limit or expand what people can and cannot have or do, that directly impact people's lives. Nothing of the kind is at stake here or at the very most, the right of using the name "OpenBSD". OpenBSD cannot make any laws that bind me or cannot tell me what to do or what not to do, not even in programming, so the question what kind of a "...cracy" it is is already a moot question to ask. I'm 100% free to walk away at any time if i'm unhappy with the colour of the servers in Theo's basement and publish my software elsewhere. That isn't just a theoretical possibility, it's quite easy in practice if needed; in fact, mandoc.bsd.lv is already up and running, and so is bsd.plumbing and other similar places - not because developers are unhappy with Theo providing free servers in his basement and fostering a very fertile development community around them, but simply because having your own site and name with global visibility is not such a big deal in this day and age. Also, walking away does not necessarily even uproot you from a development community - i doubt that people like bapt@ at FreeBSD or wiz@ at NetBSD or stapelberg@ at Debian or Leah at Void greatly care whether or not i contribute to OpenBSD this week. So, yes, OpenBSD developers form a social group, but not in a way that (formally or effectively) assigns rights or duties or opportunities such that describing it as a "...cracy" would make much sense. People walking away and doing their work elsewhere under a new name happens all the time for very diverse reasons and often enough for good reasons: pf(4), OpenSSH, LibreSSL, heck, OpenBSD itself, and even NetBSD before that... When it happens, the parent projects sometimes fade into oblivion - consider pf(4), OpenSSH - and sometimes live on - consider (so far) the parents of LibreSSL and of OpenBSD itself as examples. See, if you dislike the way Andorran politics is currently being run, you cannot simply renounce citizenship and set up your own state in some corner of the country. So in some contexts, asking about "...cracy" is indeed highly meaningful. For a completely free software project, no so much. Even in a commercial enterprise, the question of governance is more relevant than in OpenBSD - while in most countries, employees are formally free to quit, for some employees, that may be a somewhat theoretical option because some may have few practical chances to make their living in some other way. And besides, employers *do* almost invariably tell employees what to work on and how, which isn't the case here either. Yours, Ingo
Re: OpenBSD Project
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 10:37:40AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: I'm mentioning this to highlight the false pattern of believing "democracy is a required component" in a world where people forget the most dominant models in all industries are a mix of fascism, monarchies, or well ... plutocracy. And what OpenBSD is doing is industry, plain and simple. So you're saying OpenBSD is a... theocracy?
Re: OpenBSD Project
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019, at 16:41, Theo de Raadt wrote: > I'd go with the approach of avoiding politics entirely and not even > describing the approach we use. I find this approach to be consistent with OpenBSD's virtuous ignorance of fads. > Be as politics-free as possible; solutions should be decided on the > > basis of technical merit. The comment about absence of politics is also inaccurate. OpenBSD has a specially designed political system that works very well for the project, just not one that anyone cares to explain in standard political language. What's more, claiming to be free of politics is sure to elicit complaints about how everything is political. Sometimes I shut down conversations about governance by sharing my opinion that benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government and and that I prefer software that is governed this way. But people who like to talk about government and democracy seem to get angry when I do this, so I don't do it very often.
