Today: OpenBSD 5.0 release party in Amsterdam
Dear all, The traditional OpenBSD release party in Amsterdam will be held Today. The schedule: 18:00, and earlier, gathering into or in front of cafe De Deugniet (the rascal) close to Amsterdam Central Station. Cafe de Deugniet Oude Brugsteeg 12, 1012 JP Amsterdam http://maps.google.nl/maps?q=De+Deugniet,+Oudebrugsteeg+12,+1012+JP+Amsterdam,+Netherlandshl=nlsll=52.469397,5.509644sspn=8.551394,11.876221vpsrc=0hq=De+Deugniet,+Oudebrugsteeg+12,+1012+JP+Amsterdam,+Netherlandst=hz=15 We will probably have some food at Wing Kee that's located pretty near and easy to find: http://maps.google.nl/maps?saddr=Oudebrugsteeg+12,+1012+JP+Amsterdam+(Caf%C3%A9+De+Deugniet)daddr=Zeedijk+76,+1012+BA+Amsterdamhl=nlie=UTF8sll=52.374453,4.89898sspn=0.008364,0.011598geocode=FT4vHwMdBrtKACEWhC8Zcv0VyilDB1louAnGRzG5LMpY4Vkq2g%3BFcsrHwMdz8ZKACmFEKSguQnGRzHTCZxRGQKfQgvpsrc=0dirflg=wmra=ltmt=hz=18 From 20:00 on we will gather into De Deugniet and have a drink on OpenBSD 5.0. Please don't hesitate to attend, it's a proven opportunity to meet OpenBSD people, developers, system administrators, users and fans. If further information is needed, please contact me or Floor Terra! +++chefren
Thursday this week: OpenBSD 5.0 release party in Amsterdam
Dear all, The traditional OpenBSD release party in Amsterdam will be held next Thursday the 10th of November. The schedule: 18:00, and earlier, gathering into or in front of cafe De Deugniet (the rascal) close to Amsterdam Central Station. Cafe de Deugniet Oude Brugsteeg 12, 1012 JP Amsterdam http://maps.google.nl/maps?q=De+Deugniet,+Oudebrugsteeg+12,+1012+JP+Amsterdam,+Netherlandshl=nlsll=52.469397,5.509644sspn=8.551394,11.876221vpsrc=0hq=De+Deugniet,+Oudebrugsteeg+12,+1012+JP+Amsterdam,+Netherlandst=hz=15 We will probably have some food at Wing Kee that's located pretty near and easy to find: http://maps.google.nl/maps?saddr=Oudebrugsteeg+12,+1012+JP+Amsterdam+(Caf%C3%A9+De+Deugniet)daddr=Zeedijk+76,+1012+BA+Amsterdamhl=nlie=UTF8sll=52.374453,4.89898sspn=0.008364,0.011598geocode=FT4vHwMdBrtKACEWhC8Zcv0VyilDB1louAnGRzG5LMpY4Vkq2g%3BFcsrHwMdz8ZKACmFEKSguQnGRzHTCZxRGQKfQgvpsrc=0dirflg=wmra=ltmt=hz=18 From 20:00 on we will gather into De Deugniet and have a drink on OpenBSD 5.0. Please don't hesitate to attend, it's a proven opportunity to meet OpenBSD people, developers, system administrators, users and fans. If further information is needed, please contact me or Floor Terra! +++chefren
Thursday this week: OpenBSD 5.0 release party in Amsterdam
Dear all, The traditional OpenBSD release party in Amsterdam will be held next Thursday the 10th of November. The schedule: 18:00, and earlier, gathering into or in front of cafe De Deugniet (the rascal) close to Amsterdam Central Station. Cafe de Deugniet Oude Brugsteeg 12, 1012 JP Amsterdam http://maps.google.nl/maps?q=De+Deugniet,+Oudebrugsteeg+12,+1012+JP+Amsterdam,+Netherlandshl=nlsll=52.469397,5.509644sspn=8.551394,11.876221vpsrc=0hq=De+Deugniet,+Oudebrugsteeg+12,+1012+JP+Amsterdam,+Netherlandst=hz=15 We will probably have some food at Wing Kee that's located pretty near and easy to find: http://maps.google.nl/maps?saddr=Oudebrugsteeg+12,+1012+JP+Amsterdam+(Caf%C3%A9+De+Deugniet)daddr=Zeedijk+76,+1012+BA+Amsterdamhl=nlie=UTF8sll=52.374453,4.89898sspn=0.008364,0.011598geocode=FT4vHwMdBrtKACEWhC8Zcv0VyilDB1louAnGRzG5LMpY4Vkq2g%3BFcsrHwMdz8ZKACmFEKSguQnGRzHTCZxRGQKfQgvpsrc=0dirflg=wmra=ltmt=hz=18 From 20:00 on we will gather into De Deugniet and have a drink on OpenBSD 5.0. Please don't hesitate to attend, it's a proven opportunity to meet OpenBSD people, developers, system administrators, users and fans. If further information is needed, please contact me or Floor Terra! +++chefren
What's needed for an iOS proxyserver.
With any iPhone/iPad/iPod touch that has WiFi you can set up a HTTP Poxy
(Within WiFi settings: Just click on the blue dot with in it behind the
connected WiFi
Network name and scroll down.)
The options are: {Off | Manual | Auto}.
Manual asks for Server, Port and Authentication {on|off}, with Authentication
on you are
asked for Username and Password.
Auto option just asks for URL.
Has anyone set this up with OpenBSD?
+++chefren
Re: Thursday 12th of May: OpenBSD 4.9 release party Amsterdam
On 05-05-11 23:40, chefren wrote: Celebrating the release of OpenBSD version 4.9 at Thursday 20th of May That should have been the 12th of course! +++chefren there will be a release party in Amsterdam! The plan is the same as usual: 18:00 gathering in front of De Deugniet, we will find some food in the neighborhood that has lots of places where we can eat. From 20:00 on we will gather into De Deugniet itself and have a drink on OpenBSD 4.9! Cafe de Deugniet Oude Brugsteeg 12, 1012 JP Amsterdam http://maps.google.com/maps?f=qsource=s_qhl=engeocode=q=De+Deugniet,+Oudebrugsteeg+12,+1012+JP+Amsterdam,+Netherlandssll=52.375285,4.897585sspn=0.038303,0.052099ie=UTF8hq=De+Deugniet,hnear=Oudebrugsteeg+12,+1012+Amsterdam,+The+Netherlandsll=52.375691,4.897585spn=0.008803,0.013025t=hz=16 http://maps.google.com/maps?f=qsource=s_qhl=engeocode=q=De+Deugniet,+Oudebrugsteeg+12,+1012+JP+Amsterdam,+Netherlandssll=52.375285,4.897585sspn=0.038303,0.052099ie=UTF8hq=De+Deugniet,hnear=Oudebrugsteeg+12,+1012+Amsterdam,+The+Netherlandsll=52.375691,4.897585spn=0.008803,0.013025t=hz=16 For details please contact Floor Terra flo...@gmail.com mailto:flo...@gmail.com or me! +++chefren
Thursday 12th of May: OpenBSD 4.9 release party Amsterdam
Celebrating the release of OpenBSD version 4.9 at Thursday 20th of May there will be a release party in Amsterdam! The plan is the same as usual: 18:00 gathering in front of De Deugniet, we will find some food in the neighborhood that has lots of places where we can eat. From 20:00 on we will gather into De Deugniet itself and have a drink on OpenBSD 4.9! Cafe de Deugniet Oude Brugsteeg 12, 1012 JP Amsterdam http://maps.google.com/maps?f=qsource=s_qhl=engeocode=q=De+Deugniet,+Oudebrugsteeg+12,+1012+JP+Amsterdam,+Netherlandssll=52.375285,4.897585sspn=0.038303,0.052099ie=UTF8hq=De+Deugniet,hnear=Oudebrugsteeg+12,+1012+Amsterdam,+The+Netherlandsll=52.375691,4.897585spn=0.008803,0.013025t=hz=16 http://maps.google.com/maps?f=qsource=s_qhl=engeocode=q=De+Deugniet,+Oudebrugsteeg+12,+1012+JP+Amsterdam,+Netherlandssll=52.375285,4.897585sspn=0.038303,0.052099ie=UTF8hq=De+Deugniet,hnear=Oudebrugsteeg+12,+1012+Amsterdam,+The+Netherlandsll=52.375691,4.897585spn=0.008803,0.013025t=hz=16 For details please contact Floor Terra flo...@gmail.com mailto:flo...@gmail.com or me! +++chefren
Re: RAMDISK_CD-based MP kernel hangs when activating secondary CPUs (4.8)
OK, for the archives: Someone wrote to me off-list: Other ramdisk-based systems (flashboot, flashrd) have needed to increase NKPTP above the default of 4, and disable isadma (and associated devices). I don't know if it might be relevant here, but easy enough to do that it's probably worth trying. Very interesting tip, we tried it, but it doesn't make a difference. (Our kernel has always been far below 16 MB, apparently too small to ever hit those two limits.) -- However, it set us on the path to the eventual solution. It did seem a good idea to try compare 'flashrd'. Outcome: the MULTIPROCESSOR variant of 'flashrd' did work normally. Followed by countless frustrating hours banging head against wall: comparing matching 'option' files, transplanting ramdisk images back and forth. No experiment worked, almost drove us to desperation. -- Eventually found the cause: it has nothing to do with 'option's or with the ramdisk image. The 'src/distrib/i386/common/Makefile.inc' script adds COPTS+= -mtune=i486 to the kernel make/gcc command. (since OpenBSD 4.8) Rather miffed by this discovery! The OpenBSD project does not allow/support use of non-default gcc arch options. Not even when compiling userland apps*, let alone when compiling the kernel. Reasonable policy; as long as you stick to it! Don't make a nigh-on-unnoticable deviation in such a canonical place as distrib/i386! = = *) No support for non-default gcc arch options: we don't know whether that's actually properly documented anywhere, but we learned that when reporting that 'ntohs16()' miscompiled under -march=i686, back in OpenBSD 3.8 days: http://www.mail-archive.com/misc@openbsd.org/msg19810.html Thank all for the replies/ideas/etc! +++chefren On 18-11-10 12:08, chefren wrote: We use a custom i386 RAMDISK_CD kernel: basically we add most options from GENERIC and GENERIC.MP. Upgrading from 4.6 to 4.8, this kernel hangs forever after: root on rd0a swap on rd0b dump on rd0b The problem turns out to be MP; activation of the secondary processors. The custom kernel works fine on a single-core machine, and a recompiled kernel without config lines option MULTIPROCESSOR cpu* at mainbus? also works fine everywhere. -- The problem can be reproduced by simply adding those two MP config lines to the standard RAMDISK_CD kernel config. -- Experiments with adding printf()s on a Dell 1950 (2 CPUs, 8 cores) suggest that the hang happens during: cpu_boot_secondary(cpu_info[2]) pmap_tlb_shootrange() i386_fast_ipi() But treat that as an inconclusive hint: we don't know whether the printf()s are 100% reliable, and VirtualBox (2 CPU, IOAPIC) seems to make it past that point and hang somewhere after init_main() has entered its intentional infinite waiting loop, and another computer (Core 2 Duo) doesn't hang but reboots immediately around that point. -- Are we overlooking an option/driver that's needed for MP on i386? Or is this a kernel regression from 4.6 -- 4.8? +++chefren -- http://idd.nl/ Chefren Hagens
RAMDISK_CD-based MP kernel hangs when activating secondary CPUs (4.8)
We use a custom i386 RAMDISK_CD kernel: basically we add most options from GENERIC and GENERIC.MP. Upgrading from 4.6 to 4.8, this kernel hangs forever after: root on rd0a swap on rd0b dump on rd0b The problem turns out to be MP; activation of the secondary processors. The custom kernel works fine on a single-core machine, and a recompiled kernel without config lines option MULTIPROCESSOR cpu* at mainbus? also works fine everywhere. -- The problem can be reproduced by simply adding those two MP config lines to the standard RAMDISK_CD kernel config. -- Experiments with adding printf()s on a Dell 1950 (2 CPUs, 8 cores) suggest that the hang happens during: cpu_boot_secondary(cpu_info[2]) pmap_tlb_shootrange() i386_fast_ipi() But treat that as an inconclusive hint: we don't know whether the printf()s are 100% reliable, and VirtualBox (2 CPU, IOAPIC) seems to make it past that point and hang somewhere after init_main() has entered its intentional infinite waiting loop, and another computer (Core 2 Duo) doesn't hang but reboots immediately around that point. -- Are we overlooking an option/driver that's needed for MP on i386? Or is this a kernel regression from 4.6 -- 4.8? +++chefren
Re: RAMDISK_CD-based MP kernel hangs when activating secondary CPUs (4.8)
On 18-11-10 15:33, Dale Rahn wrote: It is likely that this is an 'option SMALL_KERNEL' interaction, Thank you for this idea, we will study it carefully. however realize this is a configuration that OpenBSD isn't likely to support. Clear and no problem! +++chefren
Re: RAMDISK_CD-based MP kernel hangs when activating secondary CPUs (4.8)
On 18-11-10 15:33, Dale Rahn wrote: It is likely that this is an 'option SMALL_KERNEL' interaction, however realize this is a configuration that OpenBSD isn't likely to support. We looked at it and, unfortunately, that can't be the cause. Standard RAMDISK_CD sets that option, but our custom kernel does not. Anyone who has further ideas on this? +++chefren On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:08:11PM +0100, chefren wrote: We use a custom i386 RAMDISK_CD kernel: basically we add most options from GENERIC and GENERIC.MP. Upgrading from 4.6 to 4.8, this kernel hangs forever after: root on rd0a swap on rd0b dump on rd0b The problem turns out to be MP; activation of the secondary processors. The custom kernel works fine on a single-core machine, and a recompiled kernel without config lines option MULTIPROCESSOR cpu* at mainbus? also works fine everywhere. -- The problem can be reproduced by simply adding those two MP config lines to the standard RAMDISK_CD kernel config.
