Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Nick Holland n...@holland-consulting.net wrote: snip If you find your wants and needs overlap with those of the developers, we ask you to help support the project. If you don't care about OpenBSD, you probably aren't reading this (well, we know a few people follow these lists out of a desire to stir shit, some people lack the intelligence and skills to have productive hobbies). snip Stallman *ducks*
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
pO DANNYM RADIOPEREHWATA OT 23-Sep-2009 21:21, Tom Smith BYL ZAME^EN W \FIRE, NA ^ASTOTE misc, S TAKOJ INFORMACIEJ: OpenBSD is created by the developers for the developers and any use that the rest of us get from the OS is a nice side effect of their generosity... That's nonsense. You can't beg for donations and CD sales, time and time again, and then turn around and tell the same people, that you're begging to give more, that what they want does not matter. Your contributions are pathetic. I think something like that was recently posted to misc. Well, if what end-users want matters not to OpenBSD developers and what end-users give is pathetic, then OpenBSD developers should not complain when end-users don't buy more CDs or donate more money. Can't have it both ways. I use and like End-user here. I would like to buy CD, t-shirt and donate the project. But, I have no enough money to do that. This is why I prefer to download ISO on dial-up with max speed 2.8 K/s for $4 per month, instead of buy CD. However, I would like to thank to developers for the most secure OS in the world, which one they allow me to use for free. This is the best donation, which I can give to. -- /Buzzer
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
Marco Peereboom wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 05:47:08PM +0100, - Tethys wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote: Sounds like building from source is necessary to me. boo hoo. run one machine somewhere and make release. done. And that attitude is why OpenBSD will never be more than a hobby OS. Sigh. Correction, a professional OS that requires its users to be professionals. Not a bunch of whining windows update people that have to call IT to launch excel. In case you hadn't noticed we are old school UNIX users that don't mind fixing whatever problem is at hand. Including writing code or fixing a bug. This is why in the olden days your IT department was worth something and wasn't a bunch of monkeys reading a script. It is exactly your attitude that has ruined the computer industry. +1 :)
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
neal hogan wrote: On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 01:04:07AM +0200, jean-francois wrote: Le jeudi 17 septembre 2009 C 08:56 +1000, armpit a C)crit : Marco Peereboom wrote: [...] OpenBSD is built by the developers for the developers. [...] To me it sound like OpenBSD is built by the developpers for the developpers, and also the rest of the world who need it for whatever purpose one can imagine. Soo . . . close! Unless you can rationalize why the part after the comma = the part before it. I will re-iterate my original statement. OpenBSD is created by the developers for the developers and any use that the rest of us get from the OS is a nice side effect of their generosity in releasing it as a completely free and unencumbered system, nothing more nothing less. No two ways about it. No need for rationalizing, only thing needed is for all 'non-developers' and 'non-contributors' who use it to be thankful and not be questioning of those that create this wonderful operating system.
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 2:29 PM, armpit mailto...@iprimus.com.au wrote: OpenBSD is created by the developers for the developers and any use that the rest of us get from the OS is a nice side effect of their generosity... That's nonsense. You can't beg for donations and CD sales, time and time again, and then turn around and tell the same people, that you're begging to give more, that what they want does not matter. Your contributions are pathetic. I think something like that was recently posted to misc. Well, if what end-users want matters not to OpenBSD developers and what end-users give is pathetic, then OpenBSD developers should not complain when end-users don't buy more CDs or donate more money. Can't have it both ways. I use and like OpenBSD, but nonsensical statements such as this need to stop, this is silly and it benefits no one.
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 09:21:07PM -0400, Tom Smith wrote: On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 2:29 PM, armpit mailto...@iprimus.com.au wrote: OpenBSD is created by the developers for the developers and any use that the rest of us get from the OS is a nice side effect of their generosity... That's nonsense. You can't beg for donations and CD sales, time and time again, and then turn around and tell the same people, that you're begging to give more, that what they want does not matter. Your contributions are pathetic. I think something like that was recently posted to misc. Well, if what end-users want matters not to OpenBSD developers and what end-users give is pathetic, then OpenBSD developers should not complain when end-users don't buy more CDs or donate more money. Can't have it both ways. I use and like OpenBSD, but nonsensical statements such as this need to stop, this is silly and it benefits no one. On the contrary . . . it's people/users like you who feel that simply because they use and enjoy something, that their voice is worthwhile. The silliness is coming from you, sir. If you were paying for the service, then perhaps. In this case, you just happen to use something that others develop for themselves. That's the difference. Just because something is made available to all does not mean that it is for all. I don't understand your comment about oBSD begging for donations. Recent posts about $$ have come from devs (that do not get paid) and laymen (that do not get paid). We like it enough to see it continue and monatary suppliments help. DO NOT DONATE IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO. Just like pbs, it'll likely be here tomorrow for our British comedy needs (you know who you are). theo@ is not and, as far as I've seen never, running a fundraiser. He certainly understands the situation he is in, but does not force his issues upon anyone. This has been his postion and to beg for donations is inconsistant with that postition; somehting he's aware of. The fact that devs happen to take our suggestions/comments seriously is NOT because they owe you/me/us anything. The fact that something is posted to this list, does not make it an official position/announcemnet from oBSD. I would and could go on further, but only if requested. Tom, I hope that you continue to enjoy oBSD. I will try to make sure that it is there for you every six months. Long Live Monty Python!
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
Tom Smith wrote: On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 2:29 PM, armpit mailto...@iprimus.com.au wrote: OpenBSD is created by the developers for the developers and any use that the rest of us get from the OS is a nice side effect of their generosity... That's nonsense. You can't beg for donations and CD sales, time and time again, and then turn around and tell the same people, that you're begging to give more, that what they want does not matter. Your contributions are pathetic. I think something like that was recently posted to misc. Well, if what end-users want matters not to OpenBSD developers and what end-users give is pathetic, then OpenBSD developers should not complain when end-users don't buy more CDs or donate more money. Can't have it both ways. I use and like OpenBSD, but nonsensical statements such as this need to stop, this is silly and it benefits no one. Ah, so you feel that instead of having a rigid set of goals and objectives, OpenBSD should blow whatever way public opinion pushes it at any particular moment, eh? Shall we have a logo design contest? An elected core team of Most Popular Developers? Five different network filtering systems because we don't have the guts to say to anyone, sorry, we are dropping your old, inferior product, and focusing on the new and better product, because it might upset you and you might not give? I can assure you, this would not be what you recognize and love as OpenBSD. This would not be the OS obsessed with correctness and good design, it would be Yet Anothter WinLinNetFreeBSux. We can wrap it in all kinds of flowery language, but it boils down to this: One guy is in charge, he surrounds himself with a small number of other really smart people (and me). They build what THEY want and need to build, for work and FOR FUN. They make it available to anyone who wants it for just about any use they want to use it for. Not everyone needs or wants what OpenBSD produces, that's fine. No one forces you to use OpenBSD or OpenSSH or chroot your DNS or web server. If you find your wants and needs overlap with those of the developers, we ask you to help support the project. If you don't care about OpenBSD, you probably aren't reading this (well, we know a few people follow these lists out of a desire to stir shit, some people lack the intelligence and skills to have productive hobbies). If you use OpenBSD, obviously, you appreciate what the project produces and by implication, how it produces it. I absolutely do not believe you could have a warm, fuzzy project that produces something of the quality of OpenBSD. You want something for the users? Ok, here it is: contribute to the OpenBSD project for the users. It isn't for the developers. Don't worry about the developers, they are all HIGHLY skilled people, they'll have no problem finding things to do with their spare time. Most of them would drastically increase their income if they weren't wasting all the time they do on OpenBSD. Just ask yourself, what would YOU do without OpenBSD? Nick.