Re: OpenBSD Project
I'd go with the approach of avoiding politics entirely and not even describing the approach we use. People who care about anything besides our results have make an incorrect assessment of which kind of farm animal they are. Perhaps the reason it has worked so long is because we don't have a sentence like this, which some may consider contentious, and use as reason to pick yet another infamous fight where they believe they know better than a quarter decade old project? It is pretty easy to see why people might misunderstand our approach of just getting shit done. When I could not pay for electricity myself, even Kirk McKusick told me I stop trying and quit doing OpenBSD. Imagine that. I won't go into trying to assess his reasoning, I'm mentioning this to highlight the false pattern of believing "democracy is a required component" in a world where people forget the most dominant models in all industries are a mix of fascism, monarchies, or well ... plutocracy. And what OpenBSD is doing is industry, plain and simple. So my gut feeling I think the additional sentence is a bad idea. >Hi Theo, > >a user just asked a question on misc@ that could have been answered >by the following addition to the web site. > >I'm not convinced that going into more detail makes sense, >precisely because we do not want bylaws. > >OK? > Ingo > > >Index: goals.html >=== >RCS file: /cvs/www/goals.html,v >retrieving revision 1.92 >diff -u -r1.92 goals.html >--- goals.html 1 Jun 2019 23:12:47 - 1.92 >+++ goals.html 21 Jul 2019 16:16:20 - >@@ -62,6 +62,9 @@ > > Be as politics-free as possible; solutions should be decided on the > basis of technical merit. >+To stay focussed on development, the OpenBSD project deliberately >+refrains from having bylaws, elections, formal governance, a >+"core" team, committees, sales and marketing, or anything similar. > > Focus on being developer-oriented in all senses, including holding > developer-only events called hackathons. > >
Re: OpenBSD Project
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 4, an AT 4G LTE smartphone Original message From: Австин Ким Date: 7/21/19 10:09 (GMT-06:00) To: misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: OpenBSD Project > On July 21, 2019 6:05:28 AM GMT+03:00, bkfuth <[…]> wrote:> > I have used > OpenBSD, for years, in my computer security classes. I find> > it best suited > for these classes. The governance has never been an> > issue. If you know > what you are doing the OpenBSD community is a good> > one.> > Stephen Kolars> > > Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note� 4, an AT 4G LTE smartphone> > > > > Original message > > From: Ingo Schwarze <[…]>> > Date: > 7/20/19 21:44 (GMT-06:00) > > To: freen...@gmail.com > > Cc: > misc@openbsd.org > > Subject: Re: OpenBSD Project > > > > Hi,Avstin Kim > wrote:> My question is, how is the OpenBSD Project> > governance > structured;There is no formal structure and no> > "governance".In day to day > business, code owners in parts of the system> > decidewhat is done (for > example, espie@ in pkg_add(1), myself in> > mandoc(1),claudio@ in OpenBGPD, > gilles@ in OpenSMTPd, jsing@ and beck@> > inLibreSSL, tj@ redgarding the > website, and so on; in some areas,more> > than one person owns the code, > sometimes up to a handful).In general,> > the people deciding ask themselves > which is the besttechnical solution,> > and if there is consensus among > developers, itis done.In the rare cases> > of serious disagreement that > cannot be resolvedconsensually, or cannot> > be resolved without excessive > delay ordiscussion, deraadt@ reserves the> > right to make a final > decision,but that does not happen often.There is> > no core team and > certainly, there are never any elections.There are no> > written rules > whatsoever, and no introduction of anywritten rules is> > planned for the > future. The OpenBSD foundationhas absolutely no say> > about any aspect of > the OpenBSD project.None of all this is documented> > anywhere because it > doesn't matterfor users of the system.If your> > choice of operating system > depends on any kind of formalitiesrather> > than on technical quality, > OpenBSD is not the project youare looking> > for.Yours, Ingo>> I can only > add that ,from all the mailing lists I'm subscribed , misc@openbsd is \> > the most active mailing list.>> This means alot for me, and I suspect for > anyone else using openBSD.>> Best Regards,> Strahil NikolovTo everyone who > took the time to respond, your responses were outstanding; if only a short > and sweet additional page could be added to the main OpenBSD Project WWW site > (e.g., under “Project Team” or “Developers") that just succinctly summarizes > exactly what you all said. For “smaller” projects without formal governance > I guess it all comes down to the people; I can see how if you have a > dedicated core of really good, passionate developers formal by-laws and > committees are superfluous, but then the question is how would that be > sustainable over the long term other than just by manually and personally > attracting and retaining the best on an ad hoc basis without a codified, > structured process. But it seems to be clearly working here.Downloaded the > macppc port of OpenBSD 6.5 to install on a couple IBM PowerPC 970/970MP-based > Apple Power Mac G5 machines for a class project (I just need some decent, > reliable, no-frills servers, but I wanted to try using something other than > AMD64/x86-64-based machines for a change) with very low expectations (after > trying to install the macppc port of a peer Noteworthy Excellent > Tried-and-true BSD distribution which crashed immediately upon running > ofwboot off the install ISO), but the installer Just Worked! I don’t > understand how this project is able to maintain a working legacy macppc port > with so few developers.All the best,Austin“If you want to change the future, > start living as if you’re already there.” —Lynn ConwayI really appreciate > the macppc developers! In my lab I have a cluster of 5 g5s, 24 g4 laptops, 7 > g4 towers, and 15 other ppc machines. They all run OpenBSD. Thanks to the > macppc developers my students can benefit from their use. Thanks!