Does pfsync support failover of pf 'route-to' state? (on CARP failover)
Short question: does pfsync currently support fluent failover of a pf
established 'route-to' state, when a CARP failover happens?
Reason for the question: CARP, pfsync, and route-to all seem to work
nicely in our OpenBSD load balancer (LB) setup, except: fluent failover
of established TCP connections doesn't work for us.
When an external client establishes a TCP connection, via our primary
LB, to one of our servers, and then we induce a CARP failover to our
secondary LB, and then the external client sends the next packet on the
established TCP connection, the new LB doesn't foward (route) that
packet to our server like the original LB would do; instead, the new LB
sends a TCP RST back to the client.
Sketch of our setup:
# Load balancer A:
ifconfig pcn0 192.168.1.50 netmask 255.255.255.0
ifconfig carp1 vhid 1 carpdev pcn0 inet 192.168.1.100 netmask 255.255.255.0
ifconfig pfsync0 syncdev pcn1
relayd.conf:
table servers { 192.168.1.231 192.168.1.232 }
redirect server {
listen on 192.168.1.100 port 1234 interface pcn0
route to servers mode roundrobin
}
# Load balancer B:
ifconfig pcn0 192.168.1.51 netmask 255.255.255.0
Rest identical to Firewall B, except higher advskew
# Server C:
ifconfig pcn0 192.168.1.231 netmask 255.255.255.0
ifconfig lo0 alias 192.168.1.100
In our test, the load balancers, servers. and test client are all on the
same 192.168.1.0/24 network on the same Ethernet segment.
Note: Why not 'rdr-to' or 'nat-to'? Because our servers need to see
the real destination IP to know which SSL certificate to present to the
client, and because our servers need to see the real source IP to check
it against the client's SSL Subject CN.
Note: Isn't 'sloppy' keep state on the 'route-to' rule of the load
balancers a security risk? We think that risk is tolerable, because the
(also OpenBSD) servers already have strict pf firewalls. The load
balancers are not used as firewalls, they are not expected to add security.
Note: Why are the servers on the same Internet-facing Ethernet segment
as the load balancers? Part of the reason is to allow direct access to
individual servers even when the load balancers are not active.
Sketch of our test:
# Disable all servers expect Server C
# On server C:
nc -l 192.168.1.100 1234
# On test client:
ifconfig pcn0 192.168.1.10
nc -v 192.168.1.100 1234# Result: connected, can exchange messages
# On BACKUP load balancer:
pfctl -s state | egrep 1234# Result: shows the ESTABLISHED connection
# On MASTER load balancer:
ifconfig -g carp carpdemote 128# Result: CARP failover
# On test client:
type next line in 'nc'.# Result: disconnect.
# 'tcpdump' shows TCP RST from load balancer to test client.
+++chefren
Today! OpenBSD 4.8 release party Amsterdam
The plan is the same as usual: 18:00 gathering in front of De Deugniet, we will find some food in the neighborhood that has lots of places where we can eat. From 20:00 on we will gather into De Deugniet itself and have a drink on OpenBSD 4.8! Cafe de Deugniet Oude Brugsteeg 12, 1012 JP Amsterdam Few minutes walk from Amsterdam Central Station http://maps.google.com/maps?f=qsource=s_qhl=engeocode=q=De+Deugniet,+Oudebrugsteeg+12,+1012+JP+Amsterdam,+Netherlandssll=52.375285,4.897585sspn=0.038303,0.052099ie=UTF8 http://maps.google.com/maps?f=qsource=s_qhl=engeocode=q=De+Deugniet,+Oudebrugsteeg+12,+1012+JP+Amsterdam,+Netherlandssll=52.375285,4.897585sspn=0.038303,0.052099ie=UTF8hq=De+Deugniet,hnear=Oudebrugsteeg+12,+1012+Amsterdam,+The+Netherlandsll=52.375691,4.897585spn=0.008803,0.013025t=hz=16
Patch for installboot that assumes vnd is guaranteed a floppy
Patch for a nasty silent assumption in i386 'installboot': that a 'vnd'
device is guaranteed to be a floppy and can't possibly be a harddisk.
We tried to create a normal bootable harddisk image file, to 'dd' to USB
sticks. 'installboot' kept trampling the MBR like a blind elephant in a
china shop.
This patch leaves the default behaviour untouched, but provides a '-r'
flag to force 'installboot' to treat 'vnd' like a harddisk instead of a
floppy.
Basic patch, no manpage update.
patch -p0 -d /usr/src/sys/arch/i386/stand/installboot
usr.src.sys.installboot.diff
patch -p0 -d /usr/src/sys/arch/amd64/stand/installboot
usr.src.sys.installboot.diff
= = = =
--- installboot.c
+++ installboot.c
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ structsym_data {
};
extern char *__progname;
-intverbose, nowrite = 0;
+intverbose, force_findopenbsd = 0, nowrite = 0;
char *boot, *proto, *dev, *realdev;
struct sym_data pbr_symbols[] = {
{_fs_bsize_p, 2},
@@ -121,12 +121,16 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[])
longstart = 0;
int n = 8;
- while ((c = getopt(argc, argv, vn)) != -1) {
+ while ((c = getopt(argc, argv, vrn)) != -1) {
switch (c) {
case 'n':
/* Do not actually write the bootblock to disk. */
nowrite = 1;
break;
+ case 'r':
+ /* Force 'vnd' to be treated like harddisk instead of
floppy. */
+ force_findopenbsd = 1;
+ break;
case 'v':
/* Give more information. */
verbose = 1;
@@ -193,8 +197,9 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[])
sync(); sleep(1);
}
- if (dl.d_type != 0 dl.d_type != DTYPE_FLOPPY
- dl.d_type != DTYPE_VND) {
+ if ((dl.d_type != 0 dl.d_type != DTYPE_FLOPPY dl.d_type !=
DTYPE_VND) ||
+ force_findopenbsd)
+ {
/* Find OpenBSD partition. */
start = findopenbsd(devfd, dl, (off_t)DOSBBSECTOR, n);
if (start == -1)
Re: Patch for installboot that assumes vnd is guaranteed a floppy
Hello Ken, On 28-10-10 12:46, Kenneth R Westerback wrote: Perhaps a bit more context, like describing your vnd creation process, etc. Our script does roughly: dd if=/dev/zero of=disk.img count=... vnconfig -c svnd0 disk.img fdisk -e svnd0 reinit, update, [optional: create FAT32 partition], write disklabel -E svnd0 create 'a' newfs /dev/rsvnd0a mount -t ffs -o rw /dev/svnd0a /mnt cp bsd.rd /usr/mdec/boot /mnt /usr/mdec/installboot -r /mnt/boot /usr/mdec/biosboot svnd0 umount vnconfig -u dd if=disk.img of=/dev/sd1c Once you know about 'installboot's tricky undocumented assumption, you can also work around it by using the 'e' command in 'disklabel -E' to some other disk type, e.g. SCSI, or making a custom entry in /etc/disktab and using 'disklabel -w'. But patching that assumption out is nicer. Does that help? +++chefren
CARP, no IPsec, Dell 1950 or NIC-less: boot crash, (uvm_fault)
CARP, no IPsec, Dell 1950 or NIC-less: boot crash Our custom OpenBSD kernel crashes (uvm_fault) at boot on a Dell 1950. We've tracked down the problem: carpattach() ... if_creategroup(carp) ... TAILQ_INSERT_TAIL(ifg_head) silently assumes that at least 1 'if_attach_common()' call has happened by that point. Dell 1950 has 'bnx' NICs, which delay attach until very late in kernel boot (because of firmware load). The 'enc' interface hides this bug in the stock kernel on Dell 1950, and on computers without a NIC. Easily reproduced with a stock kernel: 'boot -c', 'disable enc' If a patch is appreciated by the maintainer, please don't hesitate to mail me, +++chefren
I call bullshit on audiors all the time. [Was: Re: suggested patch to httpd.conf in base]
On 13-03-10 17:04, Bob Beck wrote: I call bullshit on audiors all the time. I normally get away with it. Why? I know something about the field, They actually do not, they are working from a cookbook. Once you explain coherently why the cookbook is wrong for your environment you know what *THEY HAVE TO BELIEVE YOU* in absence of proof otherwise. Quite true. And if the other party insists on the bull shit it simply isn't a good party to work with. When it's about security: Unnecessary compromises stand for unnecessary insecurity. +++chefren
Re: OT, .. but has anyone seen a crontab editor
On 21-02-10 03:42, L. V. Lammert wrote: Dude? Seriously? Your mother's a whore. Wow! Such intelligence! Sorry, but you's was the one I saw in Amsterdam. Hehe, mentioning Amsterdam, you dare! Seriously seeking trouble? +++chefren p.s. Frantisek mentioned webmin, in this case I would have asked the lowest rated technician for a single http-auth webpage with a little help from a more experienced one it should be ready (with a few layers of security...) within a few hours. Your OT, stands for I'm lazy and not so competent nor creative but willing to scream like a puppy on misc! for me.
300 simultaneous TCP connections possible with OpenBSD??