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
Le jeudi 17 septembre 2009 C 08:56 +1000, armpit a C)crit : Marco Peereboom wrote: [...] OpenBSD is built by the developers for the developers. [...] To me it sound like OpenBSD is built by the developpers for the developpers, and also the rest of the world who need it for whatever purpose one can imagine.
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 01:04:07AM +0200, jean-francois wrote: Le jeudi 17 septembre 2009 C 08:56 +1000, armpit a C)crit : Marco Peereboom wrote: [...] OpenBSD is built by the developers for the developers. [...] To me it sound like OpenBSD is built by the developpers for the developpers, and also the rest of the world who need it for whatever purpose one can imagine. Soo . . . close! Unless you can rationalize why the part after the comma = the part before it.
Re: OT: Old School Unix vs. Modern Day Support Professionals - was (Defending OpenBSD Performance)
Most long term OpenBSD users know of THEOS. The reason is simple; the scumbag company behind that OS tried to use reverse domain hijacking (i.e. a bogus dispute claim) to steal the THEOS.COM domain name from it's owner, namely Theo de Raadt. Here's the goss: http://theos.com/dispute.html Best wishes.
Re: OT: Old School Unix vs. Modern Day Support Professionals - was (Defending OpenBSD Performance)
-Original Message- From: J.C. Roberts [mailto:list-...@designtools.org] Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 9:58 PM To: Brian Shackelford Cc: misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: OT: Old School Unix vs. Modern Day Support Professionals - was (Defending OpenBSD Performance) On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:27:47 -0400 Brian Shackelford bshackelf...@dns-net.com wrote: Old School Unix = People that KNOW what they are doing. I work with Macs, PC's, Windows, Novell, Mac OS, Linux, Unix, Windows, DOS (Yes some customers still use this), THEOS (anyone else heard of that one???) Most long term OpenBSD users know of THEOS. The reason is simple; the scumbag company behind that OS tried to use reverse domain hijacking (i.e. a bogus dispute claim) to steal the THEOS.COM domain name from it's owner, namely Theo de Raadt. -jon -- J.C. Roberts Sounds right to me. Last time I needed something from them, I had to cut off my right foot. Customer was up and running, but I am still limping :) - Brian
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 04:59:45PM -0700, 4625 wrote: On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:08:55PM +, Jacob Meuser wrote: I think your problem can be traced to the different default voices. I've test timidity with a different sound fonts and with the same config, like I have one in FreeBSD, on the same PC. I wonder if FreeBSD's patch-playmidi would make any difference. It is not port or patch problem, but perfomance (on my opinion). maybe you don't. but for me, multichannel audio is more important for a desktop than some busted old software midi player. It would be nice to hope that there is exist good substitute for timidity, which able to produce sound with the same quality. did you try that timidity patch from freebsd I refered you to? Sure. But I'm sure, I should boot FreeBSD-4.11 to listen midi files. or you could use a less ancient midi player. Could you advice me one? I like fluidsynth. Well, I got it. Could you explain me how do you ran it? the way the manual says to. What make you think that I did not saw the manual? IMHO this discussion is taking the wrong direction. I use MIDI a lot, exclusively on OpenBSD; both for playback, recording, editting and basic real-time filtering. Feel free to ask for hints and to explain what you try to do with MIDI and -- most importantly -- with what MIDI hardware. Either privately or on the list, if you feel there's something others should know. To quickly summarize where OpenBSD is: - harware synths, keyboards, control surfaces etc... just work, and are fully usable for real-time stuff since few years. After all MIDI is a dumb serial port. - opl(4), pcppi(4) are almost useless and seem unmaintained, I have plans to work on them (or anything based on src/sys/dev/midisyn.h). - ports/audio/fluidsynth is almost usable as a real-time synth. There's a recent patch on ports@, making it look as hardware to MIDI players. It works, but is not as good as hardware synths, especially for real-time performance. I use hardware most of the time. - ports/audio/timidity: it's good for MIDI rendering. I'd love your issues to get solved, but I have much more urgent/fun things to work on. I use it sometimes to render .wav files. - midiplay(1) is in base. It works only with hardware, because it uses the (obsolete) sequencer(4) interface; this is being worked on, though. - ports/audio/midish works in all cases and does much more than midiplay(4), that's the tool i'm working on the most. HTH -- Alexandre
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 03:33:07PM +0200, Alexandre Ratchov wrote: On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 04:59:45PM -0700, 4625 wrote: On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:08:55PM +, Jacob Meuser wrote: I think your problem can be traced to the different default voices. I've test timidity with a different sound fonts and with the same config, like I have one in FreeBSD, on the same PC. I wonder if FreeBSD's patch-playmidi would make any difference. It is not port or patch problem, but perfomance (on my opinion). maybe you don't. but for me, multichannel audio is more important for a desktop than some busted old software midi player. It would be nice to hope that there is exist good substitute for timidity, which able to produce sound with the same quality. did you try that timidity patch from freebsd I refered you to? Sure. But I'm sure, I should boot FreeBSD-4.11 to listen midi files. or you could use a less ancient midi player. Could you advice me one? I like fluidsynth. Well, I got it. Could you explain me how do you ran it? the way the manual says to. What make you think that I did not saw the manual? IMHO this discussion is taking the wrong direction. I use MIDI a lot, exclusively on OpenBSD; both for playback, recording, editting and basic real-time filtering. Feel free to ask for hints and to explain what you try to do with MIDI and -- most importantly -- with what MIDI hardware. Either privately or on the list, if you feel there's something others should know. To quickly summarize where OpenBSD is: - harware synths, keyboards, control surfaces etc... just work, and are fully usable for real-time stuff since few years. After all MIDI is a dumb serial port. - opl(4), pcppi(4) are almost useless and seem unmaintained, I have plans to work on them (or anything based on src/sys/dev/midisyn.h). of course, I have absolutely _no_ plans to work on them... ...other than possibly removing them if one day they block development. sorry for the typo. -- Alexandre
Re: OT: Old School Unix vs. Modern Day Support Professionals - was (Defending OpenBSD Performance)
Fact of the matter is that I have become convinced that those that know how to actually TROUBLESHOOT problems are in the very small minority in this industry. I think this is really the crux of the matter, I find the ability to troubleshoot multi-vendor complexity is getting to be a rare commodity, its something thats very hard to interview people for. Nowadays people are so proud of their certification and specialized domain knowledge that they actively avoid learning or thinking about stuff outside of their specialized area.