Re: OpenBSD Project
Hi Theo, a user just asked a question on misc@ that could have been answered by the following addition to the web site. I'm not convinced that going into more detail makes sense, precisely because we do not want bylaws. OK? Ingo Index: goals.html === RCS file: /cvs/www/goals.html,v retrieving revision 1.92 diff -u -r1.92 goals.html --- goals.html 1 Jun 2019 23:12:47 - 1.92 +++ goals.html 21 Jul 2019 16:16:20 - @@ -62,6 +62,9 @@ Be as politics-free as possible; solutions should be decided on the basis of technical merit. +To stay focussed on development, the OpenBSD project deliberately +refrains from having bylaws, elections, formal governance, a +"core" team, committees, sales and marketing, or anything similar. Focus on being developer-oriented in all senses, including holding developer-only events called hackathons.
Re: OpenBSD Project
> To everyone who took the time to respond, your responses were outstanding; if > only a short and sweet additional page could be added to the main OpenBSD > Project WWW site (e.g., under ???Project Team??? or ???Developers") that just > succinctly summarizes exactly what you all said. For ???smaller??? projects > without formal governance I guess it all comes down to the people; I can see > how if you have a dedicated core of really good, passionate developers formal > by-laws and committees are superfluous, but then the question is how would > that be sustainable over the long term other than just by manually and > personally attracting and retaining the best on an ad hoc basis without a > codified, structured process. But it seems to be clearly working here. > > Downloaded the macppc port of OpenBSD 6.5 to install on a couple IBM PowerPC > 970/970MP-based Apple Power Mac G5 machines for a class project (I just need > some decent, reliable, no-frills servers, but I wanted to try using something > other than AMD64/x86-64-based machines for a change) with very low > expectations (after trying to install the macppc port of a peer Noteworthy > Excellent Tried-and-true BSD distribution which crashed immediately upon > running ofwboot off the install ISO), but the installer Just Worked! I > don???t understand how this project is able to maintain a working legacy > macppc port with so few developers. quality over quantity :) > > All the best, > Austin > > ???If you want to change the future, start living as if you???re already > there.??? ???Lynn Conway >
Re: OpenBSD Project
> On July 21, 2019 6:05:28 AM GMT+03:00, bkfuth <[…]> wrote: > > I have used OpenBSD, for years, in my computer security classes. I find > > it best suited for these classes. The governance has never been an > > issue. If you know what you are doing the OpenBSD community is a good > > one. > > Stephen Kolars > > Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note� 4, an AT 4G LTE smartphone > > > > Original message > > From: Ingo Schwarze <[…]> > > Date: 7/20/19 21:44 (GMT-06:00) > > To: freen...@gmail.com > > Cc: misc@openbsd.org > > Subject: Re: OpenBSD Project > > > > Hi,Avstin Kim wrote:> My question is, how is the OpenBSD Project > > governance structured;There is no formal structure and no > > "governance".In day to day business, code owners in parts of the system > > decidewhat is done (for example, espie@ in pkg_add(1), myself in > > mandoc(1),claudio@ in OpenBGPD, gilles@ in OpenSMTPd, jsing@ and beck@ > > inLibreSSL, tj@ redgarding the website, and so on; in some areas,more > > than one person owns the code, sometimes up to a handful).In general, > > the people deciding ask themselves which is the besttechnical solution, > > and if there is consensus among developers, itis done.In the rare cases > > of serious disagreement that cannot be resolvedconsensually, or cannot > > be resolved without excessive delay ordiscussion, deraadt@ reserves the > > right to make a final decision,but that does not happen often.There is > > no core team and certainly, there are never any elections.There are no > > written rules whatsoever, and no introduction of anywritten rules is > > planned for the future. The OpenBSD foundationhas absolutely no say > > about any aspect of the OpenBSD project.None of all this is documented > > anywhere because it doesn't matterfor users of the system.If your > > choice of operating system depends on any kind of formalitiesrather > > than on technical quality, OpenBSD is not the project youare looking > > for.Yours, Ingo > > I can only add that ,from all the mailing lists I'm subscribed , > misc@openbsd is \ > the most active mailing list. > > This means alot for me, and I suspect for anyone else using openBSD. > > Best Regards, > Strahil Nikolov To everyone who took the time to respond, your responses were outstanding; if only a short and sweet additional page could be added to the main OpenBSD Project WWW site (e.g., under “Project Team” or “Developers") that just succinctly summarizes exactly what you all said. For “smaller” projects without formal governance I guess it all comes down to the people; I can see how if you have a dedicated core of really good, passionate developers formal by-laws and committees are superfluous, but then the question is how would that be sustainable over the long term other than just by manually and personally attracting and retaining the best on an ad hoc basis without a codified, structured process. But it seems to be clearly working here. Downloaded the macppc port of OpenBSD 6.5 to install on a couple IBM PowerPC 970/970MP-based Apple Power Mac G5 machines for a class project (I just need some decent, reliable, no-frills servers, but I wanted to try using something other than AMD64/x86-64-based machines for a change) with very low expectations (after trying to install the macppc port of a peer Noteworthy Excellent Tried-and-true BSD distribution which crashed immediately upon running ofwboot off the install ISO), but the installer Just Worked! I don’t understand how this project is able to maintain a working legacy macppc port with so few developers. All the best, Austin “If you want to change the future, start living as if you’re already there.” —Lynn Conway
