Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 07:43:05PM +, Jacob Meuser wrote: On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 03:01:40PM +0100, Marc Espie wrote: On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 04:18:42PM +0100, Miod Vallat wrote: SO now do you want FireEngine? Or rather SMPng networking? Or would you like ReallyHyperFastZoomStreamCyberWoosh? Now that you've brought it up, I would really like a ReallyHyperFastZoomStreamCyberWoosh TCP stack. Just make sure it doesn't require 1.2Jigawatts of power and have interesting side effects when it gets to 88mph. But ReallyHyperFastZoomStreamCyberWoosh is designed for processors with the HyperVirtualFuzzboxVoodooDoubleStream extension. Porting it to OpenBSD would seriously impact performance of OpenBSD on mundane processors. Nonsense, as long as you can plug in some plutonium, things should be fine. Are you tellin' me this sucker is nuclear? No, just that transactions across it are atomic Now, where is that chisel. I'd like to see some bubbles here. -sm
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 04:18:42PM +0100, Miod Vallat wrote: SO now do you want FireEngine? Or rather SMPng networking? Or would you like ReallyHyperFastZoomStreamCyberWoosh? Now that you've brought it up, I would really like a ReallyHyperFastZoomStreamCyberWoosh TCP stack. Just make sure it doesn't require 1.2Jigawatts of power and have interesting side effects when it gets to 88mph. But ReallyHyperFastZoomStreamCyberWoosh is designed for processors with the HyperVirtualFuzzboxVoodooDoubleStream extension. Porting it to OpenBSD would seriously impact performance of OpenBSD on mundane processors. Nonsense, as long as you can plug in some plutonium, things should be fine.
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 03:01:40PM +0100, Marc Espie wrote: On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 04:18:42PM +0100, Miod Vallat wrote: SO now do you want FireEngine? Or rather SMPng networking? Or would you like ReallyHyperFastZoomStreamCyberWoosh? Now that you've brought it up, I would really like a ReallyHyperFastZoomStreamCyberWoosh TCP stack. Just make sure it doesn't require 1.2Jigawatts of power and have interesting side effects when it gets to 88mph. But ReallyHyperFastZoomStreamCyberWoosh is designed for processors with the HyperVirtualFuzzboxVoodooDoubleStream extension. Porting it to OpenBSD would seriously impact performance of OpenBSD on mundane processors. Nonsense, as long as you can plug in some plutonium, things should be fine. Are you tellin' me this sucker is nuclear? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
Jacob Meuser wrote: Marc Espie wrote: Nonsense, as long as you can plug in some plutonium, things should be fine. Are you tellin' me this sucker is nuclear? ...Mr. Fusion? ;) -Nix Fan.
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 07:43:05PM +, Jacob Meuser wrote: On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 03:01:40PM +0100, Marc Espie wrote: On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 04:18:42PM +0100, Miod Vallat wrote: SO now do you want FireEngine? Or rather SMPng networking? Or would you like ReallyHyperFastZoomStreamCyberWoosh? Now that you've brought it up, I would really like a ReallyHyperFastZoomStreamCyberWoosh TCP stack. Just make sure it doesn't require 1.2Jigawatts of power and have interesting side effects when it gets to 88mph. But ReallyHyperFastZoomStreamCyberWoosh is designed for processors with the HyperVirtualFuzzboxVoodooDoubleStream extension. Porting it to OpenBSD would seriously impact performance of OpenBSD on mundane processors. Nonsense, as long as you can plug in some plutonium, things should be fine. Are you tellin' me this sucker is nuclear? No, just that transactions across it are atomic :) doug.
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
Nonsense, as long as you can plug in some plutonium, things should be fine. Are you tellin' me this sucker is nuclear? ...Mr. Fusion? ;) Not until there's a Chorus about it. Miod
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:15:41 +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 1:05 PM, ropers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 20/02/2008, Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 20, 2008 4:58 PM, Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-02-17 13:38]: Wouldn't it be nice to have a high performance networking stack? yeah. guess what we have? exactly that. (which doesn't mean it could be even faster) Pardon if I sound ignorant, but isn't our networking stack based on the 24 year old technology from Berkeley? Pardon if I sound ignorant, but isn't our Bugatti Veyron based on the millennia old wheel technology? The wheel isn't the technology, it is a concept. An implementation of the wheel concept would be the technology. The concept is the same, but the technology is certainly different. Are you saying your Bugatti Veyron is running on wooden wheels? ~Mayuresh Yawnn... Rod/ /earth: write failed, file system is full cp: /earth/creatures: No space left on device
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On 2/19/08, Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: something as good as FireEngine, I'm following this thread with quite some amusement, but one thing is not in the least clear to me: why do you think you want something as good as FireEngine. Heck, even under the assumption FireEngine is Really Good (TM), you should compare it to the *new* stack of FreeBSD, whose marketing blurb has at least a bit more meaty than Sun's. http://www.meetbsd.org/storage/kris.kennaway_meetbsd2007.pdf SO now do you want FireEngine? Or rather SMPng networking? Or would you like ReallyHyperFastZoomStreamCyberWoosh? You can't decide? You have not even shown a corner case, much less in general why it would be desirable to completely throw away the current architecture. I use OpenBSD since 3.0 on very small CPUs and also on rather big ones (all i386 and amd64, though), and I don't remember a single case in which network stack performance wouldn't at least have met my expectations. What performance difference are you expecting? Do you know the implications, which the different approaches impose on the kernel architecture? Even if there would be a developer, who would in principle be open to the idea, you have to show her that it is worth the hassle. But you don't even know what you're talking about. If *I* were a developer, I would be offended by the notion that AnotherSolution is *that* *much* *better* (as you imply) _without_ showing any evidence. --knitti
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 8:52 AM, knitti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SO now do you want FireEngine? Or rather SMPng networking? Or would you like ReallyHyperFastZoomStreamCyberWoosh? Now that you've brought it up, I would really like a ReallyHyperFastZoomStreamCyberWoosh TCP stack. Just make sure it doesn't require 1.2Jigawatts of power and have interesting side effects when it gets to 88mph. -- http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity. -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation. Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted. -- Gene Spafford learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0feature=related
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
SO now do you want FireEngine? Or rather SMPng networking? Or would you like ReallyHyperFastZoomStreamCyberWoosh? Now that you've brought it up, I would really like a ReallyHyperFastZoomStreamCyberWoosh TCP stack. Just make sure it doesn't require 1.2Jigawatts of power and have interesting side effects when it gets to 88mph. But ReallyHyperFastZoomStreamCyberWoosh is designed for processors with the HyperVirtualFuzzboxVoodooDoubleStream extension. Porting it to OpenBSD would seriously impact performance of OpenBSD on mundane processors. Miod
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Feb 20, 2008 12:52 PM, Duncan Patton a Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:47:54 +0530 Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 20, 2008 2:59 AM, Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 19, 2008 4:50 AM, Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's the reason I've been gathering good C developers, so that they could either; 1. take up complex projects like FireEngine/DTrace, 2. write replacements for as many GNU tools/utilities as possible, 3. be a landing stage for newer developers who get intimidated by the intensity of the core developers. good luck with that. be sure to let us know when it's all done, ok? thanks. If thats sarcasm its really not warranted. If its not sarcasm, then we'll be posting to the list about our progress. Also, Ted, I'm sorry if you felt offended by my ranting about you not completing kernel threads, but the loss of those developers really felt bad. ~Mayuresh Looks to me like your Tivo Box project might need to actually pay someone to write a threads library. This is the second time someone has mentioned about a project that does not exist. What's gotten into you people? ~Mayuresh
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:11:34 +0530 Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 20, 2008 12:52 PM, Duncan Patton a Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:47:54 +0530 Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 20, 2008 2:59 AM, Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 19, 2008 4:50 AM, Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's the reason I've been gathering good C developers, so that they could either; 1. take up complex projects like FireEngine/DTrace, 2. write replacements for as many GNU tools/utilities as possible, 3. be a landing stage for newer developers who get intimidated by the intensity of the core developers. good luck with that. be sure to let us know when it's all done, ok? thanks. If thats sarcasm its really not warranted. If its not sarcasm, then we'll be posting to the list about our progress. Also, Ted, I'm sorry if you felt offended by my ranting about you not completing kernel threads, but the loss of those developers really felt bad. ~Mayuresh Looks to me like your Tivo Box project might need to actually pay someone to write a threads library. This is the second time someone has mentioned about a project that does not exist. What's gotten into you people? ~Mayuresh It's a question of the alienability of the BSD License. Unlike Linux, the BSD license allows you the freedom of moving the software into a proprietary configuration which permits a conventional profit model. You are ragging on Ted for not having provided you with a feature for your project which is not seen to be of the widest possible utility, and which might adversley influence some of OBSD's more crucial feature if not implemented with enormous care. Basically you are asking him to provide your 4profit model with free work that would not necessarily benefit the project OR other 4profit models. Mebbe if you really need threads (because some code you intend to import uses them) then you should offer to PAY Ted to do this (for the project?). This would likely provide him with the kind of incentive he needs to do something seen as not crucial by his peers. Dhu
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
* Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-02-17 13:38]: Wouldn't it be nice to have a high performance networking stack? yeah. guess what we have? exactly that. (which doesn't mean it could be even faster) -- Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg Amsterdam
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Feb 20, 2008 4:58 PM, Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-02-17 13:38]: Wouldn't it be nice to have a high performance networking stack? yeah. guess what we have? exactly that. (which doesn't mean it could be even faster) Pardon if I sound ignorant, but isn't our networking stack based on the 24 year old technology from Berkeley?