Re: OT: Old School Unix vs. Modern Day Support Professionals - was (Defending OpenBSD Performance)
-Original Message- From: owner-m...@openbsd.org [mailto:owner-m...@openbsd.org] On Behalf Of openbsd misc Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 2:27 PM To: misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: OT: Old School Unix vs. Modern Day Support Professionals - was (Defending OpenBSD Performance) Fact of the matter is that I have become convinced that those that know how to actually TROUBLESHOOT problems are in the very small minority in this industry. I think this is really the crux of the matter, I find the ability to troubleshoot multi-vendor complexity is getting to be a rare commodity, its something thats very hard to interview people for. Nowadays people are so proud of their certification and specialized domain knowledge that they actively avoid learning or thinking about stuff outside of their specialized area. And that is specifically my point. People want to justify their own worth and bloat their value beyond what it is by calling others names or by raising their specialization higher than the median thereby making themselves better about themselves. In reality it is understanding the median rather than the specialization that will allow one to find the solution to the majority of problems. So many times I tell our clients - I don't care who's fault it is - let's just get it fixed (this is usually in response to a finger pointing in our face by another vendor trying to save face - blaming us for something we have absolutely no control over...). In order to just get it fixed one has to stop worrying about who's fault it is and man up (or woman up - don't want to seem discriminatory here...) and take responsibility to follow it through to a solution. Unix folks had to know what they were doing because you had to understand how it all worked. You actually had to read the manual and understand what effect enabling this or disabling that would do. The best part is you couldn't accidentally point, click, and stop or remove a piece of software that hoses the entire system - you had to use the command line to do administrative tasks - which meant you had to (or should) know the commands to use before attempting anything. That is why I love OpenBSD. Everything is documented, source is available, and you have to understand the system to use it... ...if you don't understand it - and are unhappy with the system - and are unwilling to spend the time to learn it - then the best thing for you to do is login as root and type in the following: * cd / rm -rf * * ...and now you learned something - DONT DO ANYTHING WIHTOUT UNDERSTANDING IT FIRST *** Disclaimer: I take no responsibility for the results of running the above commands although I would be intensely interested to hear the results of anyone who does run them and their personal experiences immediately following. Run them only at your own risk AFTER understanding what they do... That is where these folks that want to LOUDLY complain about something not working in OpenBSD or want to complain because feature X is not in the OS really kill me. They try to use OpenBSD to fit into a mold that it was not designed for and want feature X to work. Either take the initiative and contribute feature X, politely ask if there is a need for feature X or if has been thought of, or be quiet. OpenBSD works great for everything I use it for - unfortunately until I can run MS SQL and .NET 3.5 (yes mono is getting close - and - MySQL is maturing very nicely in its featureset!!) to run on it I am relegated to a MS based system for now as my work PC. But for my firewalls and mail filtering systems OpenBSD rocks and is rock solid. There isn't anything I have tried to use OpenBSD for (knowing the limitations on it - such as it can't run apps written for Windows - which is something other people seem to forget) that has not worked. I never claim or even suspect that I know all the answers (but I know where to find them) - and that is the strength and difference between those people that know how to fix problems and those that do not. If you think you know it all - then there is no more room for knowledge and you are unwilling to accept you might be wrong - which will forever hinder your ability to learn from your mistakes. If you approach every problem with no preconceived notions and look at it as if you had never seen it before you are more likely to find the right solution the first time - and yes sometimes it is YOUR fault! Again - feel free to obliterate my thoughts - but know that if your comments are negative I might not and probably will not lose any sleep over it. Thank you to those that continue to devote their time and money to this project and I will make a great attempt and not extending this thread longer than I have already.. :)
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 01:59:43PM +1200, Paul M wrote: I like fluidsynth. Well, I got it. Could you explain me how do you ran it? Are you serious? Is it looks like joke? fluidsynth -ni Unison.sf2 beethoven_-_5th_simphony.mid fluidsynth: warning: Ignoring sample *KPianoB5: can't use ROM samples fluidsynth: error: Couldn't set libsndio audio parameters as desired Failed to create the audio driver the way the manual says to. What make you think that I did not saw the manual? You should probably stop posting about now, you're starting to make yourself look realy bad. Your are talking about unrelated topics, Paul. I do not care about how everything looks there and I did not ask your opinion about how I look... Good or bad - it is indifferent for me. By the way, absence of constructive reply starting to make you look really bad. -- /4625
Re: OT: Old School Unix vs. Modern Day Support Professionals - was (Defending OpenBSD Performance)
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Aaron Mason simplersolut...@gmail.com wrote: Oh yes, M$ were very much against that, even when it was the only solution and the one suggested in their knowledge base! This is good reading that goes through the horrors of such things, as well as their training slash indoctrination: http://www.kmfms.com/unmaintainable.txt You need to read this then: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/21/ms_paper_touts_unix/ -- 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=30v_g83VHK4
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 04:09:04PM +0200, Alexandre Ratchov wrote: I think your problem can be traced to the different default voices. I've test timidity with a different sound fonts and with the same config, like I have one in FreeBSD, on the same PC. I wonder if FreeBSD's patch-playmidi would make any difference. It is not port or patch problem, but perfomance (on my opinion). maybe you don't. but for me, multichannel audio is more important for a desktop than some busted old software midi player. It would be nice to hope that there is exist good substitute for timidity, which able to produce sound with the same quality. did you try that timidity patch from freebsd I refered you to? Sure. But I'm sure, I should boot FreeBSD-4.11 to listen midi files. or you could use a less ancient midi player. Could you advice me one? I like fluidsynth. Well, I got it. Could you explain me how do you ran it? the way the manual says to. What make you think that I did not saw the manual? Feel free to ask for hints and to explain what you try to do with MIDI and -- most importantly -- with what MIDI hardware. Either privately or on the list, if you feel there's something others should know. I'd like nothing especially, just listen classical music in midi. sb1 at isapnp0 Creative SB AWE64 PnP, CTL0045, , Audio port 0x220/16,0x330/2,0 x388/4 irq 5 drq 1,5: dsp v4.16 midi1 at sb1: SB MPU-401 UART audio0 at sb1 Creative SB AWE64 PnP, CTL0022, , WaveTable at isapnp0 port 0x620/4 not configured -- /4625