Network defaults in OpenBSD 4.6 (i386 amd64): kern.maxclusters = 6144 net.inet.tcp.recvspace = 16 KiB A) From skimming the OpenBSD kernel source code we get the impression that this will allow, very roughly: 6144 mbuf-clusters * 1460 Ethernet-bytes/mbuf-cluster / 16 KiB/connection = roughly 550 fully-buffered TCP connections. i.e. after +- 550 connections, further TCP connections can get refused. (+-275 connections if both Tx and Rx are fully-buffered, but most TCP uses are asymmetrical) Is that guess correct? B) We are in a network situation where we would like 'net.inet.tcp.recvspace' around 64 KiB. We would like to serve 300 simultaneous connections. In our situation, it is hard to avoid that processing of incoming data occasionally halts for a short period (disk I/O and locking). Are there safe OpenBSD sysctl kernel compile settings that allow this? * This would suggest kern.maxclusters = 300 connections * 64 KiB/connection / 1460 Ethernet-bytes/mbuf-cluster = roughly 15000. (right?) * But that would exhaust the default kernel memory pool too much. (right?) (it would allocate 15000 mbuf-clusters * 2048 alloc-bytes/mbuf-cluster = 29 MiB ) If we understand correctly, i386 is too cramped in virtual address space to increase the kernel memory pool safely. But supposing we move our i386 servers into early retirement, can OpenBSD do it (with safe headroom) on amd64?
Has anyone a dual head monitor Matrox G450 G550 or G650 graphics card working with OpenBSD 4.6?
Has anyone a dual head monitor Matrox G450 G550 or G650 graphics card working with OpenBSD 4.6? +++chefren
Tomorrow: Amsterdam OpenBSD 4.6 release party!
Tomorrow, Thursday 29th of October: Cafe de Deugniet Oude Brugsteeg 12, 1012 JP Amsterdam http://maps.google.nl/maps?f=qhl=enq=Oudebrugsteeg+12,+Amsterdam+1012+Amsterdam,+North+Holland,+The+Netherlandssll=52.469397,5.509644sspn=3.741684,6.097412ie=UTF8cd=1geocode=0,52.375293,4.897561t=hz=17iwloc=addr 18:00 gathering in front of De Deugniet, we will find some food in the neighborhood that has lots of places where we can eat. From 20:00 on we will gather into De Deugniet itself and have a drink on OpenBSD 4.6! +++chefren
Re: Tomorrow: Amsterdam OpenBSD 4.6 release party!
On 28-10-09 16:11, Francesco Vollero wrote: Il giorno mer, 28/10/2009 alle 14.08 +0100, chefren ha scritto: Tomorrow, Thursday 29th of October: Cafe de Deugniet Oude Brugsteeg 12, 1012 JP Amsterdam http://maps.google.nl/maps?f=qhl=enq=Oudebrugsteeg+12,+Amsterdam+1012+Amsterdam,+North+Holland,+The+Netherlandssll=52.469397,5.509644sspn=3.741684,6.097412ie=UTF8cd=1geocode=0,52.375293,4.897561t=hz=17iwloc=addr 18:00 gathering in front of De Deugniet, we will find some food in the neighborhood that has lots of places where we can eat. From 20:00 on we will gather into De Deugniet itself and have a drink on OpenBSD 4.6! +++chefren It's unfair :( i came back from Amsterdam this morning :( Francesco Ah, well, I will try to honor you by proposing Italian food, OK? +++chefren
Amsterdam OpenBSD 4.6 release party!
Thursday 29th of October: Cafe de Deugniet Oude Brugsteeg 12, 1012 JP Amsterdam http://maps.google.nl/maps?f=qhl=enq=Oudebrugsteeg+12,+Amsterdam+1012+Amsterdam,+North+Holland,+The+Netherlandssll=52.469397,5.509644sspn=3.741684,6.097412ie=UTF8cd=1geocode=0,52.375293,4.897561t=hz=17iwloc=addr 18:00 gathering in front of De Deugniet, we will find some food in the neighborhood that has lots of places where we can eat. From 20:00 on we will gather into De Deugniet itself and have a drink on OpenBSD 4.6! +++chefren
Re: About the OpenBSD repository
On 06/23/09 18:58, Theo de Raadt wrote: Blah blah blah blah That is clearly self describing... You just like listening to yourself talk. Shut up. Pooh, pooh Mr Not Invented Here and We didn't learned that in our BSD Kindergarten. Hannah is clearly just informative (as always!) and believes, with good reason and first hand experience, in what she proposes. +++chefren
Re: OT: 10GbE Physical Network Taps
On 05/06/09 13:33, J.C. Roberts wrote: I need to collect raw throughput statistics without increasing latency or reducing bandwidth on 10GbE fiber links, .. As far as my understanding allows, I believe the best way to do this is with a physical network tap connected to monitoring equipment. I figure folks running/maintaining OpenBSD firewalls might be familiar with using physical network taps for deploying IDS/IPS since using bridges on such systems is a Bad Idea (R)(TM). Capturing and counting 10GE depends on one relatively small hardware step, getting it on an FPGA (I presume every vendor has application circuits for that), and after that... Well in silicon the saying is real man have fabs, for software it's real programmers can do it in hardware, single cycle I mean of course. The programmer and algorithm designers need to be very handy with how the bits really move through the hardware. We did 2.5Gbit, ATM, GE and POS about 6-7 years ago, technology has advanced quite a lot, 10Gbps now is easier than 2.5Gbps then. Hard but also real fun and stellar praises (not sales!) if you get it working. Our card http://www.idd.nl/ft/pci.jpg could easily still be the only one that can do this counting at the IP level for ATM at 2.5Gbps. +++chefren
Today: Amsterdam OpenBSD 4.5 release party
Today, Thursday 7th of May: Cafe de Deugniet Oude Brugsteeg 12, 1012 JP Amsterdam http://maps.google.nl/maps?f=qhl=enq=Oudebrugsteeg+12,+Amsterdam+1012+Amsterdam,+North+Holland,+The+Netherlandssll=52.469397,5.509644sspn=3.741684,6.097412ie=UTF8cd=1geocode=0,52.375293,4.897561t=hz=17iwloc=addr 18:00 gathering in front of De Deugniet we will find some food in the neighborhood that has lots of places where we can eat. From 20:00 on we will gather into De Deugniet itself and have a drink on OpenBSD 4.5! +++chefren
Amsterdam OpenBSD 4.5 release party this Thursday, 7th of May.
This Thursday 7th of May: Cafe de Deugniet Oude Brugsteeg 12, 1012 JP Amsterdam http://maps.google.nl/maps?f=qhl=enq=Oudebrugsteeg+12,+Amsterdam+1012+Amsterdam,+North+Holland,+The+Netherlandssll=52.469397,5.509644sspn=3.741684,6.097412ie=UTF8cd=1geocode=0,52.375293,4.897561t=hz=17iwloc=addr 18:00 gathering in front of De Deugniet we will find some food in the neighborhood that has lots of places where we can eat. From 20:00 on we will gather into De Deugniet itself and have a drink on OpenBSD 4.5! +++chefren
Herhaling: Amsterdam OpenBSD 4.4 release party op donderdag 6 november
Donderdag 6 november Cafe de Deugniet Oude Brugsteeg 12, 1012 JP Amsterdam http://maps.google.nl/maps?f=qhl=enq=Oudebrugsteeg+12,+Amsterdam+1012+Amsterdam,+North+Holland,+The+Netherlandssll=52.469397,5.509644sspn=3.741684,6.097412ie=UTF8cd=1geocode=0,52.375293,4.897561t=hz=17iwloc=addr 18:00 verzamelen voor De Deugniet voor eten in de buurt, vanaf 20:00 in De Deugniet, in de hoek linksachter. +++chefren p.s. The above language is called Dutch, doesn't matter if you don't fully understand, if you like OpenBSD a little or a lot: you are invited too!
Amsterdam OpenBSD 4.4 release party op donderdag 6 november
Donderdag 6 november Cafe de Deugniet Oude Brugsteeg 12, 1012 JP Amsterdam http://maps.google.nl/maps?f=qhl=enq=Oudebrugsteeg+12,+Amsterdam+1012+Amsterdam,+North+Holland,+The+Netherlandssll=52.469397,5.509644sspn=3.741684,6.097412ie=UTF8cd=1geocode=0,52.375293,4.897561t=hz=17iwloc=addr 18:00 verzamelen voor De Deugniet voor eten in de buurt, vanaf 20:00 in De Deugniet, in de hoek linksachter. +++chefren p.s. The above language is called Dutch, doesn't matter if you don't fully understand, if you like OpenBSD a little or a lot: you are invited too!
Re: Atheros Drivers
On 7/29/08 5:59 AM, Ringo Kamens wrote: Here's the full story, people seemed to be wondering if the drivers were open/had binary blobs etc. The new frontier? Yes there are no blobs in the code but because the important part of the code has come from a reverse engineereed blob and there is no full documentation there is only little difference. Let's call it open by obscurity or so? That FSF gives free publicity to Atheros and with Atheros ignores the facts, such as lacking documentations and that the main part was work of Reyk is morally defect. +++chefren
Re: Time for OBSD everywhere?
Hello Daniel, On 5/16/08 8:54 PM, Daniel Ouellet wrote: I know at time it was said that OpenBSD is not for everything, but so far, I still haven't find anything that I need that OpenBSD can't shine doing. Not to challenge you or anyone else personally: What's the best program to look at Microsoft Powerpoint presentations? I now and the receive them, K presenter crashes on them, and still have to forward them to a Mac. +++chefren
More details show that someone seriously fucked up in debian. [Was: Re: Debian libssl security (OpenSSH safe?)]
On 5/13/08 7:08 PM, Marc Espie wrote: More details show that someone seriously fucked up in debian. Well, this Kurt has seriously asked for details on the relevant openssl-dev list: http://marc.info/?l=openssl-devm=114651085826293w=2 And see what arrogant as usual Ben Laurie states: http://www.links.org/?p=327 they should contribute their patches upstream to the package maintainers. Had Debian done this in this case, we (the OpenSSL Team) would have fallen about laughing, and once we had got our breath back, told them what a terrible idea this was. Kurt has clearly done so, and I know personally of another totally ignored patch from our company and I have heard in the past about OpenBSD people trying to send patches to OpenSSL maintainers to no avail. The OpenSSL maintainers have proven not to read their mail, they aren't interested in cleaning up their big mess. Laurie also states never fix a bug you dont understand and this OpenSSL hero seems to forget that something that seems smart and OK now and here can be plain bad and ugly when looked at with some more distance or knowledge. His Adding uninitialised memory to it can do no harm and might do some good, which is why we do it. is pure arrogant and shortsighted shit to me. +++chefren
Herinnering 4.3 release party donderdag 8 mei, 18:00 eten, 20:00 in de Deugniet
Cafi de Deugniet Oude Brugsteeg 12, 1012 JP Amsterdam http://maps.google.nl/maps?f=qhl=enq=Oudebrugsteeg+12,+Amsterdam+1012+Amsterdam,+North+Holland,+The+Netherlandssll=52.469397,5.509644sspn=3.741684,6.097412ie=UTF8cd=1geocode=0,52.375293,4.897561t=hz=17iwloc=addr
Re: Doubt about license
On 5/4/08 12:15 PM, Pieter Verberne wrote: But wouldn't it be just great to put anything like this in a file's header? : # This file is in public domain or even better: # public domain When there is no name there is nobody who can testify it is in the public domain. Don't forget: Basically everything is copyrighted, if you produce something you =have= copyright, the right to license. You may choose for a BSD license or even copy left but without your creator name nobody can check/verify anything. +++chefren
Re: Doubt about license
On 5/4/08 8:37 PM, Lars NoodC)n wrote: Marco Peereboom wrote: public domain is not properly defined in the framework of the law. http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ Public domain is very clearly defined by law: it is the absence of copyright. If it's public domain, then you and everyone else can do *anything* to it or with it. Might be so that an US law states that, but as far as I know the Berne convention, between almost every country on Earth, US included, states that everyone/company automatically has copyright with the creative conception of anything new. So it's basically wrong, there is always automatically a copyright holder. Where it comes up to is knowing who has the copyright and the licensing given by the copyright holder. Although I hate in band signaling, it's quite practical for source code to state in every file who is/are the copyright holder(s) and what license (s)he attached to her/his work. A lot is written about BSD and honoring the author with her/his name, everyone may think so, but without the name of the copyright holder it's often very difficult to find out or verify if the copyright holder has given the particular license. The BSD license contains the practical absolute minimum of information to make software as free as possible. +++chefren
Re: How to HIDE OpenBSD as user-agent?