Re: OpenBSD Project
On July 21, 2019 6:05:28 AM GMT+03:00, bkfuth wrote: > > >I have used OpenBSD, for years, in my computer security classes. I find >it best suited for these classes. The governance has never been an >issue. If you know what you are doing the OpenBSD community is a good >one.Stephen KolarsSent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 4, an AT 4G LTE >smartphone > > Original message >From: Ingo Schwarze >Date: 7/20/19 21:44 (GMT-06:00) >To: freen...@gmail.com >Cc: misc@openbsd.org >Subject: Re: OpenBSD Project > >Hi,Avstin Kim wrote:> My question is, how is the OpenBSD Project >governance structured;There is no formal structure and no >"governance".In day to day business, code owners in parts of the system >decidewhat is done (for example, espie@ in pkg_add(1), myself in >mandoc(1),claudio@ in OpenBGPD, gilles@ in OpenSMTPd, jsing@ and beck@ >inLibreSSL, tj@ redgarding the website, and so on; in some areas,more >than one person owns the code, sometimes up to a handful).In general, >the people deciding ask themselves which is the besttechnical solution, >and if there is consensus among developers, itis done.In the rare cases >of serious disagreement that cannot be resolvedconsensually, or cannot >be resolved without excessive delay ordiscussion, deraadt@ reserves the >right to make a final decision,but that does not happen often.There is >no core team and certainly, there are never any elections.There are no >written rules whatsoever, and no introduction of anywritten rules is >planned for the future. The OpenBSD foundationhas absolutely no say >about any aspect of the OpenBSD project.None of all this is documented >anywhere because it doesn't matterfor users of the system.If your >choice of operating system depends on any kind of formalitiesrather >than on technical quality, OpenBSD is not the project youare looking >for.Yours, Ingo I can only add that ,from all the mailing lists I'm subscribed , misc@openbsd is the most active mailing list. This means alot for me, and I suspect for anyone else using openBSD. Best Regards, Strahil Nikolov
Re: OpenBSD Project
I have used OpenBSD, for years, in my computer security classes. I find it best suited for these classes. The governance has never been an issue. If you know what you are doing the OpenBSD community is a good one.Stephen KolarsSent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 4, an AT 4G LTE smartphone Original message From: Ingo Schwarze Date: 7/20/19 21:44 (GMT-06:00) To: freen...@gmail.com Cc: misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: OpenBSD Project Hi,Avstin Kim wrote:> My question is, how is the OpenBSD Project governance structured;There is no formal structure and no "governance".In day to day business, code owners in parts of the system decidewhat is done (for example, espie@ in pkg_add(1), myself in mandoc(1),claudio@ in OpenBGPD, gilles@ in OpenSMTPd, jsing@ and beck@ inLibreSSL, tj@ redgarding the website, and so on; in some areas,more than one person owns the code, sometimes up to a handful).In general, the people deciding ask themselves which is the besttechnical solution, and if there is consensus among developers, itis done.In the rare cases of serious disagreement that cannot be resolvedconsensually, or cannot be resolved without excessive delay ordiscussion, deraadt@ reserves the right to make a final decision,but that does not happen often.There is no core team and certainly, there are never any elections.There are no written rules whatsoever, and no introduction of anywritten rules is planned for the future. The OpenBSD foundationhas absolutely no say about any aspect of the OpenBSD project.None of all this is documented anywhere because it doesn't matterfor users of the system.If your choice of operating system depends on any kind of formalitiesrather than on technical quality, OpenBSD is not the project youare looking for.Yours, Ingo
Re: OpenBSD Project
Hi, Avstin Kim wrote: > My question is, how is the OpenBSD Project governance structured; There is no formal structure and no "governance". In day to day business, code owners in parts of the system decide what is done (for example, espie@ in pkg_add(1), myself in mandoc(1), claudio@ in OpenBGPD, gilles@ in OpenSMTPd, jsing@ and beck@ in LibreSSL, tj@ redgarding the website, and so on; in some areas, more than one person owns the code, sometimes up to a handful). In general, the people deciding ask themselves which is the best technical solution, and if there is consensus among developers, it is done. In the rare cases of serious disagreement that cannot be resolved consensually, or cannot be resolved without excessive delay or discussion, deraadt@ reserves the right to make a final decision, but that does not happen often. There is no core team and certainly, there are never any elections. There are no written rules whatsoever, and no introduction of any written rules is planned for the future. The OpenBSD foundation has absolutely no say about any aspect of the OpenBSD project. None of all this is documented anywhere because it doesn't matter for users of the system. If your choice of operating system depends on any kind of formalities rather than on technical quality, OpenBSD is not the project you are looking for. Yours, Ingo