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 01:13:56PM -0700, 4625 wrote: On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 01:59:43PM +1200, Paul M wrote: I like fluidsynth. Well, I got it. Could you explain me how do you ran it? Are you serious? Is it looks like joke? fluidsynth -ni Unison.sf2 beethoven_-_5th_simphony.mid fluidsynth: warning: Ignoring sample *KPianoB5: can't use ROM samples fluidsynth: error: Couldn't set libsndio audio parameters as desired Failed to create the audio driver your device doesn't seem to support what fluidsynth requested. Try using ``-r 48000'' or whatever is appropriate for your device. Alternatively, use aucat(1) in server mode (ie ``aucat -l'' or whatever). -- Alexandre
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Jacob Meuser jake...@sdf.lonestar.org wrote: oh, wait. I found a dmesg: PR 6220. PII @ 349 MHz w/ s...@isapnp ok, now I can believe you may have a performance issue. OK, that beats what I saw at work today. Someone sent me an email with a subject that said Issue with ticket #12345 and a long thread inside (sexchange mails, what can I do?) I took a look at it, and one of my folks had already sent instructions on what to do, and closed it out. So I replied - did you do what we told you to do for issue ticket #12345? He then replies - oh, your folks already helped me solve issue #12345, I'm actually talking about ticket #98765. I went WTF? Am I a freaking mind reader? But I think this - 350Mhz general use cpu turned midi player may actually beat me out for stupidity of the day. He probably believes Microsoft and runs XP on a 486 too. -- 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=30v_g83VHK4
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
But I think this - 350Mhz general use cpu turned midi player may actually beat me out for stupidity of the day. He probably believes Microsoft and runs XP on a 486 too. You can get close though! http://www.winhistory.de/more/386/xpmini_eng.htm ;-) -B
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:30:25PM +, Jacob Meuser wrote: fluidsynth -ni Unison.sf2 beethoven_-_5th_simphony.mid fluidsynth: warning: Ignoring sample *KPianoB5: can't use ROM samples fluidsynth: error: Couldn't set libsndio audio parameters as desired Failed to create the audio driver your soundcard apparently can't do 48kHz 16-bit stereo. Sure. Max 44100 Hz. I'm going to take a wild guess and suggest you try using '-r 44100' on the fluidsynth command line. Thank you for advice. Now I've got sound. However, I must say, timidity on FreeBSD 4.11 produce more fluently sound. Especially when speech together many instruments. the way the manual says to. What make you think that I did not saw the manual? You should probably stop posting about now, you're starting to make yourself look realy bad. Your are talking about unrelated topics, Paul. I do not care about how everything looks there and I did not ask your opinion about how I look... Good or bad - it is indifferent for me. By the way, absence of constructive reply starting to make you look really bad. btw, I tried finding 'beethoven_-_5th_simphony.mid' to see if I could reproduce your problem or at least have some basic idea of what's going on. I will e-mail you some files. oh, wait. I found a dmesg: PR 6220. PII @ 349 MHz w/ s...@isapnp Correct. ok, now I can believe you may have a performance issue. PS do you really think that's the kind of system most people would use as a desktop in 2009? after all, this subthread started with you saying OpenBSD might not be suitable as a desktop system, because of your issue with timidity performance. I affirm that it is timidity on FreeBSD 4.11 display more performance than timidity or fluidsynth both on OpenBSD 4.5. -- /Buzzer
Re: OT: Old School Unix vs. Modern Day Support Professionals - was (Defending OpenBSD Performance)
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:27:47 -0400 Brian Shackelford bshackelf...@dns-net.com wrote: Old School Unix = People that KNOW what they are doing. I work with Macs, PC's, Windows, Novell, Mac OS, Linux, Unix, Windows, DOS (Yes some customers still use this), THEOS (anyone else heard of that one???) Most long term OpenBSD users know of THEOS. The reason is simple; the scumbag company behind that OS tried to use reverse domain hijacking (i.e. a bogus dispute claim) to steal the THEOS.COM domain name from it's owner, namely Theo de Raadt. -jon -- J.C. Roberts
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
- Tethys tet...@gmail.com writes: And that attitude is why OpenBSD will never be more than a hobby OS. Sigh. Yes? So? Not everyone has to have an ambition to take over the world. The developers do it as a hobby, for fun. Which ties into the OP. The answer to his question is why?. //art
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
And that attitude is why OpenBSD will never be more than a hobby OS. Sigh. Yes? So? Not everyone has to have an ambition to take over the world. The developers do it as a hobby, for fun. Which ties into the OP. The answer to his question is why?. No kidding. All I ever wanted was a hobby. If this pathetic slob doesn't like our hobby, they should stop relying on it. That includes OpenSSH.
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 04:14:46PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 08:59:35PM +0100, Cian Brennan wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:24:44PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 05:47:08PM +0100, - Tethys wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote: Sounds like building from source is necessary to me. boo hoo. run one machine somewhere and make release. done. And that attitude is why OpenBSD will never be more than a hobby OS. Sigh. Correction, a professional OS that requires its users to be professionals. Not a bunch of whining windows update people that have to call IT to launch excel. In case you hadn't noticed we are old school UNIX users that don't mind fixing whatever problem is at hand. Including writing code or fixing a bug. This is why in the olden days your IT department was worth something and wasn't a bunch of monkeys reading a script. It is exactly your attitude that has ruined the computer industry. You have an odd definition of professional, and the kind of attitude that sounds like you haven't actually worked in the computer industry in a while. Generally, the computer industry is about providing services to end users. And things like easy updates, specialisation of labour and all of that kind of stuff have made us an awful lot better at taht than 'old school UNIX' ever was. No my friend. The computer industry is here to save money. Your description is about having the industry as a means to itself. Thanks again for playing. And increase value. And in a lot of cases to provide particular services directly to end users. Unless youtube exists merely to save money, in which case I'm obviously an idiot, and so are they, given that they could just switch the whole thing off. But hey, if you want to pretend we all still live in the early 90s, feel free. I hope it works out well for you. Works fine. Too bad there are all those youtubers and twatters on the net. It was a much nicer place without them. Yeah. I hate it when normal people get some benefit from computing. We should really stop that. OpenBSD's a wonderful OS, but it's lack of easy upgradability is a *disadvantage, not something to be proud of. And yes, there are good reasons why it doesn't exist, the linuxes do have massively more man power, and developers time *is* probably better spent on new features, rather than on packaging. Acting smug about your failings just makes you look like silly, however. I update all my openbsd machines in less than 10 minutes including boot time. That is less time than it takes to download a linux kernel. Not sure what this upgradeability you are talking about. I patched in my years of openbsd use twice from source. Once for ssh and once for bind. I have no clue what you are on about. It is all perceived ease. Your argument has no practical merit. Fine, you'd obviously gone to some effort to put a patching infastructure into place. I'm sure that's wonderful for you. Everyong going to the effort to put a seperate patching infastructure in place, and to manage seperate sets of packages and the like is retarded, given that we're all solving exactly the same problem. -- --
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
Generally, the computer industry is about providing services to end users. Wow I'm glad that I'm not part of that industry!