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
* Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-02-20 13:12]: On Feb 20, 2008 4:58 PM, Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-02-17 13:38]: Wouldn't it be nice to have a high performance networking stack? yeah. guess what we have? exactly that. (which doesn't mean it could be even faster) Pardon if I sound ignorant, but isn't our networking stack based on the 24 year old technology from Berkeley? so? isn't your computer running on 100 years old technology called electricity? -- Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg Amsterdam
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
could you please stop this shit and continue the conversation privately? People registered at misc know well why they are using obsd. We don't need this discussion. 2008/2/20, Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: * Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-02-20 13:12]: On Feb 20, 2008 4:58 PM, Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-02-17 13:38]: Wouldn't it be nice to have a high performance networking stack? yeah. guess what we have? exactly that. (which doesn't mean it could be even faster) Pardon if I sound ignorant, but isn't our networking stack based on the 24 year old technology from Berkeley? so? isn't your computer running on 100 years old technology called electricity? -- Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg Amsterdam
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
Touchi! -- Thanks, Jordi Espasa Clofent
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Feb 20, 2008 5:52 PM, Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-02-20 13:12]: On Feb 20, 2008 4:58 PM, Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-02-17 13:38]: Wouldn't it be nice to have a high performance networking stack? yeah. guess what we have? exactly that. (which doesn't mean it could be even faster) Pardon if I sound ignorant, but isn't our networking stack based on the 24 year old technology from Berkeley? so? isn't your computer running on 100 years old technology called electricity? But that 100 year old technology used to be DC earlier, then it was converted to AC because of its inherent benefits. Similarly, wouldn't it have been beneficial to go for a modern approach for the network stack? (not that now I can do anything about it, all's lost for me) Could you please read http://research.sun.com/minds/2007-0710/ ~Mayuresh
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
* Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-02-20 14:07]: On Feb 20, 2008 5:52 PM, Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-02-20 13:12]: On Feb 20, 2008 4:58 PM, Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-02-17 13:38]: Wouldn't it be nice to have a high performance networking stack? yeah. guess what we have? exactly that. (which doesn't mean it could be even faster) Pardon if I sound ignorant, but isn't our networking stack based on the 24 year old technology from Berkeley? so? isn't your computer running on 100 years old technology called electricity? But that 100 year old technology used to be DC earlier, then it was converted to AC because of its inherent benefits. way over a hundred years ago, yes (except for some small irrelevant isles like parts of new york if memory serves). Similarly, wouldn't it have been beneficial to go for a modern approach for the network stack? we have a very modern approach: correct, secure and fast. (not that now I can do anything about it, all's lost for me) Could you please read http://research.sun.com/minds/2007-0710/ yeah, i did, lots of marketing blubber, lots of bla bla, lots of vague indications, nothing concrete, nothing technical. -- Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg Amsterdam
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
Henning Brauer wrote: * Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-02-20 14:07]: (not that now I can do anything about it, all's lost for me) Could you please read http://research.sun.com/minds/2007-0710/ yeah, i did, lots of marketing blubber, lots of bla bla, lots of vague indications, nothing concrete, nothing technical. Mostly Lets fix Slow-aris is what I saw. Unless you are in a slow-aris situation, moving to whatever they did might not be an improvement. ;)
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On 2008/02/20 14:14, Henning Brauer wrote: * Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-02-20 14:07]: On Feb 20, 2008 5:52 PM, Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: isn't your computer running on 100 years old technology called electricity? But that 100 year old technology used to be DC earlier, then it was converted to AC because of its inherent benefits. way over a hundred years ago, yes (except for some small irrelevant isles like parts of new york if memory serves). and, those data centres and telcos who have worked out that converting AC-DC-AC-DC (or DC-AC-DC-AC-DC when the power comes from something like PV cells...) is not the smartest thing they could be doing...
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
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. 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. Similarly, wouldn't it have been beneficial to go for a modern approach for the network stack? There only is perceived benefit; which clearly mean you fell for the marketing bullets. Good, go buy sun stuff and run their OS. It is as nice a UNIX as you'll find. we have a very modern approach: correct, secure and fast. Amen! (not that now I can do anything about it, all's lost for me) Maybe some drama classes are in order. Could you please read http://research.sun.com/minds/2007-0710/ yeah, i did, lots of marketing blubber, lots of bla bla, lots of vague indications, nothing concrete, nothing technical. That piece was more than worthless. Some ding dong said ooh ooh I made it faster. Well fantastic! Unfortunately there is no quantification of faster. 0 x fast is still 0. Besides if you actually understood the beauty and elegance that is the OpenBSD TCP/IP stack you wouldn't be yammering about marketing horseshit. Old != bad. Actually, over the last few years in computer land new == bad (java, xml, c++ etc).
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 13:14, Henning Brauer wrote: * Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-02-20 14:07]: On Feb 20, 2008 5:52 PM, Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-02-20 13:12]: On Feb 20, 2008 4:58 PM, Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-02-17 13:38]: Wouldn't it be nice to have a high performance networking stack? yeah. guess what we have? exactly that. (which doesn't mean it could be even faster) Pardon if I sound ignorant, but isn't our networking stack based on the 24 year old technology from Berkeley? so? isn't your computer running on 100 years old technology called electricity? But that 100 year old technology used to be DC earlier, then it was converted to AC because of its inherent benefits. way over a hundred years ago, yes (except for some small irrelevant isles like parts of new york if memory serves). Similarly, wouldn't it have been beneficial to go for a modern approach for the network stack? we have a very modern approach: correct, secure and fast. (not that now I can do anything about it, all's lost for me) Could you please read http://research.sun.com/minds/2007-0710/ yeah, i did, lots of marketing blubber, lots of bla bla, lots of vague indications, nothing concrete, nothing technical. I did read this as well, and for my two tiny cents it has to be said that OBSD runs a great deal faster on my (admittedly rather elderly) Sun boxen than Solaris ever did. -- Fergus Wilde Chetham's Library Long Millgate Manchester M3 1SB Tel: 0161 834 7961 Fax: 0161 839 5797 http://www.chethams.org.uk
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Wednesday 20 February 2008, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: isn't your computer running on 100 years old technology called electricity? But that 100 year old technology used to be DC earlier, then it was converted to AC because of its inherent benefits. Similarly, wouldn't it have been beneficial to go for a modern approach for the network stack? (not that now I can do anything about it, all's lost for me) Could you please read http://research.sun.com/minds/2007-0710/ If you're going to ask people to read up on the Solaris networking stack, at least give them a technical document rather than a blog/marketing piece: http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/features/articles/solaris_networking.jsp The background section should explain to you why Solaris experienced performance issues with its STREAMS-based stack, which they have since replaced with ``FireEngine''. The OpenBSD stack does not exhibit these same performance problems. Have you done any benchmarks? -- = Joel Sing | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 0419 577 603 = Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. - Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
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: What is our ultimate goal??
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 1:05 PM, ropers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 20/02/2008, Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 20, 2008 4:58 PM, Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-02-17 13:38]: Wouldn't it be nice to have a high performance networking stack? yeah. guess what we have? exactly that. (which doesn't mean it could be even faster) Pardon if I sound ignorant, but isn't our networking stack based on the 24 year old technology from Berkeley? Pardon if I sound ignorant, but isn't our Bugatti Veyron based on the millennia old wheel technology? The wheel isn't the technology, it is a concept. An implementation of the wheel concept would be the technology. The concept is the same, but the technology is certainly different. Are you saying your Bugatti Veyron is running on wooden wheels? ~Mayuresh
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On 20/02/2008, Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 20, 2008 4:58 PM, Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-02-17 13:38]: Wouldn't it be nice to have a high performance networking stack? yeah. guess what we have? exactly that. (which doesn't mean it could be even faster) Pardon if I sound ignorant, but isn't our networking stack based on the 24 year old technology from Berkeley? Pardon if I sound ignorant, but isn't our Bugatti Veyron based on the millennia old wheel technology?