Re: OpenBSD project infra - like 'FreeBSD cluster refit' slides
I benefit from it as well :) Using vether with ospfd on top of it is fare more stable than using gre or plain gif. On 12 jun 2013, at 11:17, Jiri B ji...@devio.us wrote: vether(4) was developed for Theo's needs to have better connection to his basement
Re: OpenBSD project infra - like 'FreeBSD cluster refit' slides
mxb [m...@alumni.chalmers.se] wrote: I benefit from it as well :) Using vether with ospfd on top of it is fare more stable than using gre or plain gif. How are you connecting vether to something else? IPsec? Care to share your config?
Re: openbsd : project : isc : infrastructure support
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 09:27:56PM +0200, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: anyone on the list with infrastructure support to help us with the following? Yes, install OpenBSD. a way to host our project webpage and email system via a shell interface. the domain name is owned by us. we would like to have; a website like http://www.project_name.org/ man named ...or... man nsd email addresses like member@project_name.org man sendmail ...or... man smtpd ...or.. pkg_add -iv postfix some way to have source code control (cvs) man cvs man sshd it to be really low cost. :) OpenBSD is free. thank you. yrw jirib
Re: openbsd : project : isc : infrastructure support
a way to host our project webpage and email system via a shell interface. install alpine or mutt email addresses like member@project_name.org man sendmail ...or... man smtpd ...or.. pkg_add -iv postfix if IMAP is needed - install dovecot. it to be really low cost. :) OpenBSD is free. and is stable, so really low cost of ownership.
Re: openbsd : project : isc : infrastructure support
On Tue 24/07/12 02:04, Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote: a way to host our project webpage and email system via a shell interface. install alpine or mutt use alpine regularly.
Re: openbsd : project : isc : infrastructure support
thanks for the quick response. On Tue 24/07/12 01:55, Jiri B ji...@devio.us wrote: On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 09:27:56PM +0200, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: anyone on the list with infrastructure support to help us with the following? Yes, install OpenBSD. i don't have a spare machine nor enough money to co-locate it. need to know if there's some way to do it under wolfman. yes, i already have an account there, but, the admins are taking taking forever to come up with virtual hosting. :( best.
Re: OpenBSD project goals
Yes, of course doing a little research on a subject before posting is beyond the capabilities of the common misc poster. I should become grumpy, but alas, that name is already taken. This is because grumpyness is so overrated, those days. Back in the beginnings of Unix all you needed was a long beard. Now people don't wear them and pretend to be grumpy instead, but this won't fool old-timers. Miod
Re: OpenBSD project goals
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Martin Schrvder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/6/24 Pierre Riteau [EMAIL PROTECTED]: As someone already said earlier, you can write your letter in troff with mg or vi and create a postscript file from that. Real Men wrote their thesis directly in PostScript using ed. :-) Oh great! Another real men thread! I wonder what Real Women use. And Real Transexuals. and so on... -speaking as the perpetrator of the last Real Men thread... 8-) -- http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity. -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation. Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted. -- Gene Spafford learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0feature=related
Re: OpenBSD project goals
As someone already said earlier, you can write your letter in troff with mg or vi and create a postscript file from that. Real Men wrote their thesis directly in PostScript using ed. :-) Oh great! Another real men thread! I wonder what Real Women use. That's an easy one: Real Women are smarter than Real Men and have them write their thesis in addition to their own... Miod
Re: OpenBSD project goals
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Miod Vallat wrote: Oh great! Another real men thread! I wonder what Real Women use. That's an easy one: Real Women are smarter than Real Men and have them write their thesis in addition to their own... Miod Nah, you have it all wrong. Why get an advanced degree in the first place? When I owned my computer business I used to tell people I'm not an engineer, I employ them. diana
Re: OpenBSD project goals
bofh wrote: Oh great! Another real men thread! I wonder what Real Women use. Sorry, next time I'll check the archives.