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 02:44:23AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: Generally, the computer industry is about providing services to end users. Wow I'm glad that I'm not part of that industry! Nah, our end-users are just different beasts. They walk upright. -Otto
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 20:59 +0100, Cian Brennan wrote: OpenBSD's a wonderful OS, but it's lack of easy upgradability is a *disadvantage, not something to be proud of. And yes, there are good Our Institute moved away from Linux servers always everwhere, just *because* of updates are unreliable. Very often we did an apt-get update or an yum bla, reboot, machine dead or fucked up otherwise. Ever upgraded from SLES10 to SP1-SP2-SP3? Good luck, on 50% of the SLES servers we had to *reinstall* or left them running unpatched. Great OS. By the way, we have 100 linux clients. Once a month, we do patching, because if we applied all patches in time, we would not do anything else anymore. We call it 'patch day'. Sounds familiar with what OS? Right. This Institute now runs 20 OpenBSD servers and I'll upgrade them all in half a day. Because I'm slow.
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
hmm, on Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:43:07AM +0200, Stephan A. Rickauer said that Our Institute moved away from Linux servers always everwhere, just *because* of updates are unreliable. Very often we did an apt-get update or an yum bla, reboot, machine dead or fucked up otherwise. everyone is comparing apples and oranges here. linux is a bunch of packages. openbsd is base (and then probably some packages). when updating linux the OS, one is still updating packages. openbsd, the system, is clearly easier and more consistent to upgrade. but updating packages on openbsd is more time consuming than on e.g. linux. so yes, when 4.6 comes out, i'll update a server in maybe 15 minutes with all its packages as well -- because 4.6 will come with packages. but if i were to update a package with a lot of dependencies in say 3 months because it has a vulnerability or reliability fixes, then i have to do the package dance myself. depending on the package this might be easy, or it might be hell. but it clearly takes more time and effort than in linux, this team just doesn't have the manpower to compete with that. and if you have a handmade inhouse solution to roll out a package like that for all your 1000 machines, great, you are earning your money as an admin. but calling people names because they are using an update infrastructure in place seems juvenile to me at best. bind was as special example because in linux it's just a package, and while it might be in openbsd as well, it is provided in base. and that brings up the theme of binary patching, and the archives are full of it. -f -- fishing, stranger? no, just drowning worms.
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:24:44PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 05:47:08PM +0100, - Tethys wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote: Sounds like building from source is necessary to me. boo hoo. run one machine somewhere and make release. done. And that attitude is why OpenBSD will never be more than a hobby OS. Sigh. Correction, a professional OS that requires its users to be professionals. Not a bunch of whining windows update people that have to call IT to launch excel. In case you hadn't noticed we are old school UNIX users that don't mind fixing whatever problem is at hand. Including writing code or fixing a bug. This is why in the olden days your IT department was worth something and wasn't a bunch of monkeys reading a script. It is exactly your attitude that has ruined the computer industry. Holy shit, you've still got monkeys in your IT department? Luxury! We're down to bathroom scum over here, since the outsourcing. Ken
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
You have an odd definition of professional, and the kind of attitude that sounds like you haven't actually worked in the computer industry in a while. Generally, the computer industry is about providing services to end users. And things like easy updates, specialisation of labour and all of that kind of stuff have made us an awful lot better at taht than 'old school UNIX' ever was. No my friend. The computer industry is here to save money. Your description is about having the industry as a means to itself. Thanks again for playing. And increase value. And in a lot of cases to provide particular services directly to end users. Unless youtube exists merely to save money, in which case I'm obviously an idiot, and so are they, given that they could just switch the whole thing off. Increase value of what? I am not really sure if youtube is going to have any net value for humanity. It uses 50% of the world bandwidth to basically show america's funniest home videos. OMG did you see that, Timmy kicked himself in the ballsone WITH A CAR! And if you didn't know it isn't turning a profit either. Hasn't ever and probably never will. However it has the potential to turn a profit (so say the suits) so they keep it going. But hey, if you want to pretend we all still live in the early 90s, feel free. I hope it works out well for you. Works fine. Too bad there are all those youtubers and twatters on the net. It was a much nicer place without them. Yeah. I hate it when normal people get some benefit from computing. We should really stop that. Where benefit is defined as sharing with the world OMG I am on the pooper!! The new internet has spawned a whole generation of self important but not self reliant people. The TV was a fine tool for these tools. It was great that it only went one way. One had to only suffer by proxy. OpenBSD's a wonderful OS, but it's lack of easy upgradability is a *disadvantage, not something to be proud of. And yes, there are good reasons why it doesn't exist, the linuxes do have massively more man power, and developers time *is* probably better spent on new features, rather than on packaging. Acting smug about your failings just makes you look like silly, however. I update all my openbsd machines in less than 10 minutes including boot time. That is less time than it takes to download a linux kernel. Not sure what this upgradeability you are talking about. I patched in my years of openbsd use twice from source. Once for ssh and once for bind. I have no clue what you are on about. It is all perceived ease. Your argument has no practical merit. Fine, you'd obviously gone to some effort to put a patching infastructure into place. I'm sure that's wonderful for you. Everyong going to the effort to put a seperate patching infastructure in place, and to manage seperate sets of packages and the like is retarded, given that we're all solving exactly the same problem. Yeah my parching infrastructure it totally super duper complex. It uses complex things like ftp and cvs and the patch command. I mean it was awful to figure out. But since I am a nice guy I am going to share it with you. Download snapshot Try on throw away box Boot bsd.rd Run upgrade Reboot and run -or- On a fast machine: cvs -d path_to_cvs co src cd /usr/src make obj make depend make includes make tags make build Copy the necessary pieces to the other boxes OMG someone file a patent.