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
Zbigniew Baniewski wrote: On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:42:38AM +0100, Marc Espie wrote: You're an idiot. [..] Think about it. Idiots don't think. If you didn't knew it - you're even bigger idiot, than I am. could_not_resist Oh, but they do! They are just not very successful. ;-) /could_not_resist The suggestion about installing packages into /whatever is fine if stated as a suggestion and/or question. I do not agree, but still I think the question is valid. However, adding It doesn't need any funding to fix this. makes it seem like a mistake that is trivial to fix, and I can understand if that pisses Marc off. BTW, think about all ports with hardcoded paths to /usr/local/dependency. One might argue that those ports are broken, but I'd guess there are quite a lot of them. /Alexander
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
Trolling a troll. Do you like bing trolled? Do you think the list like being trolled by you? I know what I am doing. You apparently have no clue what you are doing. There are good and nice people on this list. I am not one of them. -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 2:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? You claim that the thread is already polluted far beyond your feeble efforts to further such. So you agree that you are polluting the list. Then you are a troll. On Feb 19, 2008 12:38 PM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You claim you don't have enough vision or intelligence to understand me. and you offer (to the list included) no explanation. I may lack the vision and intelli9gence, but why do you insist that the rest of the list also lacks vision and intelligence? This thread is already polluted far beyond my feeble efforts to further such. Innate quality of threads? Imagine this thread if (no make that when) some thread decides to go beserk. (That is assuming you are in fact capable of imagining anything) Just think, if this were shared memory I could be popping up in ALL your correspondences. -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? Tony, you are really weird, stop polluting the mailing list with all of your useless garbage. If you want to have an email based altercation with me, do it off-list. About my true colours, forget it, you don't have enough vision or intelligence to understand me. On Feb 19, 2008 12:22 PM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I may be an oaf, but it is with FULL REALIZATION THAT I AM SENDING THIS TO THE LIST MY PURPOSE IN DOING SO IS TO PAINT YOU WITH SOMEHTING RESEMBLING YOUR TRUE COLORS. BTW, what is the color of a dead goat? -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? You are an Oaf, you don't realise that you are sending all these useless emails to the list where its not needed, while *I* on the other hand have been only sending mails to you. Thats why I say, you are disconnected from reality. Go get yourself a life, and more importantly, get yourself treated from a psychiatrist. On Feb 19, 2008 12:11 PM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which half? You really ought to go back to kindergarden. -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? From this long nonsensical discussion, I'm sure, you are a schizophrenic. On Feb 19, 2008 12:03 PM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think therefore I am. I think you are a billy goat, therefore you are. -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? There you go again, disconnected from reality. Please don't even try to think. On Feb 19, 2008 11:59 AM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dead billy goat or dead nanny goat? which are you? -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? Are you as weird as your writing suggests. Do you get disconnected from reality when you start thinking? On Feb 19, 2008 9:53 AM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand English sentences. What is this English-based sentences you speak of? My logic may be flawed, but it seems it surpasses you abilty to elucidate the exact nature of the presumed flaw. I've got a life. What have you got. In fact beating up on dead goats might make an entertaining diversion. -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 17:33:12 +0530 Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It just led me to ponder, what is OpenBSD's ultimate goal? What, exactly, is yours? I've read thru this thread and you are remarkably obscure about your intentions, but it seems to me that OBSD somehow does not fit your marketing plan, which seems to have a lot in common with New, Improved, Diamond-shaped Shreddies. Dhu
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:07:50AM +0100, Alexander Hall wrote: The suggestion about installing packages into /whatever is fine if stated as a suggestion and/or question. I do not agree, but still I think the question is valid. However, adding It doesn't need any funding to fix this. makes it seem like a mistake that is trivial to fix, and I can understand if that pisses Marc off. ...however it was just an answer to Michael Dexters suggestion... (read the thread). BTW, think about all ports with hardcoded paths to /usr/local/dependency. One might argue that those ports are broken, but I'd guess there are quite a lot of them. Hardcoded? So, changing LOCALBASE could be even dangerous, I'm afraid. Nothing can I do then with this. -- pozdrawiam / regards Zbigniew Baniewski
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Feb 19, 2008 5:16 PM, Duncan Patton a Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 17:33:12 +0530 Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It just led me to ponder, what is OpenBSD's ultimate goal? What, exactly, is yours? My ultimate goal is to have an OS which would give me; stability, security, a better default window manager, something as good as DTrace, something as good as FireEngine, a file system which would hold a lot of big files, you can assume it to be porn if you want :-) and, a system which is as free off GNU software as possible. That's the reason I've been gathering good C developers, so that they could either; 1. take up complex projects like FireEngine/DTrace, 2. write replacements for as many GNU tools/utilities as possible, 3. be a landing stage for newer developers who get intimidated by the intensity of the core developers. I've read thru this thread and you are remarkably obscure about your intentions, but it seems to me that OBSD somehow does not fit your marketing plan, which seems to have a lot in common with New, Improved, Diamond-shaped Shreddies. I've clearly pointed out what I've wanted since my second mail to the thread. I don't *have* a marketing plan, I'm a developer, remember? ~Mayuresh
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
Mayuresh Kathe ha scritto: On Feb 19, 2008 5:16 PM, Duncan Patton a Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 17:33:12 +0530 Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It just led me to ponder, what is OpenBSD's ultimate goal? What, exactly, is yours? My ultimate goal is to have an OS which would give me; stability, security, a better default window manager, something as good as DTrace, something as good as FireEngine, a file system which would hold a lot of big files, you can assume it to be porn if you want :-) Download OpenSolaris from sun.com or ask Sun to send by mail, it's free of charge, and dont break anymore. A bunch of developers work every fuckin day to give us a good operating system, if you dont like it, change and dont bother. and, a system which is as free off GNU software as possible. That's the reason I've been gathering good C developers, so that they could either; 1. take up complex projects like FireEngine/DTrace, 2. write replacements for as many GNU tools/utilities as possible, 3. be a landing stage for newer developers who get intimidated by the intensity of the core developers. Again, use OpenSolaris, in Sun new developers and core developers are just scared to be fired. I've read thru this thread and you are remarkably obscure about your intentions, but it seems to me that OBSD somehow does not fit your marketing plan, which seems to have a lot in common with New, Improved, Diamond-shaped Shreddies. I've clearly pointed out what I've wanted since my second mail to the thread. I don't *have* a marketing plan, I'm a developer, remember? Are you a java developer right? Perfect, work on OpenSDK or Glassfish project. Or at least for javadesktopsystem. You can use on OpenSolaris Sun Studio or Netbeans, or eclipse. ~Mayuresh I hope this thread need to be closed, this thread smell like a fish after four days. Francesco PS = You dont understand my english, ok, but i think this post it's sharp.period.
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
William Boshuck ha scritto: On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:16:08AM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: ... I've NEVER got any of the code for FREE, Yes, you did. The code is free. The CDs are not. Maybe Mr.Mayuresh Kathe, dont know anoncvs[1]. By a 4.2 release, we can download a bootable iso from ftp site. So, at least the first cd it's free too :P [1] http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 08:12:46AM -0600, Tony Abernethy wrote: Fair No. It is like dead fish after 4 days. Actually, what was private in that message? You don't have to wonder, what. Any correspondence, which hasn't been sent to the public, is private - and needs the agreement of the party to be published. Especially such emotional one. -- pozdrawiam / regards Zbigniew Baniewski
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
Fair No. It is like dead fish after 4 days. Actually, what was private in that message? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Zbigniew Baniewski Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 8:01 AM To: misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:52:35AM -0600, Tony Abernethy wrote: I may be an oaf, but it is with FULL REALIZATION THAT I AM SENDING THIS TO THE LIST MY PURPOSE IN DOING SO IS TO PAINT YOU WITH SOMEHTING RESEMBLING YOUR TRUE COLORS. Is it fair? Some day, someone other will forward _your_ private correspondence to the public. If you don't like your opponents attitude - just stop talking to him, and it's enough. -- pozdrawiam / regards Zbigniew Baniewski
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
If you mean it is now my private property, then I am free to do with it as I please. Otherwise, if it should be kept private, maybe it should be kept private. Why should a discussion of threads be souch an emotional one? Do the threads have feeling now? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Zbigniew Baniewski Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 8:20 AM To: misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 08:12:46AM -0600, Tony Abernethy wrote: Fair No. It is like dead fish after 4 days. Actually, what was private in that message? You don't have to wonder, what. Any correspondence, which hasn't been sent to the public, is private - and needs the agreement of the party to be published. Especially such emotional one. -- pozdrawiam / regards Zbigniew Baniewski
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
Tony Abernethy a icrit : If you mean it is now my private property, then I am free to do with it as I please. Otherwise, if it should be kept private, maybe it should be kept private. Why should a discussion of threads be souch an emotional one? Do the threads have feeling now? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Zbigniew Baniewski Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 8:20 AM To: misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 08:12:46AM -0600, Tony Abernethy wrote: Fair No. It is like dead fish after 4 days. Actually, what was private in that message? You don't have to wonder, what. Any correspondence, which hasn't been sent to the public, is private - and needs the agreement of the party to be published. Especially such emotional one. -- pozdrawiam / regards Zbigniew Baniewski Since you are both discussing about privacy, could you *please* take this discussion private ? Thanks
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
Zbigniew Baniewski wrote: On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:52:35AM -0600, Tony Abernethy wrote: I may be an oaf, but it is with FULL REALIZATION THAT I AM SENDING THIS TO THE LIST MY PURPOSE IN DOING SO IS TO PAINT YOU WITH SOMEHTING RESEMBLING YOUR TRUE COLORS. Is it fair? Some day, someone other will forward _your_ private correspondence to the public. If you don't like your opponents attitude - just stop talking to him, and it's enough. From that should I deduce that you LIKE my attitude? Otherwise, seems you are incapable of taking your own advice. Proponents of something who cannot stand their own advice --- dubious at best. What's the term? locally self-contradictory? Imagine the errors when things are not so tightly connected.