Re: OpenBSD project goals
Oh great! Another real men thread! I wonder what Real Women use. likely the right tool because they don't need to show off.
Re: OpenBSD project goals
Thilo Pfennig wrote: Hi, I am using OpenBSD on a desktop system for about a year now and have some open questions about the project goals. I have read http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html , but I think it does not answer some questions. One question is what the ideal status of OpenBSD would be. Right now there are core applications (which include also Sendmail and Apache) and the ports. Would it be a goal for OpenBSD to provide most functionality as part of core? It already does provide EVERYTHING! http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=articlesid=20080607131856 I mean its clear that the ports and packages are not audited as the applications in core are. But generally there is no argument for why one application should get more auditing than another, except when you say that you want to provide only one of a kind. Maybe this question is not OpenBSD specific but merely a question of what a goal of an operating system should be. The goals on the project homepage focus more on what is different on OpenBSD. My understanding is that OpenBSD (most BSDs and Unices and also Plan9) strive to provide all basic functionalities as part of the core distribution. And on Linux the mentality is rather that the operating system is rather a collection of different parts - and that each part is an individual package - so there is generally no sense of a core besides the Linux kernel and maybe the base-files package. Another interesting and realted question is what should be provided by default. OpenBSD got some criticism that it has not enabled many services by default Not true! Having just OpenSSH server running is already more services than Windows which run 99% of Desktop machines. and does not take into account non-default installs of some random packages or ports when it comes to security leaks. But OTOH OpenBSD provides Apache and Xorg/Xenocara as core file sets, which I think no other operating system does? As far as I looked other BSDs provide Apache and Xorg as ports rather? So one could also say that OpenBSD is actually providing not less but more. Most Linuxes will install and Xorg plus a desktop like KDE or GNOME by default - but then all those are just distribution-provided packages which are not audited well on most Linuxes. Right now I see the wholeheartedness on working on the operating system as what makes up OpenBSD and differs it from other OSes. I think although security is a focus this is really more a benefit of the development process. I mean security does not come from statements and also not from having it as a goal. I would say that the Debian guys wont say that security was unimportant to them, nor would any OS state that. The difference lies in how people act - and maybe also how much progress is seen of just providing the latest and greatest. Regards, Thilo
Re: OpenBSD project goals
Thilo Pfennig wrote: Hi, I am using OpenBSD on a desktop system for about a year now and have some open questions about the project goals. I have read http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html , but I think it does not answer some questions. One question is what the ideal status of OpenBSD would be. better: more secure, more capable. Right now there are core applications (which include also Sendmail and Apache) and the ports. Would it be a goal for OpenBSD to provide most functionality as part of core? Of course. Look at the release pages, for example: http://www.openbsd.org/43.html I mean its clear that the ports and packages are not audited as the applications in core are. But generally there is no argument for why one application should get more auditing than another, except when you say that you want to provide only one of a kind. oh, by more functionality you mean more third-party apps. I'd argue that is NOT functionality of the OS, but, well, more third- party applications. Put yourself in the developer's position: You wish to add a third-party app to OpenBSD. Now, the number of really good, carefully crafted, security-absolutely-first apps out there is pretty close to zero. So, you need to patch and revise your target application to bring it to OpenBSD standards. You pass the changes back up stream, and they do what you expect: they ignore them...after all, they want to have complete compatibility with all other (i.e., Linux) OSs, they are busy adding new features, or just don't like you (keep in mind, your patches just said, your code sucks, even if delivered in the most polite manner possible). SO, now you pretty much have to maintain a fork of the app, merging in new functionality, and then re-cleaning the code. Yuck. Oh, btw: you get to make sure it works on around seventeen platforms. So in short: no, you will probably not be seeing OpenOffice as part of base. You will probably see more internally-developed features, like OpenNTPD, OpenBGPD, etc., and probably better support for adding third-party apps...but not huge quantities of new third-party productivity apps. Maybe this question is not OpenBSD specific but merely a question of what a goal of an operating system should be. The goals on the project homepage focus more on what is different on OpenBSD. My understanding is that