On 4/29/08 5:32 PM, Ross Cameron wrote: This is an obscurity hack and an all round bad idea. Yes it's an obscurity hack, but that doesn't make it a bad idea in general. When I'm browsing from my work computer I'm very easy to trace anywhere in logs because of the OpenBSD, KDE and Seamonkey combination. From a security point of view it's plain stupid, but regarding privacy the question isn't a bad idea. +++chefren
RMS [Re: 4.3 song and lyrics and commentary]
On 4/12/08 10:57 PM, Jacob Meuser wrote: On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 04:04:34PM +0300, Lars Nood?n wrote: 5) Cultivating antagonism between allies *is* a key part of the strategy used by the main opponent to OpenBSD. It wastes resources. In contrast, constructive competition leads to improvement. opponents, competition? Lars, you just don't get it. btw, my main beef with rms is that when the ath5k thing went down, I asked rms in personal email to make a generic statement about respecting copyrights. not comdemn or choose sides, just say something along the lines of despite differences in beliefs of freedom, the most important thing for all of free software is respect for copyright and chosen licensing. and he thought that might be a good idea. then he suddenly decided, because OpenBSD was involved, that he would not make such a statement. he went on to say that he could care less if OpenBSD developers drop dead. I was trying to get rms to be a hero, actually. I thought building flame war was bad for everyone. but he refused, because he is personally prejudice against OpenBSD. plain and simple. The problem is: He has his theory to reach a goal, and it's very hard to admit for him that an other more elegant theory works better for the same goal. Worse, that he considered it proved for at least 3 items that gNewsense violates his own rules and that the whole discussion opened a few more morally very bad things (sources for emacs for windows on his servers which needs proprietary software). don't know about you, but imo, any self proclaimed defender of freedom, with such prejudice, is not at all a defender of freedom, but some one abusing the idea freedom for personal gain. one of the most vile types of people, imo. It's quite ugly: He makes a living by keeping nonsense alive. Picturing him with flies around his head is funny however I believe it is smarter to keep pointing on the fact that his use and explanation of the word free doesn't comply with any dictionary on this planet. +++chefren
Re: RAMdisk, not for boot, how?
On 3/28/08 1:20 AM, Rod Whitworth wrote: The CF wearout meme needs to die. Specs, it's all about specs, it seems a fact to me that standard CF cards, as used in camera's, often without any technical specification other than size, cannot be written as often as ordinary harddisks. The foreseeable future people need to be really careful while choosing memory cards as hard disk replacements. +++chefren
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On 02/20/08 15:00, Marco Peereboom wrote: On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 02:14:31PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote: But that 100 year old technology used to be DC earlier, then it was converted to AC because of its inherent benefits. Marketing blurb. way over a hundred years ago, yes (except for some small irrelevant isles like parts of new york if memory serves). Even new york stopped doing it last year. There is no more DC current being served. Well http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9539765 Put like this, a Europe-wide grid seems an obvious idea. That it has not yet been built is because AC power lines would lose too much power over such large distances. Hence the renewed interest in DC. Westinghouse won the battle of the currents in the 1880s because it is easier to transform the voltage of an AC current than of a DC current. (Also debatable with switching power technologies we have now instead of the classical bulkey 50/60Hz transformers, often the first thing we do these days is making the AC DC...) High voltage is the best way to transmit power (the higher the voltage, the smaller the loss), but high voltage is not usually what the user wants. Power is therefore transmitted along high-tension AC lines and then stepped down to usable voltages in local sub-stations. Edison was right, however, to argue that DC is the best way to transmit electricity of any given voltage. That is because the shifting current of AC runs to earth more easily than DC does. To avoid this earthing, AC lines have to be built a long way from the groundand the higher the voltage, the farther away they need to be. At 400 kilovolts, a standard value for long-distance transmission, an alternating current 30 metres (100 feet) from the ground has a fortieth of the loss of a similar cable at ground level. But even at this height an overhead DC line will beat an AC line at distances more than 1,000km (600 miles), while ground-level DC will beat AC at distances as short as 30km. +++chefren
Re: take threads off the table
On 2/19/08 2:04 AM, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: I wonder where the perceived bottleneck is. I mean, you have two boxes connected by ethernet (whatever speed), and you're running a sftp bulk file transfer. What is the limiting factor? Are the boxes less than 20% idle? Is the nework saturated or is there room for more throughput? In other words, with a multiple-CPU box, how much would threads help? Within the whole ssh section, where does the CPU spend its time? Is it crypto or is it in shuffling network packets? Would offloading the crypto to a separate process (and therefore processor) help? This is silly. It seems you never moved a few Gbyte over an ssh Ethernet connection and looked at the numbers. Of course threads could speed things op thoroughly. Intel doesn't put all those cores on a die for nothing... +++chefren
Re: [OT] beefy steel cases
On 2/9/08 8:38 PM, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: Who makes a solid, steel case that doesn't cover up large holes with plastic stuff? http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/typhoon/ ---chefren
Re: low-MHz server
On 1/31/08 2:25 AM, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: We did the double-blind thing many times. She nails it every time: 100% If true she can get =very= rich with that. Please stop this thread that has nothing to do with OpenBSD. +++chefren
Re: Petition to VIA
On 1/29/08 12:17 AM, Andris wrote: I won't sign anything which uses the word Linux. Ask for documentation for UNIX-like operating systems for Christ's sake. Just documentation without unnecessary strings attached will do. So no NDA's, Non Disclosure Agreements. +++chefren
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 01/16/08 03:41, Richard Stallman wrote: If I read and read between the lines you clearly admit you are not satisfied with the current GPLvX more restrictions will follow. We will change the GPL as needed to deal with future threats. I'm satisfied with GPL v3 now, but our enemies are clever. I have to presume that they will pull some surprises. What's surprising or difficult to envision about web services? And where does the word enemies come from? You made up rules, people obey them and they still can be your enemies regarding these rules? What's so difficult about admitting that the rules are not sound and GPLvX should be quite different to make them sound, for example without the DRM ruling, to make sure nobody who obeys the rules can become an ennemy? If I see your first line above I understand, but maybe better to ask it directly: How come you cannot fix a license for once and for all? Because the world does not stand still. When I wrote GPL2, I did not envision tivoization or the Novell-Microsoft pact, so it does not defend against them. GPLv3 does. So you Balkanize GPL further. And GPLvX doesn't defend against web services. What can you do and what possibilities do you see to enforce it? Am I right that it could end with the FSF looking over the shoulder of anybody who uses GPL to see if something is changed or added while being used for a third party? That is very vague, but it doesn't sound like something I would want to do. You should have peace with the fact that the source code =is= open source, published. You don't respect that, you clearly want too to take privacy of programmers as much down as you can think of. Clearly no respect for programmers, not funny to see. +++chefren
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 1/14/08 7:58 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 06:27:24AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: What will be in GPLv4? GPLv4 will be basically the same as all previous versions: it will grant the four freedoms to everyone, and protect them for everyone, as best as we can achieve. We will change only details. Those so called freedoms are covered by copyright law. You really don't need a 1 word license. My idea. And every new word can hide a new bug or even more, so the version count will get much higher than 4. Less code is by design the only thing that gives more clarity and security... The only thing you are trying to protect is the relevance of the FSF. It's clear that one of Richard Stallman's main goals is further Balkanizing the open source community. Divide and conquer, a primitive and mean way to proceed with this idealistic matter. Really very sad that such an influential person uses this kind of methods. But yes, you may Richard, you may. This is a BSD list, nobody here holds you with your primitive pursuit of happiness. .. [ All your code are belong to FSF! The funniest remark in this sad thread. ] +++chefren
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 01/14/08 12:27, Richard Stallman wrote: And who controls GPL? What will you do when all GPL software and subsequent developments are kept on servers out of reach of users (BSD situation...)? You are making an extreme projection, which I doubt will happen. I see more revenue from our services, where we keep up servers for others, every moment. People who bought servers from us in the past would love to hire them, and yes yes yes, with maintenance. I am going to urge people to avoid using servers to do their own computing. You need programs for that, most new programs are offered as web services, out of reach of your GPLv0/1/2/3. .. What will be in GPLv4? GPLv4 will be basically the same as all previous versions: it will grant the four freedoms to everyone, and protect them for everyone, as best as we can achieve. We will change only details. If I read and read between the lines you clearly admit you are not satisfied with the current GPLvX more restrictions will follow. If I see your first line above I understand, but maybe better to ask it directly: How come you cannot fix a license for once and for all? I admit the BSD license has changed somewhat in time, it became =less= restrictive. You clearly want more restrictions. Am I right that it could end with the FSF looking over the shoulder of anybody who uses GPL to see if something is changed or added while being used for a third party? I presume you would love it if also scripts that connect GPLvX programs will automatically be GPLvX too? Why more rights to the user than to the creator? By the creator, do you mean the author of a program? Yes, or the creator of a change or extra line to a program. Someone who creates something in general. Preferable pushing the edge! When the author releases a program under the GNU GPL, he gives users a subset of his legal rights. So your question is based on a misunderstanding. Since you mention the word misunderstanding: Why don't you mention that (s)he also gives the clear =restriction= to open up all further changes? Why do you Balkanize the open source community without any sound reason? There is no such thing as the open source community. There is .., to your opionion I may hope?? I cannot remember anyone else denying that there is an open source community. People and companies who deliver publicly available sourcecode with various less or more restrictive licenses form the open source community. Open source supporters are part of the free software community, which was built by the free software movement starting in 1983. I know a lot of open source supporters who want no connection at all with the movement you started (don't ask around her at [EMAIL PROTECTED]), if only for your denying above of any =restrictions= in the GPLvX. Your publishings only uses pluses and no minuses concerning freedoms. Every of your four freedoms have accompanying restrictions equally big/bold if you like it or not. If you keep denying that it's not difficult to envision: Every subsequent GPLvX version will undoubtedly be more restrictive while you will need to scream louder and louder that it brings more freedom. Compare that with BSD, simple message, no screaming necessary, no serious changes in the license to be foreseen, its decent. If balkanize refers to incompatible licenses, that would not happen if everyone followed our licensing recommendations. If all free software were released under GPL version N or later, as we recommend, then all free software would be license-compatible. Did you recommend that since version 0 of GPL? I doubt so, that would have awakened more people at the right moment. Now with GPLv4 in the works people start thinking hey where will it end up? Who knows what will be in GPLv5? Is it possible that GPLv5 will be 100% compatible with the 2 clause BSD license? It's clear you doubt most GPLv0/1/2/3 will be behind servers but let's think and say it is so. In that situation for both users and programmers there is no difference between BSD and GPLv0/2/3 !!! My estimate is that the open source community will still take up and produce clever ideas and produce open source code. If it's not published (open) it doesn't exist and cannot be build upon by the community (world!). On the other hand, if most code is used for services on servers, there is often almost no way to check if GPLvX is used. Enforcing GPLvX in a services world seems a little bit clueless to me. You will need investigating searches by the police et cetera. You want too much and without a sound reason, only Balkanizes the community. BSD is good enough for the users of open source and clearly better for programmers and companies who use and produce code. Gives them maximum privacy and a better chance of earning money with it. +++chefren
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 1/13/08 9:35 AM, Richard Stallman wrote: By taking them away from the developer and putting them under auspices of the FSF. I would never write a single line of code with a gun to my head and that is what the GPL does. The GPL doesn't take any code away from its author, it doesn't put code under the auspices of the FSF, and it doesn't force anyone to write anything. People who release their source code under the GNU GPL give you permission to use their code in other GPL-covered programs. And who controls GPL? What will you do when all GPL software and subsequent developments are kept on servers out of reach of users (BSD situation...)? What will be in GPLv4? Why do you Balkanize the open source community without any sound reason? It appears your hatred for the GPL has blinded you to the reality of the GPL. Why more rights to the user than to the creator? What is blinding about that? +++chefren