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
Zbigniew Baniewski wrote: On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 08:37:33AM -0600, Tony Abernethy wrote: You mean that the proponents of threads are overyly emotional? If the sides are calling each other with terms like idiot - or something similar - do you really find it as non-emotional? How do you intend to have rational discourse in such an event? As you can see, yesterday OpenBSD-developer called me an idiot - just because I dare to not agree with him. Most likely because you ARE an idiot.
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:52:35AM -0600, Tony Abernethy wrote: I may be an oaf, but it is with FULL REALIZATION THAT I AM SENDING THIS TO THE LIST MY PURPOSE IN DOING SO IS TO PAINT YOU WITH SOMEHTING RESEMBLING YOUR TRUE COLORS. Is it fair? Some day, someone other will forward _your_ private correspondence to the public. If you don't like your opponents attitude - just stop talking to him, and it's enough. -- pozdrawiam / regards Zbigniew Baniewski
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 08:42:13AM -0600, Tony Abernethy wrote: If you mean it is now my private property, then I am free to do with it as I please. Otherwise, if it should be kept private, maybe it should be kept private. Why should a discussion of threads be souch an emotional one? Do the threads have feeling now? I'm pretty sure - I'm supposing this in your favor - that you know, what I mean. The semantics used above isn't going to change anything; we aren't in court at the trial here, anyway. -- pozdrawiam / regards Zbigniew Baniewski
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Feb 19, 2008 4:50 AM, Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's the reason I've been gathering good C developers, so that they could either; 1. take up complex projects like FireEngine/DTrace, 2. write replacements for as many GNU tools/utilities as possible, 3. be a landing stage for newer developers who get intimidated by the intensity of the core developers. good luck with that. be sure to let us know when it's all done, ok? thanks.
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:39:50AM +0100, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote: On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:07:50AM +0100, Alexander Hall wrote: The suggestion about installing packages into /whatever is fine if stated as a suggestion and/or question. I do not agree, but still I think the question is valid. However, adding It doesn't need any funding to fix this. makes it seem like a mistake that is trivial to fix, and I can understand if that pisses Marc off. ...however it was just an answer to Michael Dexters suggestion... (read the thread). BTW, think about all ports with hardcoded paths to /usr/local/dependency. One might argue that those ports are broken, but I'd guess there are quite a lot of them. Hardcoded? So, changing LOCALBASE could be even dangerous, I'm afraid. Nothing can I do then with this. While I guess it would be nice if every package looked for LOCALBASE, I think that every OS/distro has its own version of hier which you violate at your peril. You don't happen to agree that OpenBSD uses /usr/local for things under the controll of package management. However, bucking that is likely more hard work than its worth. I put my little scripts that I want system wide in /opt/[domain]/usr/... which leaves /usr/local free for OBSD stuff. I don't package them up because then I'd have to package them up for my debian boxes: too much effort. Doug.
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Feb 20, 2008 2:59 AM, Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 19, 2008 4:50 AM, Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's the reason I've been gathering good C developers, so that they could either; 1. take up complex projects like FireEngine/DTrace, 2. write replacements for as many GNU tools/utilities as possible, 3. be a landing stage for newer developers who get intimidated by the intensity of the core developers. good luck with that. be sure to let us know when it's all done, ok? thanks. If thats sarcasm its really not warranted. If its not sarcasm, then we'll be posting to the list about our progress. Also, Ted, I'm sorry if you felt offended by my ranting about you not completing kernel threads, but the loss of those developers really felt bad. ~Mayuresh
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:47:54 +0530 Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 20, 2008 2:59 AM, Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 19, 2008 4:50 AM, Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's the reason I've been gathering good C developers, so that they could either; 1. take up complex projects like FireEngine/DTrace, 2. write replacements for as many GNU tools/utilities as possible, 3. be a landing stage for newer developers who get intimidated by the intensity of the core developers. good luck with that. be sure to let us know when it's all done, ok? thanks. If thats sarcasm its really not warranted. If its not sarcasm, then we'll be posting to the list about our progress. Also, Ted, I'm sorry if you felt offended by my ranting about you not completing kernel threads, but the loss of those developers really felt bad. ~Mayuresh Looks to me like your Tivo Box project might need to actually pay someone to write a threads library. Dhu
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On 18 Feb 2008 at 10:16, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: On Feb 18, 2008 7:57 AM, Leonardo Rodrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually what Ted has done was utterly disastrous, he knows his own code well enough to have completed it. BTW, you are as big an oaf as Richard Stallman, you keep ranting about how you've put in your blood, sweat and tears, but forget to understand the point that without us users you are nothing. Wow... People should inform themselves instead of writing things like that. OpenBSD states very clearly that it has a developer culture, and not an user one. Just be grateful for the code that you get FOR FREE. Also, if you feel that the project helps you, give something back to the project (like code or donations) to keep it running, and to keep it helping YOU. The developers code and share their code not because they want to be famous or to receive accolades from the project's users, but because they are solving the problems that they have an interest. They don't own the users anything, instead, they give their code for free to whoever might find it useful. Is it so hard to understand that? Leonardo, I've NEVER got any of the code for FREE, I've always paid for it by buying CDs, unlike you who might have done an FTP install, you're a cheap-skate aren't you. Mayuresh, do you honestly think that the few dollars you spent on that CD actually paid for any code, as in code development? Are you naove, a fool, or really that arrogant? It has been pointed out many times on this list, that CD sales do not even cover the electricity costs to keep the core infrastructure running. But given the size of those bills, the sales represent an important subsidy, allowing to literally keep the lights on. And I do not need auditor's reports to confirm that assertion not because I'm gullible, but because I know from personal experience of running a similar business just how true it is. Moreover, I know how much time and money will be sucked out of the project to generate accounting reports. Now, to hopefully put an end to these useless rants, let me rephrase something the others have tried to explain to you: You can only expect and demand any level of professional performance from your _employees_ (or subcontractors), i.e. when you are specifically and directly responsible for paying their livelihood. Anything else is a mutually convenient arrangement that _either_ party is free to terminate at any time. Actually, since slavery and bonded servitude have been abolished all over the world, even employment is at will and your employees may and sometimes will quit without completing _your_ goals. To use your own example to elaborate: Did Ted ever acccept any funding from you for which he specifically promised any concrete deliverables? I very much doubt that. Did you make a fundamental business mistake by undertaking a business venture so reliant on his contribution without making any effort to assure that his contribution will be completed and forthcoming in accordance with your business' schedule? Absolutely. Well, all the rantings against the project, Ted or any other developer, will not rectify _your_ mistake, nor change the fact the _you_ made such a critical mistake in _your_ business venture. (Next time you start building your dream house, make sure you have a complete and solid foundation.) Go buy yourself a CD set, contribute to the OpenBSD foundation, or better still, since you are talking about flying pigs, go code up a good application in C for OpenBSD or enhance an existing one. ~Mayuresh - System Administrator[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bitwise Internet Technologies, Inc. 22 Drydock Avenue tel: (617) 737-1837 Boston, MA 02210 fax: (617) 439-4941
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
What shit are you talking about? On Feb 18, 2008 2:01 PM, System Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 18 Feb 2008 at 10:16, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: On Feb 18, 2008 7:57 AM, Leonardo Rodrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually what Ted has done was utterly disastrous, he knows his own code well enough to have completed it. BTW, you are as big an oaf as Richard Stallman, you keep ranting about how you've put in your blood, sweat and tears, but forget to understand the point that without us users you are nothing. Wow... People should inform themselves instead of writing things like that. OpenBSD states very clearly that it has a developer culture, and not an user one. Just be grateful for the code that you get FOR FREE. Also, if you feel that the project helps you, give something back to the project (like code or donations) to keep it running, and to keep it helping YOU. The developers code and share their code not because they want to be famous or to receive accolades from the project's users, but because they are solving the problems that they have an interest. They don't own the users anything, instead, they give their code for free to whoever might find it useful. Is it so hard to understand that? Leonardo, I've NEVER got any of the code for FREE, I've always paid for it by buying CDs, unlike you who might have done an FTP install, you're a cheap-skate aren't you. Mayuresh, do you honestly think that the few dollars you spent on that CD actually paid for any code, as in code development? Are you naove, a fool, or really that arrogant? It has been pointed out many times on this list, that CD sales do not even cover the electricity costs to keep the core infrastructure running. But given the size of those bills, the sales represent an important subsidy, allowing to literally keep the lights on. And I do not need auditor's reports to confirm that assertion not because I'm gullible, but because I know from personal experience of running a similar business just how true it is. Moreover, I know how much time and money will be sucked out of the project to generate accounting reports. Now, to hopefully put an end to these useless rants, let me rephrase something the others have tried to explain to you: You can only expect and demand any level of professional performance from your _employees_ (or subcontractors), i.e. when you are specifically and directly responsible for paying their livelihood. Anything else is a mutually convenient arrangement that _either_ party is free to terminate at any time. Actually, since slavery and bonded servitude have been abolished all over the world, even employment is at will and your employees may and sometimes will quit without completing _your_ goals. To use your own example to elaborate: Did Ted ever acccept any funding from you for which he specifically promised any concrete deliverables? I very much doubt that. Did you make a fundamental business mistake by undertaking a business venture so reliant on his contribution without making any effort to assure that his contribution will be completed and forthcoming in accordance with your business' schedule? Absolutely. Well, all the rantings against the project, Ted or any other developer, will not rectify _your_ mistake, nor change the fact the _you_ made such a critical mistake in _your_ business venture. (Next time you start building your dream house, make sure you have a complete and solid foundation.) Go buy yourself a CD set, contribute to the OpenBSD foundation, or better still, since you are talking about flying pigs, go code up a good application in C for OpenBSD or enhance an existing one. ~Mayuresh - System Administrator[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bitwise Internet Technologies, Inc. 22 Drydock Avenue tel: (617) 737-1837 Boston, MA 02210 fax: (617) 439-4941