OpenBSD (most BSDs and Unices and also Plan9) strive to provide all basic functionalities as part of the core distribution. for varying definitions of all basic functionality. I'm STUNNED by the things that various other OSs consider basic and extra. Still love Solaris installing OpenOffice, and not a compiler as part of a basic install (for sarcastic definitions of love). And on Linux the mentality is rather that the operating system is rather a collection of different parts - and that each part is an individual package - so there is generally no sense of a core besides the Linux kernel and maybe the base-files package. Another interesting and realted question is what should be provided by default. OpenBSD got some criticism that it has not enabled many services by default and does not take into account non-default installs of some random packages or ports when it comes to security leaks. But OTOH OpenBSD provides Apache and Xorg/Xenocara as core file sets, which I think no other operating system does? As far as I looked other BSDs provide Apache and Xorg as ports rather? So one could also say that OpenBSD is actually providing not less but more. right. so why worry yourself with the ramblings of some? There are idiots everywhere. Work hard enough, you can find people who will praise you, and people who will condemn you, and if no one is condemning you, you probably aren't doing anything. The OpenBSD goal is not to appease every critic...or even any of them. Remember what your parents told you about do your best, don't worry about what other people say? I've seen very, very few projects where this is followed more absolutely. Most Linuxes will install and Xorg plus a desktop like KDE or GNOME by default - but then all those are just distribution-provided packages which are not audited well on most Linuxes. and sometimes, they even work! From what I've seen, Linux is not something I really wish to be compared to. The Linux people sometimes seem to spend time looking at Windows, and set their goal of doing better than Windows. The OpenBSD goal seems to be to do better than OpenBSD. :) Right now I see the wholeheartedness on working on the operating system as what makes up OpenBSD and differs it from other OSes. I think although security is a focus this is really more a benefit of the development process. I mean security does not come from statements and also not from having it as a goal. I would say that the Debian guys wont say that security was unimportant to them, nor would any OS state that. The difference lies in how people act - and maybe
Re: OpenBSD project goals
Nick Holland schrieb: So in short: no, you will probably not be seeing OpenOffice as part of base. Understood, but I wrote about functionality conciously: I would mean ability to write a letter rather than OO.org. The OpenBSD goal is not to appease every critic...or even any of them. Remember what your parents told you about do your best, don't worry about what other people say? I've seen very, very few projects where this is followed more absolutely. Well some criticism from outside is important and healthy. If not you can end up just being ignorant yourself. Like some distros who dont care about security at all. And yes, it is your actions that count, not your words. There are a number of buggy bits of software out there that chant the right words, but clearly don't live by them...or those that show a lack of actual quality which causes me to doubt their real security. Amen. ;) Like the security extensions of Firefox that itself make Firefox more vulnerable as he is by default, already. Thilo
Re: OpenBSD project goals
Nick Holland wrote: You pass the changes back up stream, and they do what you expect: they ignore them...after all, they want to have complete compatibility with all other (i.e., Linux) OSs, The problem isn't Linux compatibility, the problem is when they want it to compile on Netware 2.x and their 3B2.
Re: OpenBSD project goals
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 04:30:12PM +0200, Thilo Pfennig wrote: Nick Holland schrieb: So in short: no, you will probably not be seeing OpenOffice as part of base. Understood, but I wrote about functionality conciously: I would mean ability to write a letter rather than OO.org. In the base install are vi and mg, both of which can be used to write letters. One of the things I like about OpenBSD is that the base install does not come with a bunch of extra stuff to satisfy every possible use of a computer. Out of the box it's functional at some level for almost any use, and for networking/firewalling little or nothing needs to be added. For desktop use it's a different story, and that's fine. Ever notice that Ubuntu is now Ubuntu, Kubuntu, *buntu? So make separate distros to represent basic user choices? Bah! With OpenBSD I install the OS and then pkg_add what I want. I like that approach better. Besides, I'm using the ion window manager and I can't find Ionbuntu. -- Darrin Chandler| Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation
Re: OpenBSD project goals
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 04:30:12PM +0200, Thilo Pfennig wrote: Nick Holland schrieb: So in short: no, you will probably not be seeing OpenOffice as part of base. Understood, but I wrote about functionality conciously: I would mean ability to write a letter rather than OO.org. mg and vi come to mind...