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 1/10/08 6:18 PM, Eric Furman wrote: OK, I will explain it to you because I am tired of you *not* *getting* *it*. The software is simultaneously available as a CD (actually DVD) Please stop/halt/finish/end... It's a CD set, 3 CD's in a DVD box. set you can purchase and as a free download. There are so few people that need to buy the CD's that it is irrelevant to this point. Buying the CD set and OpenBSD goodies is =very relevant=. Please buy more or at least donate money. OpenBSD is not making money from selling software. When you buy the CD's you are knowingly doing so to help support the project. You don't *have* to buy them. You can get the software for free. When you buy the CD's you are really buying an idea. No you buy a case, CD's artwork, printed paper... And there is sofware as a bonus too. We more or less need the CD's since we develop sotware on a data isle and don't want any connections to the internet ever. When we buy the official release it's very difficult for an attacker to infiltrate the code on the CD set, that's a serious plus. +++chefren
Re: Open Source Article Spawns Interesting Ethical Question
On 1/10/08 1:09 AM, Tobias Weingartner wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], chefren wrote: On 1/8/08 11:28 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: 2. Same NIC without flash/ROM bad Eh, that's just a meaningless pile of transistors. Surely you jest? An FPGA is a meaningless pile of transistors? Weird... Without software loaded to it? Certainly. Just stupid silicon. +++chefren
Re: Open Source Article Spawns Interesting Ethical Question
On 1/10/08 11:10 AM, Otto Moerbeek wrote: On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 10:33:41AM +0100, chefren wrote: On 1/10/08 1:09 AM, Tobias Weingartner wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], chefren wrote: On 1/8/08 11:28 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: 2. Same NIC without flash/ROM bad Eh, that's just a meaningless pile of transistors. Surely you jest? An FPGA is a meaningless pile of transistors? Weird... Without software loaded to it? Certainly. Just stupid silicon. It has the capability to be programmed. I would not call that stupid. ROFL Look around, somewhat further than your relatives and friends... If it's not programmed well, it's stupid. +++chefren
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 1/9/08 3:13 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: On Jan 9, 2008 1:20 AM, chefren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] This man has no respect for programmers, clearly doesn't understand why money was invented and how a market can be a very reasonable way to let people earn money. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Market It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the software users in general, as a market. This is not to say we're against markets. It's misleading to call GNU GNU it should be called BSD/GNU. (Thanks to Wijnand for pointing at this.) BSD/GPL BSD/GPLvX Somewhat more typing but good PR. +++chefren
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On 1/9/08 1:49 AM, Steve Shockley wrote: Marco Peereboom wrote: I don't think so. We check for this before we buy hardware. I'd bet money that you have hardware that requires driver assist. I doubt it; if he needs to use a device that doesn't meet his criteria for free (like a cell phone), he just has someone else carry it around for him. That absolves him from all responsibility without any inconvenience. Most chips require bits to be stored in registers (addresses) to get them do what they need to do. In the 80's manufacturers started with delivering chips that hadn't all registers in the address space of the processor and subsequent writes to the same address were necessary after a reset condition to get the chip working (this spared physical address lines and thus expensive pins on the chip). Even if a blob needs to be stored on a chip it's often by sending subsequent writes to the same address. Sometimes this goes the other way around, with DMA, the chip reads a block of outside adresses (flash memory or memory filled by the main processor). Sometimes a memory besides the chip is attached with a serial connection (i2c etc, saves pins!). I have certainly not mentioned all way's to get required setup data to chips. But in general: After start the CPU reads the first bytes of the bios and starts setting up at least all chips on the motherboard with data from the bios etc etc etc... +++chefren
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 01/09/08 16:44, Kevin Wilcox wrote: I don't think either of you have a firm grasp of what's being said with regards to selling free software. Or of the GPL in general. http://webster.com/dictionary/selling http://webster.com/dictionary/free http://webster.com/dictionary/software The use of the word free has nothing to do with price, it is that the recipient of a piece of software has the freedom to modify the software as they see necessary so that it does what they want it to do. If you mean that, don't use the word free. To accomplish this, they should receive the source to said software. That's what the GPLv2 is all about - providing the recipient of a piece of software with the source code to that software and the freedom to modify it as they desire. Sorry, after reading and understanding GPL itself I never put much time in understanding subsequent versions... But I do understand that the word free, as in http://webster.com/dictionary/free Has nothing to do with it. Nice to know. It is only once they decide to *further distribute* the software that they are restricted. At that point the only restrictions placed on them is that they provide the source - thereby giving the recipient the same rights bestowed upon them by *their* provider. Come on, what a details, if it's not free as in http://webster.com/dictionary/free and is about open source software as in: http://webster.com/dictionary/software none of the subscribers of this list is interested any more. I'm sorry if this shocks you. No one has said that you can't charge whatever you like for your software *or* that you have to give the code away to the world - they are saying that if you provide a binary then you should provide the recipients of that binary with the corresponding source and the right to change it and distribute it as they see fit. Well, I presume that after GPLv4 were you wrote now No one should be written Richard Stallman and his cronies. Richard Stallman's ideas clearly point at robbing software writers, if software writers hide their work behind webservices he will definitely introduce GPLv4 for it. .. In no way is anyone saying you can't make a comfortable living writing code and that you have to go through life as a beggar. If my profession is writing software and I was so stupid to start concentrating on GPL software it's very difficult to make a living. I know RichardCo like to point at a handful of jobs at IBM+Redhat+Microsoft but I cannot take that serious at all. +++chefren
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 01/09/08 15:30, Richard Stallman wrote: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Market It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the software users in general, as a market. This is not to say we're against markets. If you want to see what we really say about this, visit that URL and read the whole three paragraphs. OK here are all paragraphs: Market It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the software users in general, as a market. If people exchange things it's about a market. Please don't try to change definitions like you do with free. What you call free software has clearly =more= stings attached than you would suppose if you look up the word free in the dictionaries. The word misleading should be replaced by something like against our beliefs. Please let the webmaster of the site fix that. No problem if he fixes the by L donated security problem first. This is not to say we're against markets. If you try to change the meaning of words you are basically against something. You are =against= free software and =against= markets for software. Be honest! Didn't your parents told you so? If you have a free software support business, then you have clients, and you trade with them in a market. Not according to GPLvX, if you supply a fix to GPL code you cannot trade it more than 1 time, all other possible clients have a free ride after that, that has nothing to do with a market. Please understand, I have no problems with it but I think programmers should have a free choice for each programming work() they do. Let each client pay, let one client pay and give it away for the rest, etc. As long as you respect their freedom, we wish you success in your market. He! When I use your definitions I get a parse error!!! What you call freedom is freedom with DRM, and everyone knows DRM spoils markets. Your wish for succes is clueless, meaningless, and perhaps plain evil. But the free software movement is a social movement, not a business, and the success it aims for is not a market success. Please get your facts straight with reality In practice the social thing doesn't count for the creators of free software. We are trying to serve the public by giving it freedom---not competing to take them away from a rival. To equate this campaign for freedom to a business' campaign for mere success is to diminish the significance of freedom. All blurp, the only thing that real counts is code. Preferably functional elegantly written secure code and for outsiders preferable free, BSD licensed code, without the GNU GPLvX DRM. Can't you understand a programmer, for himself, prefers to start with BSD license? I presume this is a stupid question because Richard Stallman seems to have has a hole or something in his brain. That makes him loop the word social in all kind of ways but the words emphatic and individual are missing. I start believing Richard Stallmans brain is compiled by GCC. It behaves like what we see with OpenBSD copiled with GCC, someone has shot at it with a shotgun, few bit's on strange places are flipped. +++chefren
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 1/9/08 9:10 PM, bofh wrote: On Jan 9, 2008 1:52 PM, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 10:07:50AM -0500, Kevin Wilcox wrote: Daniel then brought up the idea of CD sales. Something you can buy and put an exact digital replica of online. are sure about that? and what about the sticker(s) that come with the CDs? and the artwork on the insert? and the preprinted installation instructions? This is beyond silly. FSF/GNU used to sell tapes of GPLed stuff too. I'm sure it came with pre-printed instructions as well. No idea about artwork or stickers however. But splitting hairs is not useful. With OpenBSD the stickers, printed installation and artwork are copyright Theo de Raadt. You cannot legally sell your own copies of the CD set or use artwork for commercial purposes without permissions of Theo. +++chefren
Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
On 01/07/08 02:23, Francisco J. Tsao Santin wrote: And I don't understand how important people that I admire can fall down in so childish discussion. Maybe because those people are not so thoughtful and thus important as you thought? I'm ashamed as free software supporter and I feel insulted by members of two communities. In the beginning I think clearly who was right and who wasn't, but now it is not important. It is very important to make clear that some interesting statements are just lies. All freedom-claims of Richard Stallman are dubious and is main point in life, the DRM part he added to BSD to make it GPL is enslaving programmers without any good reason. So now you can continue flaming yourselves and flame me too everybody. Maybe I'm too old to still believe in peace. Mr Stallman is not peaceful at all he tries to enslave programmers for no reason and he lies to his followers. That's very sad. +++chefren
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 01/07/08 18:15, Richard Stallman wrote: So... 'ethically' the TiVo ma as well be a circuit, since users don't usually install software on it? Users did install software on it, and that's why Tivo tivoized it. So... Your intentioned thinking that gNewSense is clear holds up while if the Tivoly guys defend their product against what they as creators clearly think of as misuse of the product, that doesn't count? I might have an interesting thought for you: Almost all more or less complicated chips these days have more and more software on them, as you showed you know. That software is clearly intended to make those chips non-hackable from outside because of various reasons. I now start presuming this all is strongly against your standards, those chips are tivolized and the buyers of the chips should demand hackable versions of the software? Or will it be handled in GPLv4? +++chefren
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 01/07/08 12:31, Richard Stallman wrote: Those quotes do not show gNewSense includes non-free software. What's interesting is that they admit they cannot find all blobs without truly reading and understanding the code, they lack people for it. They say they can't reliably find all the binary-only firmware. Nobody's perfect. What matters is that they are doing their best, and that they fix problems that are reported to them. Let's see what happens: I report the whole gNewSense project is not according to it's goals. That's all I can ask of anyone. Richard, you publicly state that gNewSence is up to your standards. If to your standards it's OK if a few people who admit they are incompetent say we have done our best to get it clean, while others say we know that with Ubuntu, our source, new sub standard code is inserted on a regular basis I get again the idea Richard Stallman is morally defect. Richard Stallman: You know gNewSense is by far not conform what you tell people about it. You bring it as an alternative and it is not. +++chefren
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On 01/07/08 18:16, Richard Stallman wrote: When I want research, I ask people to do it. That is efficient, and we have not seen any errors in it. And what about the research that should have made gNewSense up to your standards? The intention of good research is enough to prevent any errors in it I presume? Once you understand Richard Stallman you are truly in open source heaven! You want to write good code? No understanding or experience needed, just intend to do it! At least Richard will believe you and spread the word about it. +++chefren