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
Come on guys, calm down, just stay what you are currently. Just do your job. Make OpenBSD the best router/firewall/server OS ever, you have the right features for that now, and I hope you will extend it in the nearest future. And do not listen to those trolls. Thank you all for what you do guys. -- With best regards, Gregory Edigarov Mayuresh Kathe wrote: Hi, NOTE: No intention to behave like a troll. I've been following the multi-threaded ssh/scp thread and read Ted's comment that he's stopped working on the kernel threads code because he doesn't have the time for it nor does he need it any more. Also that multi-threaded ssh/scp would weaken security features within the OS. It just led me to ponder, what is OpenBSD's ultimate goal? Is it just to become the worlds most secure OS with as few remote holes in the default install? Shouldn't it also be our goal to be the best UNIX-like operating system which is in tune with the current needs of users? It would have been great to have a threaded kernel, there are developer's I'm gathering around who wanted to change the TCP/IP stack to make it higher performance, more like Project FireEngine under Solaris 10. OpenBSD is an OS with amazing security and stability, but it has too few modern features. It would be great if developers also start working on improving the features currently offered by OpenBSD. Else, we would end up becoming the world's most secure OS which is used by just a handful of us faithful users. You might ask what right do I have for this rant, what am I doing for OpenBSD? Well I can't donate code directly as I'm a Java programmer and my C is quite rusty (haven't coded in it in over 7 years). But, yes, I do donate my time and money, indirectly, by recruiting good C developers to the cause as well as buying stuff for core developers off their wish lists. Hope newer features get added, not that I'm unhappy with the OS (it does almost everything I need an OS to do for me), but it would be great if we had *more* smart developers and a wider base of good users who get attracted to the OS for its robustness as well as feature-set. Best, ~Mayuresh -- With best regards, Gregory Edigarov
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
Hey folks, i have been writing software about 6 year since i finnished my university course. OpenBSD has always been impressive to my eyes. Since correctness/security is conditio sine qua non, i disagree as a group of developer has it as goal. Goal should be performance, portability usability. But correctness/security should be a requirement. I am very confident about software i wrote. But in order to obtain paramount performance i am taking a totally different approach. Since process and even thread are not a good ideia. i am working now to learn a little bit more about SDL (specification and description language). Not only my systems became faster, a lot faster but also, very, very, very modular. I am not in kernel design/implementation, so i would like to hear from you all about an approach driven by this method. I was thinking about the advantages of having very modular part of a OS, being executed on each processor (of a SMP system), and like. It sounds very interesting to me. thanks. On Feb 17, 2008 9:03 AM, Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, NOTE: No intention to behave like a troll. I've been following the multi-threaded ssh/scp thread and read Ted's comment that he's stopped working on the kernel threads code because he doesn't have the time for it nor does he need it any more. Also that multi-threaded ssh/scp would weaken security features within the OS. It just led me to ponder, what is OpenBSD's ultimate goal? Is it just to become the worlds most secure OS with as few remote holes in the default install? Shouldn't it also be our goal to be the best UNIX-like operating system which is in tune with the current needs of users? It would have been great to have a threaded kernel, there are developer's I'm gathering around who wanted to change the TCP/IP stack to make it higher performance, more like Project FireEngine under Solaris 10. OpenBSD is an OS with amazing security and stability, but it has too few modern features. It would be great if developers also start working on improving the features currently offered by OpenBSD. Else, we would end up becoming the world's most secure OS which is used by just a handful of us faithful users. You might ask what right do I have for this rant, what am I doing for OpenBSD? Well I can't donate code directly as I'm a Java programmer and my C is quite rusty (haven't coded in it in over 7 years). But, yes, I do donate my time and money, indirectly, by recruiting good C developers to the cause as well as buying stuff for core developers off their wish lists. Hope newer features get added, not that I'm unhappy with the OS (it does almost everything I need an OS to do for me), but it would be great if we had *more* smart developers and a wider base of good users who get attracted to the OS for its robustness as well as feature-set. Best, ~Mayuresh
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
Not lies; we have a 5000 emails thread to prove that. On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 07:35:55AM +0059, Han Boetes wrote: Lies chefren wrote: ... Richard Stallman stopped [coding] doing so long time ago... B) Richard Stallman puts users first, =like you!=, Richard Stallman =believes= users are more important than coders so coders should be enslaved by the users. Which is plain STUPID since without coders there is no code at all. # Han
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:11:32AM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: Also, we don't get to use his code for FREE, I suppose most of the users *buy* CD sets. If only they did. A miniscule percentage of the user community buys CD's, and the sales are dropping. The vast majority of users simply download the code. The faster internet connections get the fewer CDs are sold. Not complaining, we provide the code for them to do that, but ... If all our users bought a CD set there would be a *lot* more development going on by dedicated/paid developers. If corporations needing paperwork to donate would contact www.openbsdfoundation.org and donate there would be a lot more development going on. And if pigs could code as well as fly all our problems would be solved. Ken, in that case why don't you and rest of the team, led by Theo take a concious decision to stop downloads? Why are you harming yourselves by allowing people to also download? I for one buy CDs every year, year after year. Best, ~Mayuresh If we stop allowing downloads people will just cvs themselves a tree and build releases themselves. If we stop people cvs'ing themselves the source we cease to be a free software project. If we cease to be a free software project I and most other developers would leave. If we all left the project would be over and there would never be a chance to implement the changes you want. I for one would love to see a cage match between you and the equally vocal complainers who can't understand why we make life hard for them by not providing a raft of downloadable ISO images of our CDs. Maybe the entire crowd would end up groggy enough to actually read the goals of the project on the web and accept them or move on. For the groggy: http://openbsd.org/goals.html. Points 1, 2, 8 and 12 in particular. Ken
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
If there were no downloads, there would be less users who donate. I'd dare to claim some people have just downloaded and donated instead of buying the CD - in my case it makes sense since I can afford very little and the production of CDs would eat some of that little. I miss the stickers, though. PS. I'm at 14 euros now... keep complaining. -- Jussi Peltola
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:11:32AM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: I for one buy CDs every year, year after year. Best, ~Mayuresh The CD sets you buy must be different than the ones I buy; mine don't come with a ballot for voting on features. Please proxy vote for me and check [ ] Moderate misc@ list if that option exists. Gord
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
-Urspr|ngliche Nachricht- Von: David Higgs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Sonntag, 17. Februar 2008 16:54 An: openbsd misc Cc: OpenBSD-Misc Betreff: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? On Feb 17, 2008 7:36 AM, openbsd misc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Urspr|ngliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Tony Abernethy Gesendet: Sonntag, 17. Februar 2008 13:20 An: 'Mayuresh Kathe'; 'OpenBSD-Misc' Betreff: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? Mayuresh Kathe wrote: OpenBSD is an OS with amazing security and stability, but it has too few modern features. H related? E.g. wpa[2] is one of the features I miss because I want to use OpenBSD as Firewall / Access Point (SOHO customers)... VPN is not an option, because windowsclients need network at startup. If WPA2 is considered secure and widespread, it will likely be added to OpenBSD at some point. Even more likely if it's been added to a relatively unmodified portion of NetBSD or FreeBSD. Is IPSEC an option for your SOHO customers? VPN could be an option, though it's definitely not as simple. OpenVPN clients are available for both Windows and OS X. You could distribute binaries and keys via USB drive or a local SSL-enabled webserver. There's been other discussions on-list about reducing your exposure to wireless sniffers. --david Hello, this is not an option to me. My customers don't have administration rights - AFAIK you can't use openvpn without admin rights, the only solution is to run openvpn as service. Therefore I need to configure openvpn to poll all possible locations - I don't think that's the way it should go. My POV is: there are two standards (I know that wpa isn't a real standard, but AFAIK wpa2 is) to secure wireless lan. It's the easiest configuration because even an non-administrative user can configure it. I accept that there are better or more secure ways, but I need a handy solution, too. Some customers use the AP for there private PCs, too - I don't want to administer every private device using wireless lan and my customers don't want 20 boxes @home. I'm not a developer so I'm not able to do the task on my own - I asked if I can help with hardware or something like that so the development will start (or go on?) but it looks like none of the developers (currently) needs wpa[1/2] :( Regards Hagen Volpers
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Feb 17, 2008 11:23 PM, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are talking about nebulous features that are over hyped and under proven. One needs a problem first before fixing it. You are putting it the wrong way around by saying hey I'd like a super duper faster tcp/ip stack man!. Why? What problem are you solving? On 17/02/2008, Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem that would get solved would be best presented by the following article http://research.sun.com/minds/2007-0710/ Saving Sun?