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 08:59:35PM +0100, Cian Brennan wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:24:44PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 05:47:08PM +0100, - Tethys wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote: Sounds like building from source is necessary to me. boo hoo. run one machine somewhere and make release. done. And that attitude is why OpenBSD will never be more than a hobby OS. Sigh. Correction, a professional OS that requires its users to be professionals. Not a bunch of whining windows update people that have to call IT to launch excel. In case you hadn't noticed we are old school UNIX users that don't mind fixing whatever problem is at hand. Including writing code or fixing a bug. This is why in the olden days your IT department was worth something and wasn't a bunch of monkeys reading a script. It is exactly your attitude that has ruined the computer industry. You have an odd definition of professional, and the kind of attitude that sounds like you haven't actually worked in the computer industry in a while. Generally, the computer industry is about providing services to end users. And things like easy updates, specialisation of labour and all of that kind of stuff have made us an awful lot better at taht than 'old school UNIX' ever was. OMG. Fall off chair and roll around laughing hysterically. You have no idea how funny that is. 'You' are not better at providing service, 'you' are better at the aforementioned hookers and blow component of user satisfaction. And thank god somebody is doing that work or I'd have no place to put all the bodies of the puling whining users who are convinced that starting excel means they have a clue. Doing actual tech work is still the province of the 'old school'. Easy updates on Windows and Linux. Giggling all the way to work to see how many thousand work stations and servers blew up after the latest SMS push. Ken But hey, if you want to pretend we all still live in the early 90s, feel free. I hope it works out well for you. OpenBSD's a wonderful OS, but it's lack of easy upgradability is a *disadvantage, not something to be proud of. And yes, there are good reasons why it doesn't exist, the linuxes do have massively more man power, and developers time *is* probably better spent on new features, rather than on packaging. Acting smug about your failings just makes you look like silly, however.
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 08:59:35PM +0100, Cian Brennan wrote: You have an odd definition of professional, and the kind of attitude that sounds like you haven't actually worked in the computer industry in a while. Generally, the computer industry is about providing services to end users. And things like easy updates, specialisation of labour and all of that kind of stuff have made us an awful lot better at taht than 'old school UNIX' ever was. Yes, buying shit loads of crappy solutions from any vendor without even understanding the basic concepts is not being retarded. Hey it works ! and they pay me ! Fuck that. But hey, if you want to pretend we all still live in the early 90s, feel free. I hope it works out well for you. If you had done your homework you would know that the early 90s is UNIX dark age. UNIX was never intentend to reach everyone, we despised intel and PC in the 80s mainly cause the architecture is plain lame, so stop whining and trying to change a 40 years old culture, or move to the so called The New Hackers Culture, The New Hackers Bullshit if I may. Providing service to users ? what kind of world do you live, just because we expect the user to know better than the designer ? We provide mechanism not policy, policy dies, mechanism stays. Who the fuck uses a computer if not users ? Your definition of service is utterly flawed, in order to use the service UNIX provides you're required not to be stupid. OpenBSD's a wonderful OS, but it's lack of easy upgradability is a *disadvantage, not something to be proud of. And yes, there are good reasons why it doesn't exist, the linuxes do have massively more man power, and developers time *is* probably better spent on new features, rather than on packaging. Acting smug about your failings just makes you look like silly, however. Blah blah blah... -- Christiano Farina HAESBAERT Do NOT send me html mail.
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
Ignore my double posting, my mistake. -- Christiano Farina HAESBAERT Do NOT send me html mail.
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
Christiano Farina Haesbaert wrote: Ignore my double posting, my mistake. Dont worry, it adds value to the intarwebs.
OT: Old School Unix vs. Modern Day Support Professionals - was (Defending OpenBSD Performance)
Correction, a professional OS that requires its users to be professionals. Not a bunch of whining windows update people that have to call IT to launch excel. In case you hadn't noticed we are old school UNIX users that don't mind fixing whatever problem is at hand. Including writing code or fixing a bug. This is why in the olden days your IT department was worth something and wasn't a bunch of monkeys reading a script. It is exactly your attitude that has ruined the computer industry. You have an odd definition of professional, and the kind of attitude that sounds like you haven't actually worked in the computer industry in a while. Generally, the computer industry is about providing services to end users. And things like easy updates, specialisation of labour and all of that kind of stuff have made us an awful lot better at taht than 'old school UNIX' ever was. You know it is interesting - having been in this industry for over 16 years - to see the attitudes of so many professionals in the IT industry. I make my living by fixing all the problems many of these so-called professionals cause when the work on things. It is so very troubling to get phone calls from people that have been laid off from their IT job in some of the large corporations where they commanded huge salaries and now they have opened their own business and are calling us for support because they don't have a clue about what it takes to actually do the work. I almost believe that the perception in this industry is if you can pronounce server, workstation, network, switch, hard drive, and a few other highly technical (btw - the should be read with sarcasm for you Microsoft folks out there) terms, that it is acceptable to call yourself an IT professional. Fact of the matter is that I have become convinced that those that know how to actually TROUBLESHOOT problems are in the very small minority in this industry. Don't get me wrong - I am by no means complaining - for it is how I get paid. I am just sick of so-called professionals with Master's Degrees in IT telling me that they are right and I am wrong because they think pushing a few buttons and having a degree makes them smarter than some of us that earned our experience. Old School Unix = People that KNOW what they are doing. I work with Macs, PC's, Windows, Novell, Mac OS, Linux, Unix, Windows, DOS (Yes some customers still use this), THEOS (anyone else heard of that one???). I have the certifications to prove my knowledge - but none of that means bupkiss if I can't fix a problem I have never seen before. The strength of Old-School Unix folks is their resourcefulness in fixing the problems they are faced with - whether they have seen that specific problem or not - without having to whine to everyone that it just doesn't work. If there is a problem -they fix it - sometimes that means writing code or hacking together a solution. I can't begin to tell you how many times a client has a call into Microsoft and we fix the problem hours (if not days) before Microsoft calls back simply by actually troubleshooting and researching the problem. Sometimes this means we actually (gasp) edit the registry. Now to bring this to the place of why this relates to OpenBSD. I love OpenBSD, we have some installs that have been in place for several years and I never even think about them. I lose sleep every night I go home when I think about all the Windows systems we manage, but I never even think about the OpenBSD boxes we have put in place. Performance - well three years running with no patches and never a problem and never been compromised. Let me see ANY other OS make that claim. Microsoft Server - connect to internet - compromised within minutes (actually happened to a customer of ours...) Sorry for the long-winded post. I am simply tired of reading whiny people complain about stuff they know nothing about. If you don't like it, don't use it. If you don't understand it, then don't use it - OR - (this might be earth shattering) take the time to LEARN to use it. There are lots of people here that will help when asked questions that show you have done your LEARNING BEFORE you ask. And how much did it cost you..? That is my $1.87 worth - flame me - stone me - whatever if you must - but again it is just one man's opinion. Placing my Order today for the new set - that should take the US to at least 11 copies..:)
Re: OT: Old School Unix vs. Modern Day Support Professionals - was (Defending OpenBSD Performance)
That is my $1.87 worth - flame me - stone me - whatever if you must - but again it is just one man's opinion. Don't be sorry, that's one of the better and more literate rants I've seen on misc@ in a while.