Re: Open Source Article Spawns Interesting Ethical Question
On 1/8/08 11:28 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: 2. Same NIC without flash/ROM bad Eh, that's just a meaningless pile of transistors. +++chefren
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 1/9/08 12:54 AM, Eric Furman wrote: On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 06:31:20 -0500, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Since plants can be easily replicated, why are we buying food from farmers? I'm not against buying software from developers (as long as it is free software). See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html. This is one of the most retarded things I've ever read. You might get one wanker to pay for it, but if it comes in non-binary with all the source what's to stop them from posting it on the internet and everybody else getting it for free? You got the point, Richard doesn't respect creators. He wants every programmer to go through life as beggar like he does himself. Giving in that that's impossible, that you cannot raise children that way doesn't matter to him. Following Richard Stallman's theories everyone may make money with his creation/work except a programmer. Richard Stallman /says/ a programmer may earn money 1 time and than the code should be free after that. Why he says so is clueless, he clearly cannot explain how a programmer should make money if it's about a lot of work that is just a little feature for a lot of people, such a programmer should go around and ask a milion users a cent before he lets them test the code. Because the moment he let other people test it, the code should be for grabs too. Richard want's such a programmer to spam the world about a little feature to get money for it. This man has no respect for programmers, clearly doesn't understand why money was invented and how a market can be a very reasonable way to let people earn money. +++chefren
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On 1/6/08 9:28 AM, Richard Stallman wrote: Providing a recipe to install a non-free program is very direct and clear support for its use. Clueless. With the internet everything is 1 click away, ah well, maybe one more. You have to think/work, yourselves to keep your system in the shape you want with every step you do with it. If you don't want to think, just disconnect the internet during the installation of OpenBSD and you have a system that's up to your and OpenBSD's standards. For now that is =impossible= with gNewSense so please stop using it and endorsing it. +++chefren
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Hey young man, On 1/6/08 8:31 AM, Karthik Kumar wrote: OpenBSD got pwned a year ago with another remote hole. There was a second remote hole, it's pretty sure nobody in the industry has misused it. Can you give us numbers of your favourite OS? I hope they find enough so they can stop bragging about 'Secure by default'. Hope... And of course =other= people should find them? You seem from the same church as RMS... OpenBSD is by all standards secure by default, even if the next 10 years another 2 or even 4 remote holes would be found. By the way, you can just start working on it and everyone here would love you. Not because we like you but because we don't like such holes. Do you realize that many people just can not live with 'default'? We all realize everyone is different and certainly not a copy of your pope. So only the truly necessary is on and you can add what you need with extremely little effort, and risk of course! Look: people do use OpenBSD for things other than plain old fvwm with xterm. And keeping security as a goal is not just for a stupid dubious marketing campaign. Without security as a main issue during development software that has to be connected to the internet is not usable. Your pope Richard Stallman =says= gNewSense is to his standards, but you need perhaps 200+ good, experienced, and dedicated developers to get Ubuntu to his prayers within 1 or 2 years. I strongly believe gNewSense has not one such a developer seriously busy with cleaning Ubuntu since it's clearly a waste of time. Not at least since Debian is a better start and OpenBSD is clear since quite some time. gNewSense can be put in the graveyard besides The Hurt and quite a few other old prayers of Richard. You know what? There are people here who started to dig the hole for GCC too, indeed little chance they will succeed but far more chance than gNewSence getting up to Richards prayers. +++chefren
Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
On 1/6/08 11:37 PM, Mihai Popescu B. S. wrote: If RMS came up with some statements, then the proper answer should have been Dear Mr. RMS, you are not so well informed about OpenBSD project please check this links I got that as a good answer for my questions. Not to mention the RTFM thing. You say on FAQ that beginners questions will not receive so much help, that the man is your friend. What the hell? 15 days of messages just to answer a beginner-like question. That is not fair ! :-) Mr Stallman says he cannot browse the web, we respect that and are helping him! I do think we shouldn't respond to his croonies. +++chefren
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 1/6/08 11:46 AM, Richard Stallman wrote: By using and endorsing gNewSense??? It seems you really don't read what's going on there, people working on it more or less scream out it's an impossible mission the way it's setup now and the project goals are not met for the foreseeable future. I don't read the gNewSense discussion lists -- I don't have time. But I did read the pages that someone forwarded to this list yesterday, and I saw nothing shocking in them. They simply acknowledge that mistakes are possible. You are looking at the details mistakes there are not interesting, not everyone is morally defect in this world! What's interesting is that they admit they cannot find all blobs without truly reading and understanding the code, they lack people for it. They haven't seen any users question/discussion for a really long time. And above all But using a distribution which bases on a quite good distribution (in the sense of freeness) and adds non-free components looks like a bad decision. (It's about Ubuntu, based on Debian, that adds non-free components without questions being asked.) http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnewsense-users/2007-11/msg00042.html with: I don't know how to find binary blobs. I dont' know what they look like in the source, so I'm almost totally useless as to determining non-license freedom - Brian's Builder tools are very limited to the version of the kernel gNewSense uses and will have to be re-tooled to handle the newer versions that future versions will be built. Because of this, despite our PFV we're still not 100% sure that user's freedoms are fully protected. and Brian Brazil: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnewsense-users/2007-11/msg00047.html Fundamentally, I don't believe a technical solution will help to resolve what is essentially a legal and social issue. While it would be nice to have an automated tool to verify licenses, the area as a whole has a large number of people with greatly differing visions of what freedom is and isn't. Add in things like detecting non-free items embedded in otherwise free code and you've got something that is, at best, a very meaty research project. Or: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnewsense-users/2007-11/msg00044.html We clearly have relied too much on the Debian copyright file, so I suppose a big help would be an automated way of classifying or clustering files in a package based on their license comments. This is from less than 2 months ago. You clearly cannot holdup that gNewSense is up to your standards, even the basics are not in place. You don't have a good source. Based on GPLvX you don't have the people to get it in place within years. If your ideas about software are so important for you as you say you would step over to OpenBSD today and live to your principles for the rest of your life without saying again and again I will ask I will check I made a small mistake, can you point me at, they told me, I don't think the words quoted are my exact words., I don't personally do most of our web site maintenance, I will discuss. +++chefren
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 1/5/08 3:31 PM, Richard Stallman wrote: You certainly don't live by what you preach. You are pointed at not one but various facts to the contrary. I do practice my own principles, By using and endorsing gNewSense??? It seems you really don't read what's going on there, people working on it more or less scream out it's an impossible mission the way it's setup now and the project goals are not met for the foreseeable future. As long as gNewSense is not clean, you should not use it and point at =real= alternatives. For example the OpenBSD distribution. You can simply warn your believers that they should never install something other that from the 3 distribution CDs and you would practice your own principles. You are warned for free so many times for so many facts on this list about why you don't practice your own principles that we can do nothing else than conclude you are a liar. Unnecessary and thus pathetic! +++chefren
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 1/3/08 10:55 AM, Richard Stallman wrote: I think you have misinterpreted the principles that I believe in and live by. You certainly don't live by what you preach. You are pointed at not one but various facts to the contrary. It would be good if you admitted so and stepped over to the only software distribution that is to your standards. I hope my explanations will help. Not one bit. To the contrary, this is an eye opener for lots of people who thought you have sound principles, they now see that the important part is clueless. You should give in that it is clueless to put the DRM bit in BSD that makes it GPL and sets programmers and companies less free than they could be. And if you look at results of your church you can see that religious DRM bit isn't necessary at all, churchless, more scientific, OpenBSD allows people to live to your standards =and= all other standards. +++chefren
Re: delete deleted data
On 1/4/08 3:03 AM, Greg Thomas wrote: On Jan 3, 2008 5:21 PM, Harpalus a Como [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Myth? Have you read this: http://www.nber.org/sys-admin/overwritten-data-guttman.html? Why are you so upset about this? Myth's that compel people to waste time and energy should be destroyed. It's not myth. Have you read this or any of the papers referenced here: http://www.nber.org/sys-admin/overwritten-data-guttman.html? Pretty sound text but proves nothing, you have to live with it that you don't know. As pointed out, if enough money is involved chances are there that recovery is possible. DDR Stasi agents and American embassy people in Iran all destroyed paper with military grade paper destroyers and it has proved to be readable. Also keep in mind what Diana wrote: Intelligence people need to keep things secret. If it was known they could break a type of code people would start using other codes that they cannot break. That would always lead to a seriously unwanted arms race. I can add to that: Police people are by nature even less interested in cracking techniques because for sound justice they have to be clear about their methods and sources. Police will tell you which locks are good for your door as long as they are sure they can get in themselves if necessary. +++chefren
Re: Improving disk reliability
On 1/3/08 11:35 PM, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 05:10:59PM +0100, knitti wrote: .. this is becoming OT, but I can't recommend storing HDDs as real backup solution either. HDDs _do_ have bitrot, and one should at least, say, once a year, verify that the *whole* disk is readable, ensuring that sectors which are not yet completely unreadable get remapped. Vaulting a DVD or a HDD for five years or more leaves you in both cases with the real possibility of data loss. If neither hard drives nor CD/DVDs are a good backup soluton, and networking the backup to another computer's hard drive (which then presumably also has the bitrot problem) isn't an option, and a DLT or whatever tape drive is too expensive: Then what other options are there? CF, USB stick? Just look at the specs! Basically magnetics detoriate very slowly compared to about any other technique used for storage. However, for harddisks the bit's are not seriously read after write the way it is done with good tape drives: A good tape drive verifies if a bit has enough magnetisation to make it readable after 30 years (Exabyte specified it that way). If the magnetisation is not enough for that the whole block will be rewritten. Since a tape is very robust compared to a harddisk, that's actually a very complicated system with alligned heads, software and electronic parts that age (diffusion of atoms!) so for backup nothing comes close to a good tape. If you use a disk array for backup just consider it a test system but not as a backup. +++chefren
Re: Improving disk reliability
On 1/4/08 6:22 PM, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: How well do tapes written with one drive read on another? Good, provide you use serious designed tape drives. Presuably, drives don't last for 30 years. .. How robust are the drives? How well do they age? It's difficult to speak for other makings but Exabyte always made it's newer generation drives read compatible with older generations. Most drives are in production for say 5 years, so the first 10 years are more or less covered. We are paid by a Dutch police department to keep 2 different generations of tape readable by unsupported Exabyte drives. We do so by carefully storing the last new drives we could buy and using a few other drives each month for backup operations and storing and not touching a few other good ones from different production series for spare parts. We are nearing 20 years of reliable reading tapes without any problem. I don't foresee problems for the next 5 years. +++chefren
Re: Richard Stallman...
On 1/4/08 7:14 PM, Siju George wrote: http://redfox.redfoxcenter.org/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=15560 is the man who is spreading all these lies about other decent Free Software developers. If you haven't seen him yet! Don't forget to take a look at the unforgettable all talk no action character with GNU horns behind the curtain on the paperwork of the OpenBSD 3.7 release CD. http://openbsd.org/lyrics.html#37 or more precise: http://openbsd.org/images/37song.gif +++chefren
Re: Is Visiting the gnewsense website or downloading it actively promoting the use of non-free software?