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 02:31:13PM +0100, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote: On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 01:07:06PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: By this, I mean, developers *are* working on improving the features currently offered by OpenBSD. In general people work on things which they will find the most useful first. Sometimes this matches up with what you want, other times it doesn't. Are they willing to take a suggestions from the users side? Oh sure ! I'll put it on my todo-list. With luck, I4ll get to it... about ten years from now. ;-)
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:42:38AM +0100, Marc Espie wrote: You're an idiot. [..] Think about it. Idiots don't think. If you didn't knew it - you're even bigger idiot, than I am. Thanks for conversation. -- pozdrawiam / regards Zbigniew Baniewski
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 10:12:09AM -0500, David Higgs wrote: Does the -B option to pkg_add do exactly this? Or YOU could do the equivalent and tell ./configure to install to a different base directory. This doesn't need any funding either. Nope, -B is mostly for chroot and flashdist-like installs.
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 03:10:12PM +0100, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote: I noticed, that default path, where software from binary pkg and ports gets unpacked, is /usr/local hierarchy - unfortunately, it's also the traditional default of every individual source *.tar.gz package - such way the software ported to OpenBSD gets mixed with any other package, which I had installed. Wouldn't be reasonable to create new hierarchy, especially for the native OpenBSD software (from binary packages and ports) - I mean: something like /usr/pkg in NetBSD? It doesn't need any funding to fix this. You're an idiot. Contrarily to what you think, doing so needs *testing* and a solid upgrade path. I've made enough passes of `trivial' changes through the ports tree to know that any such apparently simple change triggers issues (lots of them). Remember you're in a thread that praises OpenBSD stability ? Think about it. We do *not* want the standard location of the ports tree to be tweakable, because that means more bugs, and more breakage. So, moving things around to /usr/pkg ? Yeah, right... not that simple. It's a big change. Yeah, a simple change, in apparence, that requires lots of testing. That's the main reason we haven't done it. Try it, make a list of the issues of doing this (the *real* issues, think about the people who are going to want to update their machine), make a start at it. And then report back. If it doesn't require any funding, *you* can do it, so show it to us.
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:11:32AM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: ... why don't you and rest of the team, led by Theo take a concious decision to stop downloads? OpenBSD is introduced (e.g., on the main web page) by three, adjectives. It might be worthwhile to grasp the first of those before advancing suggestions.
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:16:08AM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: ... I've NEVER got any of the code for FREE, Yes, you did. The code is free. The CDs are not.
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
Mayuresh Kathe On Feb 17, 2008 5:50 PM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mayuresh Kathe wrote: OpenBSD is an OS with amazing security and stability, but it has too few modern features. H related? thats exactly my point, our mindset has become that security and stability aren't related with modern features. You do not have a point. Do you mean that security and stability aren't related with modern features -- you know, like Microsoft Vista? Think a bit. If OpenBSD is secure, it is secure for a reason. Bluntly, because they know better than to listen to idiots like you.
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
I understand English sentences. What is this English-based sentences you speak of? My logic may be flawed, but it seems it surpasses you abilty to elucidate the exact nature of the presumed flaw. I've got a life. What have you got. In fact beating up on dead goats might make an entertaining diversion. -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? Your logic is flawed. So is your ability to understand English based sentences. Go get a life. On Feb 19, 2008 9:46 AM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You just said that you are a dead goat??? Amazing --- and I've got a life. Whats is it that you have? What kind of a life does a dead goat have? -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? On Feb 19, 2008 9:37 AM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mayuresh Kathe On Feb 17, 2008 5:50 PM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mayuresh Kathe wrote: OpenBSD is an OS with amazing security and stability, but it has too few modern features. H related? thats exactly my point, our mindset has become that security and stability aren't related with modern features. You do not have a point. Do you mean that security and stability aren't related with modern features -- you know, like Microsoft Vista? Think a bit. If OpenBSD is secure, it is secure for a reason. Bluntly, because they know better than to listen to idiots like you. You're beating up a dead goat. Go on, get a life... ~Mayuresh
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
Dead billy goat or dead nanny goat? which are you? -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? Are you as weird as your writing suggests. Do you get disconnected from reality when you start thinking? On Feb 19, 2008 9:53 AM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand English sentences. What is this English-based sentences you speak of? My logic may be flawed, but it seems it surpasses you abilty to elucidate the exact nature of the presumed flaw. I've got a life. What have you got. In fact beating up on dead goats might make an entertaining diversion. -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? Your logic is flawed. So is your ability to understand English based sentences. Go get a life. On Feb 19, 2008 9:46 AM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You just said that you are a dead goat??? Amazing --- and I've got a life. Whats is it that you have? What kind of a life does a dead goat have? -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? On Feb 19, 2008 9:37 AM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mayuresh Kathe On Feb 17, 2008 5:50 PM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mayuresh Kathe wrote: OpenBSD is an OS with amazing security and stability, but it has too few modern features. H related? thats exactly my point, our mindset has become that security and stability aren't related with modern features. You do not have a point. Do you mean that security and stability aren't related with modern features -- you know, like Microsoft Vista? Think a bit. If OpenBSD is secure, it is secure for a reason. Bluntly, because they know better than to listen to idiots like you. You're beating up a dead goat. Go on, get a life... ~Mayuresh
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
I think therefore I am. I think you are a billy goat, therefore you are. -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? There you go again, disconnected from reality. Please don't even try to think. On Feb 19, 2008 11:59 AM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dead billy goat or dead nanny goat? which are you? -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? Are you as weird as your writing suggests. Do you get disconnected from reality when you start thinking? On Feb 19, 2008 9:53 AM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand English sentences. What is this English-based sentences you speak of? My logic may be flawed, but it seems it surpasses you abilty to elucidate the exact nature of the presumed flaw. I've got a life. What have you got. In fact beating up on dead goats might make an entertaining diversion. -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? Your logic is flawed. So is your ability to understand English based sentences. Go get a life. On Feb 19, 2008 9:46 AM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You just said that you are a dead goat??? Amazing --- and I've got a life. Whats is it that you have? What kind of a life does a dead goat have? -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? On Feb 19, 2008 9:37 AM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mayuresh Kathe On Feb 17, 2008 5:50 PM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mayuresh Kathe wrote: OpenBSD is an OS with amazing security and stability, but it has too few modern features. H related? thats exactly my point, our mindset has become that security and stability aren't related with modern features. You do not have a point. Do you mean that security and stability aren't related with modern features -- you know, like Microsoft Vista? Think a bit. If OpenBSD is secure, it is secure for a reason. Bluntly, because they know better than to listen to idiots like you. You're beating up a dead goat. Go on, get a life... ~Mayuresh
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
Are you a silly billy goat or an asininny goat. Ayou a live or a dead dead goat? You own thought processes seem to be at about that plateau. You make wild statements with not even a plausible connection to prior discourse. Try tinking in English sentences, not whatever English-like sentences you seem to like. -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? There you go again, disconnected from reality. Please don't even try to think. On Feb 19, 2008 11:59 AM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dead billy goat or dead nanny goat? which are you? -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? Are you as weird as your writing suggests. Do you get disconnected from reality when you start thinking? On Feb 19, 2008 9:53 AM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand English sentences. What is this English-based sentences you speak of? My logic may be flawed, but it seems it surpasses you abilty to elucidate the exact nature of the presumed flaw. I've got a life. What have you got. In fact beating up on dead goats might make an entertaining diversion. -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? Your logic is flawed. So is your ability to understand English based sentences. Go get a life. On Feb 19, 2008 9:46 AM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You just said that you are a dead goat??? Amazing --- and I've got a life. Whats is it that you have? What kind of a life does a dead goat have? -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? On Feb 19, 2008 9:37 AM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mayuresh Kathe On Feb 17, 2008 5:50 PM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mayuresh Kathe wrote: OpenBSD is an OS with amazing security and stability, but it has too few modern features. H related? thats exactly my point, our mindset has become that security and stability aren't related with modern features. You do not have a point. Do you mean that security and stability aren't related with modern features -- you know, like Microsoft Vista? Think a bit. If OpenBSD is secure, it is secure for a reason. Bluntly, because they know better than to listen to idiots like you. You're beating up a dead goat. Go on, get a life... ~Mayuresh
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