Re: OT: Old School Unix vs. Modern Day Support Professionals - was (Defending OpenBSD Performance)
+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 :-) Brian Shackelford escribis: Correction, a professional OS that requires its users to be professionals. Not a bunch of whining windows update people that have to call IT to launch excel. In case you hadn't noticed we are old school UNIX users that don't mind fixing whatever problem is at hand. Including writing code or fixing a bug. This is why in the olden days your IT department was worth something and wasn't a bunch of monkeys reading a script. It is exactly your attitude that has ruined the computer industry. You have an odd definition of professional, and the kind of attitude that sounds like you haven't actually worked in the computer industry in a while. Generally, the computer industry is about providing services to end users. And things like easy updates, specialisation of labour and all of that kind of stuff have made us an awful lot better at taht than 'old school UNIX' ever was. You know it is interesting - having been in this industry for over 16 years - to see the attitudes of so many professionals in the IT industry. I make my living by fixing all the problems many of these so-called professionals cause when the work on things. It is so very troubling to get phone calls from people that have been laid off from their IT job in some of the large corporations where they commanded huge salaries and now they have opened their own business and are calling us for support because they don't have a clue about what it takes to actually do the work. I almost believe that the perception in this industry is if you can pronounce server, workstation, network, switch, hard drive, and a few other highly technical (btw - the should be read with sarcasm for you Microsoft folks out there) terms, that it is acceptable to call yourself an IT professional. Fact of the matter is that I have become convinced that those that know how to actually TROUBLESHOOT problems are in the very small minority in this industry. Don't get me wrong - I am by no means complaining - for it is how I get paid. I am just sick of so-called professionals with Master's Degrees in IT telling me that they are right and I am wrong because they think pushing a few buttons and having a degree makes them smarter than some of us that earned our experience. Old School Unix = People that KNOW what they are doing. I work with Macs, PC's, Windows, Novell, Mac OS, Linux, Unix, Windows, DOS (Yes some customers still use this), THEOS (anyone else heard of that one???). I have the certifications to prove my knowledge - but none of that means bupkiss if I can't fix a problem I have never seen before. The strength of Old-School Unix folks is their resourcefulness in fixing the problems they are faced with - whether they have seen that specific problem or not - without having to whine to everyone that it just doesn't work. If there is a problem -they fix it - sometimes that means writing code or hacking together a solution. I can't begin to tell you how many times a client has a call into Microsoft and we fix the problem hours (if not days) before Microsoft calls back simply by actually troubleshooting and researching the problem. Sometimes this means we actually (gasp) edit the registry. Now to bring this to the place of why this relates to OpenBSD. I love OpenBSD, we have some installs that have been in place for several years and I never even think about them. I lose sleep every night I go home when I think about all the Windows systems we manage, but I never even think about the OpenBSD boxes we have put in place. Performance - well three years running with no patches and never a problem and never been compromised. Let me see ANY other OS make that claim. Microsoft Server - connect to internet - compromised within minutes (actually happened to a customer of ours...) Sorry for the long-winded post. I am simply tired of reading whiny people complain about stuff they know nothing about. If you don't like it, don't use it. If you don't understand it, then don't use it - OR - (this might be earth shattering) take the time to LEARN to use it. There are lots of people here that will help when asked questions that show you have done your LEARNING BEFORE you ask. And how much did it cost you..? That is my $1.87 worth - flame me - stone me - whatever if you must - but again it is just one man's opinion. Placing my Order today for the new set - that should take the US to at least 11 copies..:)
Re: OT: Old School Unix vs. Modern Day Support Professionals - was (Defending OpenBSD Performance)
Sorry Brian to sort of hijack this new thread; until late last night I had no time to follow the original one and you don't attribute your opponent. On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:27 -0400, Brian Shackelford wrote: Correction, a professional OS that requires its users to be professionals. Not a bunch of whining windows update people that have to call IT to launch excel. In case you hadn't noticed we are old school UNIX users that don't mind fixing whatever problem is at hand. Including writing code or fixing a bug. This is why in the olden days your IT department was worth something and wasn't a bunch of monkeys reading a script. It is exactly your attitude that has ruined the computer industry. You have an odd definition of professional, and the kind of attitude that sounds like you haven't actually worked in the computer industry in a while. Dunno about Brian, I have been in the IT Business since 1969, I've seen it developing. With the advent of personal computers it first seemed that IT might provide real value to the masses. Anyone who still remembers AmigaOS? Generally, the computer industry is about providing services to end users. Correct, but: When m$ started to release unfinished products to meet a deadline imposed by marketing they together with intel won the battle, resulting in companies like digital equipment long ago or sgi not that long ago disappearing from the market. Nowadays I can't buy a solidly built computer anywhere, I have to design it by myself. In the old days of microprocessors that used to be a managable task for a single person, nowadays you have to find a large team of people capable of using their own brains instead of following prescribed pathes. And things like easy updates, specialisation of labour and all of that kind of stuff have made us an awful lot better at taht than 'old school UNIX' ever was. *ROTFL* guess who developed most of that easy upgrade stuff e.g. for Debian, every single person involved in that effort is an old style Unix professional; I wasn't among them but having been an unimportant Debian developer from '95 thru '04 I know them. You know it is interesting - having been in this industry for over 16 years - to see the attitudes of so many professionals in the IT industry. I make my living by fixing all the problems many of these so-called professionals cause when the work on things. It is so very troubling to get phone calls from people that have been laid off from their IT job in some of the large corporations where they commanded huge salaries and now they have opened their own business and are calling us for support because they don't have a clue about what it takes to actually do the work. I almost believe that the perception in this industry is if you can pronounce server, workstation, network, switch, hard drive, and a few other highly technical (btw - the should be read with sarcasm for you Microsoft folks out there) terms, that it is acceptable to call yourself an IT professional. Fact of the matter is that I have become convinced that those that know how to actually TROUBLESHOOT problems are in the very small minority in this industry. Don't get me wrong - I am by no means complaining - for it is how I get paid. I am just sick of so-called professionals with Master's Degrees in IT telling me that they are right and I am wrong because they think pushing a few buttons and having