On 1/4/08 7:51 PM, Siju George wrote: http://www.gnewsense.org/FAQ/FAQ#toc3 Ah, don't forget to look here: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnewsense-users/2007-11/msg00042.html with: as we go along we find out now and then that we've got non-free software. Some scripts have been written to help automate these checks, but it still takes too long. and I don't believe that any package manager has built-in support for license issues and this is something that I think is a technical flaw that harms our distro .. I don't know how to find binary blobs. I dont' know what they look like in the source, so I'm almost totally useless as to determining non-license freedom And reaction: http://wiki.gnewsense.org/ForumMain/WhatSucksAboutGNewSense Yes it is hard to find non-free software in a distribution. It is probably much easier to start from scratch and add from day one only free software to your distribution. So you don't have to check existing packages, you just know that you have add only free software. Creating a distribution from scratch is probably to much work. So we have to go the second way: Build upon an existing distribution. GnewSense has waste already a lot of time with PFV. package freedom verification Time in which Gnewsense could have create a real good and up-to-date distribution. I think that's bad for GnewSense because thereby Gnewsense lost it's momentum. Just look at the mailinglist it calls itself a users-list but i haven't seen any users question/discussion for a really long time. So the overall question is how we can make PFV easier so that we can concentrate more on creating an exciting distribution instead of putting all our effort in checking licenses? For me the answer is clear. Gnewsense should build upon a distribution which already really cares about freedom. I can think about two possible distribution: (Debian and Fedora are mentioned, no OpenBSD of course...) I know the question upon which distribution Gnewsense should buid on was discussed many times before. But using a distribution which bases on a quite good distribution (in the sense of freeness) and adds non-free components looks like a bad decision. We see and feel this bad decisions more and more. Gnewsense struggles now for months to get Gnewsense 100% free. We could get this much cheaper with a different distribution and concentrate more on making a exciting distribution which attract (many) new users.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 1/1/08 8:42 PM, Paul Greidanus wrote: Aparently difficult and interesting questions don't get answers until they're posted to a list.. I believe your questions were not very interesting for OpenBSD, that is about a code base with absolute freedom, no strings attached. For most OpenBSD liking people it is no problem to ask money for whatever, no problem to use proprietary software, no problem to use proprietary hardware. Just one thing is clear: OpenBSD as a project doesn't accept unnecessary attached strings, neighther signing non disclosure documents nor code with silly licences (GPLvX, DBJ, etc). OpenBSD is not a church and best compared to science, individuals are doing their best to donate better code, openness and free are important aspects of it. If someone uses proprietary software tools to find buffer overflows, no problem with that as long as the OpenBSD code itself remains free. I'm still waiting for a reply of Richard to a private remark: If I repair your garbeled hard disk myself with GPL tools I presume that's OK, but if I send you a proprietary script that does the same it's morally wrong? Richard's church, like any church, clearly has some interesting goals, clearly met best by what the OpenBSD project produces. So the easiest way for Richard to get his gNewSense project meeting the church's goals is by each half year stripping the OpenBSD tree of a few links with a GPLv3 script. (Richard likes GPL, the average OpenBSD supporter thinks it's morally wrong to build a GPL shell around BSD but doesn't really mind!) Now he untruthfully says to his followers that gNewSense meets his goals while as far as I know most of the quite large driver list that Theo sent in today has no blob-free Linux equivalents. I presume that gNewSense users will have a lot of trouble to find hardware to work with. Really far less work for his followers to meet the churches goals by installing OpenBSD and delete just a few directories or use the files in them with some care. +++chefren (Who always asks people talking about GPLv3: And what will be in GPLv4?)
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 1/1/08 10:35 PM, Richard Stallman wrote: As for Intels use of non-free software, I am sorry for them, and I hope that someday they will be able to move to free software. Is this hope reasonable or logical? Totally not. Intel just wants the best software they can afford to get their chips as fast and as good as possible to market. They are not interested if the chip design software is or isn't open, they want the best they can afford. (If it was free they would spend money to people to make it even better and as much out of reach from rivaling companies like AMD...) And there is little difference with normal users, they just want software they can afford and that works. If software is cheap, because of GPL or BSD licences that helps but no more than that. Licenses are mainly interesting for developers, the donators, Richard wants them tied up with GPLvX, BSD let's them free and users don't care as long as it works and they can afford the support they need. +++chefren
Re: Embedding OpenBSD
On 12/31/07 3:51 AM, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 01:00:24AM +0100, chefren wrote: On 12/29/07 5:27 PM, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: Summary: I still suggest a heartbeat monitor and a modem. A heartbeat monitor makes the system seriously more complicated and thus less reliable. .. How does that help if the computer just crashes or freezes instead of just spontaneously rebooting? Sure, there's the version 0.0.1 Human to push a power button. The basic point is: Hardware should work reliably, if it isn't you have a broken system. Software idem. For the situation the hearbeat monitor works, it just proves the system is broken and it will reset the system again and again, clueless. Presumably, one can get solid reliable RS-232C heartbeat monitors that can trigger a power-cycle. If not, they're not that difficult to make assuming that you can source some reliable parts. I presume that's not the case. RS-232 is less and less available etc. And look at the workings of your heartbeat monitor: I bet it needs a loop in the software that pings it. With software failures: Big chance that loop still works and thus the heartbeat monitor isn't triggered while the system as a whole can be considered broken. Your heartbeat monitor also needs a way to power-cycle the whole system. Relays? How is/are these powered? Don't forget for all the cables and connectors needed. I thought this was about about reliability!!! KISS is the usefull acronym here. +++chefren
Re: Embedding OpenBSD
On 12/29/07 5:27 PM, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: Summary: I still suggest a heartbeat monitor and a modem. A heartbeat monitor makes the system seriously more complicated and thus less reliable. If the proposed system boots from a non writable medium (yes there are flash devices with a write-protect switch, CD-rom is also OK although dust collection on the laser detector is an issue) and works in memory, diskless!, unintended log events will be written to memory (that might overflow but who cares for this application) and the system always boots the same after power up. +++chefren
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On 12/16/07 9:20 PM, Richard Stallman wrote: No No NO. You miss the point. GNU is fighting for their view of freedom. Not *real* freedom. The GNU Project campaigns to give software users these four essential freedoms: Freedom 0: the freedom to run the program as you wish. Freedom 1: the freedom to study the source code and change it so it does what you wish. Freedom 2: the freedom to distribute exact copies to others when you wish. Freedom 3: the freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others when you wish. That's what I think is real freedom in regard to using a program. Whether or not you agree, at least you know what my views are. 1/2/3 are capping the the freedoms of the source, the programmer, the creator of programs. If a programmer has a bright idea he should be able to choose to give it away or make money with it, which gives her/him even more freedoms. Richards idea's of freedom mean slavery for precisely the creators. Without those there wouldn't be software at all. Besides that, I still think it's extremely impolite to give something away with something unnecessary attached to it, in this case DRM in pure form. So it's what you give priority, the individual (creator) or the group (that doesn't create in general). I do agree with Richard that dependency by the group should be adressed. I would like to propose a law that makes that software that is isn't supported any more for x years should become BSD licensed. The moment you let people use your software you make people dependent, that's OK as long as it's a free choice with service. But if the service stops the user can become a kind of enslaved and that's not OK +++chefren
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On 12/17/07 4:42 AM, Ray Percival wrote: Who wants to deny Stallman the freedom to do anything he wants? He has the freedom to say and do anything he would like. And I have the freedom to mock him for it. Everybody gets what they want. If he is selfish, for example because he want to lessen freedom of programmers without a proper reason, he may be denyed his unfree speech or at least attacked for it. And he is, he want's users to get things for free they haven't done anything for besides using it. +++chefren
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On 12/17/07 8:25 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: OpenBSD took insult where there was none This discussion is about basic principles and Richard Stallman denies facts contrary to what he states. +++chefren
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
I see both Theo and Richard as principled iconoclasts, stubbornly creating Eh, that was a very long time ago that Richard created interesting software... and promoting software that meets their individual high standards, meeting and overcoming difficult opposition. Richard Stallman's principles are =not= high standards, he doesn't keep up with reality at all (think of blobs and security) and he keeps trolling the open software community with an ancient communistic rule that's the essence of digital rights management. +++chefren
Re: OpenBSD 4.2 (AMSTERDAM) #1: Fri Nov 02 20:00:00 CEST 2007
On 11/3/07 8:21 PM, Floor Terra wrote: Dear OpenBSD users, The OpenBSd launch party last night at cafi De Deugniet was a great succes. It would be great to try to do the same for the next release. It was quite gezellig as we call it in The Netherlands. It appeared a few of the attendants were not aware of the local OpenBSD mailinglist for OpenBSD users: http://list.ii.nl/listinfo/openbsd If you do something with OpenBSD and can read Dutch, please feel free to subscribe to this low volume list with about 100 subscribers. +++chefren
False OpenBSD Sound
On 11/3/07 5:23 PM, Karel Kulhavy wrote: CL Sigh, I hoped he had grown up somewhat or learned something. Still the wrong edge! ---chefren
Re: Microsoft gets the Most Secure Operating Systems award
On 09/19/07 13:07, Die Gestalt wrote: On 9/19/07, Daniel Ouellet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think in German, it's call Chaise or something very close to that I believe, but I am absolutely sure the spelling is not good. .. ScheiC e? Merde? Using non-ASCII characters in e-mail is also: Scheisse! Wow misc is becoming cultural. OpenBSD and siblings are Definitely Pieces of Art. The craftsmanship with which the OpenBSD community handles software is comparable to painters handling materials, light and space a couple of hundred years ago. +++chefren p.s. Of course we have digital photographs and high res motion video these days... p.p.s. It was so good to see the recent stories of hacking iPhones: The first serious software they installed was OpenSSH!
Kuro5hin: OpenBSD Founder Theo deRaadt Has Conflict of Interest With AMD
OpenBSD Founder Theo deRaadt Has Conflict of Interest With AMD By David Marcus, 2007-08-05 03:41:29 Section: Technology, Topic: I formerly had a great deal of respect, bordering on admiration, for Theo deRaadt's refusals to compromise his open source principles, even in the face of stiff opposition. Although he has occasionally gone over-the-top, recommended some frankly very dubious changes to OpenBSD, and is regularly arrogant (which is even more annoying because he's so often right!), he's always remained consistent in his devotion to the cause of GNU/Free Software. http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2007/8/2/15233/84896
Re: heads up for current followers: fsck_ffs
On 04/23/07 17:06, Marco Peereboom wrote: When will you be fixed? ROFL... +++chefren
OT: Blocking of ICMP type 3 code 4 packets [Was: Prevent circumventing dansguardian with pf]
Although it's not well known TCP seriously depends on ICMP packets of type 3 code 4 for Path MTU Discovery (PTMTUD). Blocking of these packets lead to congested IP connections, broken transmissions and thus to frustrated users. Some documentation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pmtud http://www.usenix.org/events/lisa02/tech/full_papers/vanderberg/vanderberg_html/ http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2923.txt Various serious solutions: BSD: pass quick proto icmp from any to any icmp-type 3 code 4| Linux: iptables -I CHAIN-NAME -p ICMP --icmp-type 3/4 -j ACCEPT Check Point firewalls: Explicitly allow ICMP type 3 code 4 packets to the servers that use Path MTU Discovery A firewall that allows TCP and disallows ICMP type 3 code 4 is a broken firewall that should be repaired or replaced immediately since it's not usable for serious TCP traffic. +++chefren
Re: OpenBSD/alpha Status
J.C. Roberts wrote: On Monday 16 April 2007 14:14, Maurice Janssen wrote: I just thought of something which might be worth a try on systems that show the bug during system builds; use nice(1) to lower the build priority. It's a long shot, and I haven't tried it, but it *might* be a useful work around. Then again, it might be a waste of time. Could be bad luck, but it seems to have the opposite effect. It panic'd after a few minutes (details below), while up to now it used to run many hours before it panic'd. Hm, this could point to violated hardware specifications, memory cells that aren't used fast enough and thus not auto-refreshed in time. I presume the Alpha-bug is OpenBSD-only so it's definitely not a hardware problem? Could be that OpenBSD uses certain parts not often enough. Slow down the clocks to see if it's in that direction? And if so, start reading the datasheets... If someone in The Netherlands is really interested I can provide 433 and 500MHz Miata's, we also have an original DEC Alpha AXP development board available, I presume with a 166MHz 21064, boots via Ethernet with bootp. Ethernet, yes the original version, we have a DEC Ethernet-BNC adapter for it too. +++chefren
Re: GPL is free for forcing people to free code when they publish, not free as in free to do what you want, which is actually what free as in BSD, and real freedom ends at the tip of my nose
On 4/11/07 5:45 PM, Darrin Chandler wrote: Now that the subject is accurate, it's more obvious than ever that this discussion doesn't belong here. Not only is it not relevant, but it's been discussed to death many times, in many places. Clearly not to death and people here are seriously interested in pro and contra arguments. +++chefren p.s. GPLvX is BSD with DRM, GPLvX people try to rule after giving it away, new GPL versions are needed because the idea behind it is flawed, GPLvX people believe it can be fixed, BSD people know it's technically beyond repair since the first version.