You claim you don't have enough vision or intelligence to understand me. and you offer (to the list included) no explanation. I may lack the vision and intelli9gence, but why do you insist that the rest of the list also lacks vision and intelligence? This thread is already polluted far beyond my feeble efforts to further such. Innate quality of threads? Imagine this thread if (no make that when) some thread decides to go beserk. (That is assuming you are in fact capable of imagining anything) Just think, if this were shared memory I could be popping up in ALL your correspondences. -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? Tony, you are really weird, stop polluting the mailing list with all of your useless garbage. If you want to have an email based altercation with me, do it off-list. About my true colours, forget it, you don't have enough vision or intelligence to understand me. On Feb 19, 2008 12:22 PM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I may be an oaf, but it is with FULL REALIZATION THAT I AM SENDING THIS TO THE LIST MY PURPOSE IN DOING SO IS TO PAINT YOU WITH SOMEHTING RESEMBLING YOUR TRUE COLORS. BTW, what is the color of a dead goat? -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? You are an Oaf, you don't realise that you are sending all these useless emails to the list where its not needed, while *I* on the other hand have been only sending mails to you. Thats why I say, you are disconnected from reality. Go get yourself a life, and more importantly, get yourself treated from a psychiatrist. On Feb 19, 2008 12:11 PM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which half? You really ought to go back to kindergarden. -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? From this long nonsensical discussion, I'm sure, you are a schizophrenic. On Feb 19, 2008 12:03 PM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think therefore I am. I think you are a billy goat, therefore you are. -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? There you go again, disconnected from reality. Please don't even try to think. On Feb 19, 2008 11:59 AM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dead billy goat or dead nanny goat? which are you? -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? Are you as weird as your writing suggests. Do you get disconnected from reality when you start thinking? On Feb 19, 2008 9:53 AM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand English sentences. What is this English-based sentences you speak of? My logic may be flawed, but it seems it surpasses you abilty to elucidate the exact nature of the presumed flaw. I've got a life. What have you got. In fact beating up on dead goats might make an entertaining diversion. -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? Your logic is flawed. So is your ability to understand English based sentences. Go get a life. On Feb 19, 2008 9:46 AM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You just said that you are a dead goat??? Amazing --- and I've got a life. Whats is it that you have? What kind of a life does a dead goat have? -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? On Feb 19, 2008 9:37 AM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mayuresh Kathe On Feb 17, 2008 5:50 PM, Tony
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
I may be an oaf, but it is with FULL REALIZATION THAT I AM SENDING THIS TO THE LIST MY PURPOSE IN DOING SO IS TO PAINT YOU WITH SOMEHTING RESEMBLING YOUR TRUE COLORS. BTW, what is the color of a dead goat? -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? You are an Oaf, you don't realise that you are sending all these useless emails to the list where its not needed, while *I* on the other hand have been only sending mails to you. Thats why I say, you are disconnected from reality. Go get yourself a life, and more importantly, get yourself treated from a psychiatrist. On Feb 19, 2008 12:11 PM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which half? You really ought to go back to kindergarden. -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? From this long nonsensical discussion, I'm sure, you are a schizophrenic. On Feb 19, 2008 12:03 PM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think therefore I am. I think you are a billy goat, therefore you are. -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? There you go again, disconnected from reality. Please don't even try to think. On Feb 19, 2008 11:59 AM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dead billy goat or dead nanny goat? which are you? -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? Are you as weird as your writing suggests. Do you get disconnected from reality when you start thinking? On Feb 19, 2008 9:53 AM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand English sentences. What is this English-based sentences you speak of? My logic may be flawed, but it seems it surpasses you abilty to elucidate the exact nature of the presumed flaw. I've got a life. What have you got. In fact beating up on dead goats might make an entertaining diversion. -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? Your logic is flawed. So is your ability to understand English based sentences. Go get a life. On Feb 19, 2008 9:46 AM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You just said that you are a dead goat??? Amazing --- and I've got a life. Whats is it that you have? What kind of a life does a dead goat have? -Original Message- From: Mayuresh Kathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is our ultimate goal?? On Feb 19, 2008 9:37 AM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mayuresh Kathe On Feb 17, 2008 5:50 PM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mayuresh Kathe wrote: OpenBSD is an OS with amazing security and stability, but it has too few modern features. H related? thats exactly my point, our mindset has become that security and stability aren't related with modern features. You do not have a point. Do you mean that security and stability aren't related with modern features -- you know, like Microsoft Vista? Think a bit. If OpenBSD is secure, it is secure for a reason. Bluntly, because they know better than to listen to idiots like you. You're beating up a dead goat. Go on, get a life... ~Mayuresh
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
By this, I mean, developers *are* working on improving the features currently offered by OpenBSD. In general people work on things which they will find the most useful first. Sometimes this matches up with what you want, other times it doesn't. Are they willing to take a suggestions from the users side? Ask them. However, you will get far further with suggestions backed by a solid understanding of each issue, plus funding. The benefits of a broad yet shallow feature set can be found in most alternative operating systems and you are welcome to use them. Michael.
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Feb 17, 2008 11:23 PM, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let me take a stab of responding to this... Thanks for responding... On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 05:33:12PM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: Hi, NOTE: No intention to behave like a troll. I've been following the multi-threaded ssh/scp thread and read Ted's comment that he's stopped working on the kernel threads code because he doesn't have the time for it nor does he need it any more. Also that multi-threaded ssh/scp would weaken security features within the OS. Ted had an itch that rthreads scratched. He worked on it and unfortunately for all of us he ran out of time and even more unfortunately he ran out of steam. In OpenBSD land that means that someone else needs to pick it up. Let me reiterate that this is extremely unfortunate but not not unusual. We, the consumers of Ted's code, can not dictate him what to do and when. He is very busy man with wide interests. When you and I get to use some of his code, FOR FREE, we should thank him instead of complaining. I have had the pleasure of working with Ted on several pieces of code and I am thankful for his time. I learnt quite a few things along the way. Its good to know that Ted did indeed try to scratch an itch of his and laid down some ground work for future developers to take it beyond its basic level. But, it would have been *nicer* if Ted had put in some more of his time and effort to complete what he started. Also, we don't get to use his code for FREE, I suppose most of the users *buy* CD sets. It just led me to ponder, what is OpenBSD's ultimate goal? OpenBSD does not have an ultimate goal; this is obviously silly and has proven to be bad throughout history. A good example are labor unions, they started out with good intentions and when they reached their ultimate goal they were no longer relevant and had to be reinvented to remain relevant. Obviously this is pure human nature to try to hang on to power as long as possible. All this aside that is not how OpenBSD is run. Point well put, and taken. OpenBSD is an OS with amazing security and stability, but it has too few modern features. You are talking about nebulous features that are over hyped and under proven. One needs a problem first before fixing it. You are putting it the wrong way around by saying hey I'd like a super duper faster tcp/ip stack man!. Why? What problem are you solving? The problem that would get solved would be best presented by the following article http://research.sun.com/minds/2007-0710/ It would be great if developers also start working on improving the features currently offered by OpenBSD. Else, we would end up becoming the world's most secure OS which is used by just a handful of us faithful users. And what makes you think we are not? This is such an insult; you are telling me what we have done in the past in our sparse free time is not worth it. OpenBSD is not after whizbang feature ZOMG. Also you are proposing what I should do with my time; how backwards is that? Not really, I'm not insulting you or any of the core developers. What I meant is newer features. Why is it that our soft-updates based file system can't do background 'fsck'? Speaking only for myself I write the code for my own pleasure. I give it away because it makes me happy. I don't owe you anything and fortunately you don't owe me anything either. We all benefit from my investment. True, your investment as well as *ours*. A frequent complaint is that we don't listen to our user base. That is utterly false. We listen and we implement what we have time for and what makes sense (chances are we have thought through the problem domain; ever considered that?). A single person's need is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. If you need something you need to write it yourself. Agreed, but wouldn't it be better if there was some kind-a list of features most requested by users who can't/don't code in C? Then you core people could keep an eye on that list and think through your problems keeping that detail in mind. You might ask what right do I have for this rant, what am I doing for OpenBSD? Everyone has the right to rant but not everyone gets a vote. Well I can't donate code directly as I'm a Java programmer and my C is quite rusty (haven't coded in it in over 7 years). But, yes, I do donate my time and money, indirectly, by recruiting good C developers to the cause as well as buying stuff for core developers off their wish lists. Donations are greatly appreciated and are used quite effectively. What a donation does not give you is a vote. Its a donation not a pay-for-feature. When you donate you essentially say I trust developer X to do the right thing in this area. If you want a specific feature you can contact a developer off list and request it with some sort of incentive attached to it. Here is the thing
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
Zbigniew Baniewski ha scritto: On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 09:52:34PM +0100, raven wrote: Raven, learn to write understandable English first, then try to reply to my mails. I will try, thanks for a suggestion, english not is my mother tongue. But, you still dumb. I can see several _public_ answers to _quite private_ letters. Is it something specific to this list? Didn't see something like this before. sorry, my mistake. i press reply to all and not just reply. I'm really sorry. But, it's what i think. Francesco