Re: OpenBSD project goals
2008/6/24 Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 04:30:12PM +0200, Thilo Pfennig wrote: Understood, but I wrote about functionality conciously: I would mean ability to write a letter rather than OO.org. mg and vi come to mind... And troff. :-) Best Martin
Re: OpenBSD project goals
And troff. :-) The OpenBSD base install contains groff, not troff. (groff is 3rd party software maintained by Gnu.)
Re: OpenBSD project goals
Marco Peereboom ha scritto: On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 04:30:12PM +0200, Thilo Pfennig wrote: Nick Holland schrieb: So in short: no, you will probably not be seeing OpenOffice as part of base. Understood, but I wrote about functionality conciously: I would mean ability to write a letter rather than OO.org. mg and vi come to mind... cat EOF filename too... :)
Re: OpenBSD project goals
On 6/24/08, Matthew Szudzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And troff. :-) The OpenBSD base install contains groff, not troff. (groff is 3rd party software maintained by Gnu.) That statement is about as useful as saying OpenBSD contains BSD ls, not ls.
Re: OpenBSD project goals
On 24. 06. 2008 16:41, Marco Peereboom wrote: Understood, but I wrote about functionality conciously: I would mean ability to write a letter rather than OO.org. mg and vi come to mind... Hm, I'm just curious how do you imagine writing a letter with vi or mg (ok, i really don't know mg so well..). Don't understand this the wrong way I really want to know, because you maybe know something I don't. I would consider using latex for writing a letter.. Best regards, Samo
Re: OpenBSD project goals
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:10:37PM +0200, Samo Jelovsek wrote: On 24. 06. 2008 16:41, Marco Peereboom wrote: Understood, but I wrote about functionality conciously: I would mean ability to write a letter rather than OO.org. mg and vi come to mind... Hm, I'm just curious how do you imagine writing a letter with vi or mg (ok, i really don't know mg so well..). Don't understand this the wrong way I really want to know, because you maybe know something I don't. I would consider using latex for writing a letter.. Best regards, Samo As someone already said earlier, you can write your letter in troff with mg or vi and create a postscript file from that.
Re: OpenBSD project goals
2008/6/24 Pierre Riteau [EMAIL PROTECTED]: As someone already said earlier, you can write your letter in troff with mg or vi and create a postscript file from that. Real Men wrote their thesis directly in PostScript using ed. :-) Best Martin
Re: OpenBSD project goals
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:18:05PM +0200, Pierre Riteau wrote: On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:10:37PM +0200, Samo Jelovsek wrote: On 24. 06. 2008 16:41, Marco Peereboom wrote: Understood, but I wrote about functionality conciously: I would mean ability to write a letter rather than OO.org. mg and vi come to mind... Hm, I'm just curious how do you imagine writing a letter with vi or mg (ok, i really don't know mg so well..). Don't understand this the wrong way I really want to know, because you maybe know something I don't. I would consider using latex for writing a letter.. Best regards, Samo As someone already said earlier, you can write your letter in troff with mg or vi and create a postscript file from that. One of the more important features of unix always has been document processing and typesetting. -Otto
Re: OpenBSD project goals
nah, real men wrote a program to write their thesis for them ;-) /Pete On 24 Jun 2008, at 22:29, Martin Schrvder wrote: 2008/6/24 Pierre Riteau [EMAIL PROTECTED]: As someone already said earlier, you can write your letter in troff with mg or vi and create a postscript file from that. Real Men wrote their thesis directly in PostScript using ed. :-) Best Martin
Re: OpenBSD project goals
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:28:27PM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote: On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:18:05PM +0200, Pierre Riteau wrote: On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:10:37PM +0200, Samo Jelovsek wrote: On 24. 06. 2008 16:41, Marco Peereboom wrote: Understood, but I wrote about functionality conciously: I would mean ability to write a letter rather than OO.org. mg and vi come to mind... Hm, I'm just curious how do you imagine writing a letter with vi or mg (ok, i really don't know mg so well..). Don't understand this the wrong way I really want to know, because you maybe know something I don't. I would consider using latex for writing a letter.. Best regards, Samo As someone already said earlier, you can write your letter in troff with mg or vi and create a postscript file from that. One of the more important features of unix always has been document processing and typesetting. -Otto Exactly. The first user of Unix besides the developers of the system was the Patent departement at Bell Labs, as early as 1971, to prepare patent applications (http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/hist.html).
Re: OpenBSD project goals
Pete Vickers wrote: nah, real men wrote a program to write their thesis for them ;-) In PostScript.