Re: bcw(4) is gone
On 4/6/07 1:26 AM, Andris Delfino wrote: First, this wouldn't happen cause I prefer the BSD license, but, if someone violates the copyright of my work, I'll take that guy down. In the most publicly and shameful way. A) If you really prefer BSD you wouldn't care about what people do with your code, the only reason why your name as an author is in the code is because without that anybody could claim that's my code pay me, your name is there just to prevent other people put claims on it, not for your honour. BSD is about maximum open-ness and making it impossible to violate copyright. B) If you don't have the decency to inquire before you do harm to people, even to a type like Saddam Houssein you are plain stupid asshole. The whole situation makes me think of the sneaky guy in this one: http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/12523/f0abd313/index.html +++chefren
Re: Microsoft gets the Most Secure Operating Systems award
On 3/23/07 2:53 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote: Symantec have been trying to demonise OS X for a long while. And it is going to work soon. Because OS X has no Propolice-like compiler stack protection, nor anything like W^X which makes parts of the address space non-executable, nor anything like address space randomization which makes certain attacks very difficult, especially with the previous two techniques. Who says they don't have that all in their sleeves? Like OpenBSD OS X has a pretty clean and well maintained setup. I believe they can copy most of the defences without any problem from well tested OpenBSD and they would be pretty stupid if they didn't have done so already for testing. I presume they haven't put on those defenses to avoid problems with third party applications while there aren't serious security problems yet. So when they have a bug, it is exploitable just like bugs are on any other powerpc or i386 machine running some other operating system. These days even operating systems like Vista have the above 3 security technologies. But can we get back to OpenBSD discussions? Although misc carried quite some fluff lately, the implementation of more OpenBSD features in OS X is an interesting thought. +++chefren p.s. Maybe I was too harsh against Karel?
Re: No Blob without Puffy
On 3/19/07 4:48 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: You are so uninformed that it isn't even funny to pick on you. Karel clocks on the wrong edge and is by far the worst educated asocial asshole I have met on this list. +++chefren
Re: OT? Is this bad news?
On 2/13/07 7:15 PM, Andreas Bihlmaier wrote: I were the hulk, everything would have went green. Why? If people want to use blobs or write copyrighted code or GPL code, let them do so. Free world... Seriously WTF are those guys thinking? Nothing? There is no use to binary source drivers, they are not free/usable, They believe they can use them, and they obviously some kind of work. It's about quality, philosophy and so on if you think things should be free, others have an other opinion, let them. whether they are distributed as binaries by the vendor, or written under NDAs doesn't make a difference at all. We agree but they don't think this is a problem. They probably like signing agreements with big companies. Gives them some feeling of importance. I personally would feel like a dog with any unpaid agreement, but shees, let them! You know what happends when I tell my linux friends? Their argumentation goes along the lines of: You shouldn't be such a idealist, be more pragmatic. Damn it! cut 70 lines of green anger Incredible, go hiking, buy flowers... Okay sorry, there is no use the preach to the saints here, but what should one do against it? Nothing, wasted energy. Good moment to once more thank the OpenBSD devs for their 'long term pragmatics' instead of short lived 'well, now it works'. Yes! +++chefren
Re: dmesg and fdisk do not match about usb external disk
On 2/8/07 3:09 PM, mickey wrote: On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 03:02:32PM +0100, frantisek holop wrote: hmm, on Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 02:06:45PM +0100, mickey said that On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 10:13:29AM +0100, frantisek holop wrote: hmm, on Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 07:40:52PM -0500, Nick Holland said that It means translation is stupid, but we keep doing it. :) it is not really the translation that got me worried (although wouldn't it be more consistent to use the n x 255 x 63 version everywhere?) but the different number of sectors.. thanks for the great explanation. who gives a flying fuck? bios is using it's own geometry and we are using ours. how about you ask those spammers to send dick measurements in meters? perhaps this could go into the faq? what? dick measurement techniques? OpenBSD is about pro active security, those techniques should be integrated into the kernel. +++chefren
Re: dmesg and fdisk do not match about usb external disk
On 2/8/07 4:13 PM, mickey wrote: On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 03:22:21PM +0100, chefren wrote: On 2/8/07 3:09 PM, mickey wrote: On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 03:02:32PM +0100, frantisek holop wrote: hmm, on Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 02:06:45PM +0100, mickey said that On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 10:13:29AM +0100, frantisek holop wrote: hmm, on Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 07:40:52PM -0500, Nick Holland said that It means translation is stupid, but we keep doing it. :) it is not really the translation that got me worried (although wouldn't it be more consistent to use the n x 255 x 63 version everywhere?) but the different number of sectors.. thanks for the great explanation. who gives a flying fuck? bios is using it's own geometry and we are using ours. how about you ask those spammers to send dick measurements in meters? perhaps this could go into the faq? what? dick measurement techniques? OpenBSD is about pro active security, those techniques should be integrated into the kernel. this is a part of my plan right after i finally commit my optimised xml parser for kernel. it has also asm implemetation for vax (requires CIS-XML microcode though). OK, even better! Just to be sure, I know this is a little paranoid but the users really need it top notch: You won't forget full ASN.1 support won't you? +++chefren
Re: dmesg and fdisk do not match about usb external disk
On 2/8/07 5:59 PM, mickey wrote: On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 05:26:01PM +0100, chefren wrote: On 2/8/07 5:04 PM, mickey wrote: On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 04:27:21PM +0100, chefren wrote: On 2/8/07 4:13 PM, mickey wrote: On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 03:22:21PM +0100, chefren wrote: On 2/8/07 3:09 PM, mickey wrote: On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 03:02:32PM +0100, frantisek holop wrote: hmm, on Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 02:06:45PM +0100, mickey said that On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 10:13:29AM +0100, frantisek holop wrote: hmm, on Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 07:40:52PM -0500, Nick Holland said that It means translation is stupid, but we keep doing it. :) it is not really the translation that got me worried (although wouldn't it be more consistent to use the n x 255 x 63 version everywhere?) but the different number of sectors.. thanks for the great explanation. who gives a flying fuck? bios is using it's own geometry and we are using ours. how about you ask those spammers to send dick measurements in meters? perhaps this could go into the faq? what? dick measurement techniques? OpenBSD is about pro active security, those techniques should be integrated into the kernel. this is a part of my plan right after i finally commit my optimised xml parser for kernel. it has also asm implemetation for vax (requires CIS-XML microcode though). OK, even better! Just to be sure, I know this is a little paranoid but the users really need it top notch: You won't forget full ASN.1 support won't you? of course! it's a part of the original specification for this project we are doing for a very important customer that i cannot name openly here. it is going to change the world, man, as everything that comes from germany! you'll see. This shines too much, you cannot hide it! Godwins Law integrated in the kernel of OpenBSD, who would have thought about that??? Genial! nonono. godwin's law does not apply here. everybody knows now that xml was invented by (no less) herr joseph goebbels himself and was used to counter soviet propaganda (and also (as a byproduct) navigate V-2A7 rockets)! It's You! You are the traitor!!! +++chefren
Re: OT: Domain Name Freedom
On 2/3/07 2:29 PM, J.C. Roberts wrote: Please pardon the off topic post but last month some people on this list were wondering about Friendly Registrars after what happened to Fyodor (of nmap fame) with is seclists.org domain being shut down by godaddy. Via Politech: http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-6155614.html Page 4, the other side of the story: Once these people understand thousands of MySpace user names and passwords were exposed on the Internet and that we immediately contacted the customer and resolved the issue--re-enabling the site within one hour--they are not only satisfied with our response, but they THANKED us for what we did. Re-enabled within one hour after a serieous problem I see nothing wrong here. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11688078341r=1w=2 If you're interested in what's going on and possibly friendly registrars, Fyodor has set up a site about it. http://nodaddy.com/ As far as I see it Fyodor is just a hot headed asshole, I know lots of people who are very happy with Godaddy. They really have lots of customers and it's easy to find a few that aren't happy and start screaming about it. Besides I remember Godaddy being on this list: http://www.openbsd.org/donations.html And I remember the amount of money involved too. Godaddy is bij far the most OpenBSD frienly big registar +++chefren
Re: OT: Domain Name Freedom
On 2/3/07 10:36 PM, bofh wrote: Now I understand why Theo calls you an idiot. Bleh. OK, I received some additional information off-list and feel I have to apologize for some details. I still do say the posters of the information didn't respect privacy of others and Godaddy at least tried to be responsible. What's against a temporary suspension if something serious seems(!) to be going on where you have some responsibility? Please understand there are enough people who don't know this account information was circulating for some time, that it was posted to multiple lists and don't know what list-archives are and this was about one. What's clear to 95% of the people here is not clear to 99% of the people elsewhere. Some respect is needed to communicate and live together... I do agree Myspace was and is clueless, I'm for full disclosure of bugs but not for freely sending around information with sincere disrespect for the privacy of others and still don't see a serious problem with Godaddy that's obviously =very= OpenBSD friendly. +++chefren (Who with Theo and others has no problem with usage of OpenBSD for baby mulching machines but who also would cut the power for those machines if I =knew= the current was going through lines under my responsibility.)
Re: FUDv6 (Re: Is Theo still hiking ????)
On 01/29/07 17:07, Jeroen Massar wrote: Juniper doesn't provide 6to4, ah as they can't do that in hardware. I presume they believe it's too expensive or believe too few customers want to pay for it or or or. In general everything that can be programmed in softwware can be done in hardware and Juniper more or less exists because they did things with hardware that others kept doing with software. +++chefren
Re: ccd, disklabel and partition 'a'
On 1/28/07 11:09 PM, Patrick Useldinger wrote: Guys, this is all turning to complete bullshit, and it's not only my fault. If anyone actually cared reading my post, my question was simple: == where is the disklabel stored, and what is its size? == If you don't know the answer you don't know if the questions is simple. If you really want to know, read the published code, obviously you don't want to do so. No problem that's why people offered their help. The question was generic, and I wanted a generic answer. Not the answer to the question where is MY disklabel stored in MY specific case. Now asking for a dmesg, fdisk or disklabel output makes no sense. Nor do the answers from your RTFM-bots. What's next - my social security number? If I would be you I would post what's asked. No problem if you repeat your question above it but if you want help and at least 3 very skillful people try to help you just do what they ask. +++chefren
Re: A PHP management interface for OpenBSD ?
On 1/25/07 1:34 AM, Passeur wrote: We are in the process of developing a PHP framework with a web frontend to manage the OpenBSD settings through a web browser. It should be handy, I presume =all= configs, logins, groups, passwords and for example the settings for Apache and PHP itself included? A friend advised me not to do that because of all the security holes I will introduce on OpenBSD. He advised me rather using PHP to use CGI/PERL. What is your opinion ? Let's punch through all carefully designed security layers of OpenBSD with a 'program' based on the most insecure language of the planet. Clueless +++chefren
Re: OT Re: 'database filesystems'
On 01/10/07 01:21, Mathieu Sauve-Frankel wrote: Could you guys please take this completely useless discussion off-list ? It has absolutely zero value to anyone running or developing OpenBSD. Ah, it's clueless to try to think beond FFS and aim a little higher? +++chefren