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
Hi, It gets stranger. How is a bare bones code ever going to be useful to a non developing user? Its useful to them only when its part of an overall system. And that overall system in a really usable state is only available via CDs which need to be purchased. aehm, hello ? I do buy the cd's, they look nice on my shelf. but most of the time when installing I use ftp. this statement of your's does not make any sense to me. -sm
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
Jussi Peltola ha scritto: For each message in this thread that I consider insulting (10 so far), I will donate 1 euro to OpenBSD to compensate for lost developer time reading such messages. Being a student my budget can't take more, but at least I try to be grateful. Keep up the good work making an OS that is only fixed when it's broken. I'm student too, so why not, i wondering to spend 20 euros for last tshirt, why not another 2 euros for OpenBSD ? Jussi you have a very good idea... Thanks Francesco
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
Actually what Ted has done was utterly disastrous, he knows his own code well enough to have completed it. BTW, you are as big an oaf as Richard Stallman, you keep ranting about how you've put in your blood, sweat and tears, but forget to understand the point that without us users you are nothing. Wow... People should inform themselves instead of writing things like that. OpenBSD states very clearly that it has a developer culture, and not an user one. Just be grateful for the code that you get FOR FREE. Also, if you feel that the project helps you, give something back to the project (like code or donations) to keep it running, and to keep it helping YOU. The developers code and share their code not because they want to be famous or to receive accolades from the project's users, but because they are solving the problems that they have an interest. They don't own the users anything, instead, they give their code for free to whoever might find it useful. Is it so hard to understand that? Leonardo Rodrigues
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
To the majority on this list -- my apologies if I end up feeding this troll instead of making him 'go away'. to the OP -- this is why you got absolutely NO answer from the devs. and now for the archives in the hopes that at least some of the future would be posters will research before posting. First a disclaimer: I am not a developer, but have been using OBSD and following this list for many years. I do believe what I am about to say is fairly accurate and is definitely more consistent with the subject line than some of the incessant whining already taking place. OpenBSD is an OS developed by very intelligent THINKING people with its sole target audience being other THINKING persons. For the thousands of lusers too lazy to use an option already made available by the native tools -- there are thousands of flavors of Linux, at least one of which will do things consistent with your desires. For the totally illiterate lusers who cannot even read the docs to find the said option -- there is always Windoze whose stated goal is to save the users from themselves. Personally, I like the fact that aside from an occasional bug, I am in charge of my computer and NOT the other way around. Sure, that usually starts with a thinking cap and almost always requires a fair ability to read and comprehend the best documentation of any OS bar none. (BTW, genuine bugs get addressed in record time and much faster than any other OS I know, which is a rather long list.) And now let's get back to the only real business that we, the users, have on this list -- testing and reporting on the features and technical innovations that the developers already put in to the upcoming release. On 17 Feb 2008 at 16:22, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote: On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 10:12:09AM -0500, David Higgs wrote: Does the -B option to pkg_add do exactly this? Or YOU could do the equivalent and tell ./configure to install to a different base directory. This doesn't need any funding either. And did I ask for any funding? When? Of course, that I can - and thousands of other users are able to either - play with ./configure switches before compilation of every non-ported package. I just would to point attention, that _one single change_ can save the time of that thousands people. Instead of playing with ./configure switches - they could be busy... porting software to OpenBSD, for example. -- pozdrawiam / regards Zbigniew Baniewski - System Administrator[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bitwise Internet Technologies, Inc. 22 Drydock Avenue tel: (617) 737-1837 Boston, MA 02210 fax: (617) 439-4941
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Feb 18, 2008 1:52 AM, Jason Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 17, 2008, at 2:58 PM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: On Feb 18, 2008 1:16 AM, David Higgs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 17, 2008 1:53 PM, Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Its good to know that Ted did indeed try to scratch an itch of his and laid down some ground work for future developers to take it beyond its basic level. But, it would have been *nicer* if Ted had put in some more of his time and effort to complete what he started. Also, we don't get to use his code for FREE, I suppose most of the users *buy* CD sets. It would also be nice if you would learn C and code up your new TCP/ IP stack yourself. We don't always get everything we want. This is weird isn't it? If I had *wanted* to learn C wouldn't I have done it already? That's your problem. Nobody on the OpenBSD team owes you anything. Did I ever in any of my mails mention that anybody on the OpenBSD team owes me anything? Jason you are equally weird. ~Mayuresh
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Feb 18, 2008 2:25 AM, Kenneth R Westerback [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:23:44AM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: On Feb 17, 2008 11:23 PM, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let me take a stab of responding to this... Thanks for responding... On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 05:33:12PM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: Hi, NOTE: No intention to behave like a troll. I've been following the multi-threaded ssh/scp thread and read Ted's comment that he's stopped working on the kernel threads code because he doesn't have the time for it nor does he need it any more. Also that multi-threaded ssh/scp would weaken security features within the OS. Ted had an itch that rthreads scratched. He worked on it and unfortunately for all of us he ran out of time and even more unfortunately he ran out of steam. In OpenBSD land that means that someone else needs to pick it up. Let me reiterate that this is extremely unfortunate but not not unusual. We, the consumers of Ted's code, can not dictate him what to do and when. He is very busy man with wide interests. When you and I get to use some of his code, FOR FREE, we should thank him instead of complaining. I have had the pleasure of working with Ted on several pieces of code and I am thankful for his time. I learnt quite a few things along the way. Its good to know that Ted did indeed try to scratch an itch of his and laid down some ground work for future developers to take it beyond its basic level. But, it would have been *nicer* if Ted had put in some more of his time and effort to complete what he started. Also, we don't get to use his code for FREE, I suppose most of the users *buy* CD sets. If only they did. A miniscule percentage of the user community buys CD's, and the sales are dropping. The vast majority of users simply download the code. The faster internet connections get the fewer CDs are sold. Not complaining, we provide the code for them to do that, but ... If all our users bought a CD set there would be a *lot* more development going on by dedicated/paid developers. If corporations needing paperwork to donate would contact www.openbsdfoundation.org and donate there would be a lot more development going on. And if pigs could code as well as fly all our problems would be solved. Ken, in that case why don't you and rest of the team, led by Theo take a concious decision to stop downloads? Why are you harming yourselves by allowing people to also download? I for one buy CDs every year, year after year. Best, ~Mayuresh ~Mayuresh
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Feb 18, 2008 2:22 AM, raven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mayuresh Kathe ha scritto: Raven, learn to write understandable English first, then try to reply to my mails. I will try, thanks for a suggestion, english not is my mother tongue. But, you still dumb. English isn't my native tounge either. And you're still a weirdo. :) ~Mayuresh
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
Lies chefren wrote: ... Richard Stallman stopped [coding] doing so long time ago... B) Richard Stallman puts users first, =like you!=, Richard Stallman =believes= users are more important than coders so coders should be enslaved by the users. Which is plain STUPID since without coders there is no code at all. # Han
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Feb 18, 2008 7:57 AM, Leonardo Rodrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually what Ted has done was utterly disastrous, he knows his own code well enough to have completed it. BTW, you are as big an oaf as Richard Stallman, you keep ranting about how you've put in your blood, sweat and tears, but forget to understand the point that without us users you are nothing. Wow... People should inform themselves instead of writing things like that. OpenBSD states very clearly that it has a developer culture, and not an user one. Just be grateful for the code that you get FOR FREE. Also, if you feel that the project helps you, give something back to the project (like code or donations) to keep it running, and to keep it helping YOU. The developers code and share their code not because they want to be famous or to receive accolades from the project's users, but because they are solving the problems that they have an interest. They don't own the users anything, instead, they give their code for free to whoever might find it useful. Is it so hard to understand that? Leonardo, I've NEVER got any of the code for FREE, I've always paid for it by buying CDs, unlike you who might have done an FTP install, you're a cheap-skate aren't you. Go buy yourself a CD set, contribute to the OpenBSD foundation, or better still, since you are talking about flying pigs, go code up a good application in C for OpenBSD or enhance an existing one. ~Mayuresh
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 10:20:22PM -0500, System Administrator wrote: To the majority on this list -- my apologies if I end up feeding this troll instead of making him 'go away'. to the OP -- this is why you got absolutely NO answer from the devs. and now for the archives in the hopes that at least some of the future would be posters will research before posting. [..] It could have been said much shorter: you've got no idea, why I've got no answer - but you wanted to make a statement what is OpenBSD (IYHO). That's all. -- pozdrawiam / regards Zbigniew Baniewski
Re: What is our ultimate goal??
On Feb 18, 2008 1:55 AM, Marc Balmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mayuresh Kathe wrote: think a generally usable 64/128 bit file system, you have that much porn that you need a 128bit fs? Ya I do :)