a degree makes them smarter than some of us that earned our experience. Old School Unix = People that KNOW what they are doing. I work with Macs, PC's, Windows, Novell, Mac OS, Linux, Unix, Windows, DOS (Yes some customers still use this), THEOS (anyone else heard of that one???). I have the certifications to prove my knowledge - but none of that means bupkiss if I can't fix a problem I have never seen before. The strength of Old-School Unix folks is their resourcefulness in fixing the problems they are faced with - whether they have seen that specific problem or not - without having to whine to everyone that it just doesn't work. If there is a problem -they fix it - sometimes that means writing code or hacking together a solution. I can't begin to tell you how many times a client has a call into Microsoft and we fix the problem hours (if not days) before Microsoft calls back simply by actually troubleshooting and researching the problem. Sometimes this means we actually (gasp) edit the registry. Now to bring this to the place of why this relates to OpenBSD. I love OpenBSD, we have some installs that have been in place for several years and I never even think about them. I lose sleep every night I go home when I think about all the Windows systems we manage, but I never even think about the OpenBSD boxes we have put in place. Performance - well three years running with no patches and never a problem and never been compromised. Let me see ANY
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:55:57PM +, Jacob Meuser wrote: I think your problem can be traced to the different default voices. I've test timidity with a different sound fonts and with the same config, like I have one in FreeBSD, on the same PC. I wonder if FreeBSD's patch-playmidi would make any difference. It is not port or patch problem, but perfomance (on my opinion). btw, FreeBSD doesn't support multichannel audio. Don't know do I really need multichannel. maybe you don't. but for me, multichannel audio is more important for a desktop than some busted old software midi player. It would be nice to hope that there is exist good substitute for timidity, which able to produce sound with the same quality. But I'm sure, I should boot FreeBSD-4.11 to listen midi files. or you could use a less ancient midi player. Could you advice me one? I like fluidsynth. Well, I got it. Could you explain me how do you ran it? -- /4625
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On 9/15/09, 4625 4625...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:39:46 -0400 Tom Smith wrote: But, I'd like to have hard technicaly data to demonstrate that while Linux and FreeBSD may scale to a gazillion CPUs and PetaBytes of Memory that OpenBSD makes a fine firewall or desktop or mail server, etc and point out that the old article so many people cite is indeed *old*. Firewall and mail server - may be. But desktop would not be so fine. I've been using OpenBSD as my main desktop OS since 2.9 - it rocked then and it is awesome now. Fred PS YMMV - but for me it is far more stable, flexible, reliable, secure, and fun to use. PPS Thanks to the OpenBSD team I have an excellent desktop OS that I can also run servers with.
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 01:35:58PM -0700, 4625 wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:55:57PM +, Jacob Meuser wrote: I think your problem can be traced to the different default voices. I've test timidity with a different sound fonts and with the same config, like I have one in FreeBSD, on the same PC. I wonder if FreeBSD's patch-playmidi would make any difference. It is not port or patch problem, but perfomance (on my opinion). btw, FreeBSD doesn't support multichannel audio. Don't know do I really need multichannel. maybe you don't. but for me, multichannel audio is more important for a desktop than some busted old software midi player. It would be nice to hope that there is exist good substitute for timidity, which able to produce sound with the same quality. did you try that timidity patch from freebsd I refered you to? But I'm sure, I should boot FreeBSD-4.11 to listen midi files. or you could use a less ancient midi player. Could you advice me one? I like fluidsynth. Well, I got it. Could you explain me how do you ran it? the way the manual says to. -- jake...@sdf.lonestar.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:36:08PM +0100, Fred Crowson wrote: But, I'd like to have hard technicaly data to demonstrate that while Linux and FreeBSD may scale to a gazillion CPUs and PetaBytes of Memory that OpenBSD makes a fine firewall or desktop or mail server, etc and point out that the old article so many people cite is indeed *old*. Firewall and mail server - may be. But desktop would not be so fine. I've been using OpenBSD as my main desktop OS since 2.9 - it rocked then and it is awesome now. Fred PS YMMV - but for me it is far more stable, flexible, reliable, secure, and fun to use. PPS Thanks to the OpenBSD team I have an excellent desktop OS that I can also run servers with. I told once - problem with timidity still exist yet. This why I should boot FreeBSD-4.11 to listen classical music. However, when this one problem and problem with Fkeys will be fixed, I will be the first person who will say - OpenBSD - the best in the world desktop OS! -- /4625
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:08:55PM +, Jacob Meuser wrote: I think your problem can be traced to the different default voices. I've test timidity with a different sound fonts and with the same config, like I have one in FreeBSD, on the same PC. I wonder if FreeBSD's patch-playmidi would make any difference. It is not port or patch problem, but perfomance (on my opinion). maybe you don't. but for me, multichannel audio is more important for a desktop than some busted old software midi player. It would be nice to hope that there is exist good substitute for timidity, which able to produce sound with the same quality. did you try that timidity patch from freebsd I refered you to? Sure. But I'm sure, I should boot FreeBSD-4.11 to listen midi files. or you could use a less ancient midi player. Could you advice me one? I like fluidsynth. Well, I got it. Could you explain me how do you ran it? the way the manual says to. What make you think that I did not saw the manual? -- /4625
Re: OT: Old School Unix vs. Modern Day Support Professionals - was (Defending OpenBSD Performance)
First, thank you for a very enlightening rant - the best I've seen since I joined the list. *reaches for toilet paper to blow nose* On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:27 AM, Brian Shackelford bshackelf...@dns-net.com wrote: [snip] You know it is interesting - having been in this industry for over 16 years - to see the attitudes of so many professionals in the IT industry. I make my living by fixing all the problems many of these so-called professionals cause when the work on things. It is so very troubling to get phone calls from people that have been laid off from their IT job in some of the large corporations where they commanded huge salaries and now they have opened their own business and are calling us for support because they don't have a clue about what it takes to actually do the work. The industry is filled with clueless Master degree holders and DIY HTML gurus alike. The ones in the middle earned their experience through getting their hands dirty and many have pieces of paper to show for it. I haven't been in the industry for very long (I graduated university last year) but I have seen my fair share of know-it-alls cause large amounts of damage as a result of their cluelessness. One guy I saw building a computer couldn't get a memory chip in (it was in backwards) so he went to his toolkit and reached for a hammer. I promptly took the hammer off of him and showed him how to do it - it was all I could do to stop me from hitting him with that bloody hammer. I almost believe that the perception in this industry is if you can pronounce server, workstation, network, switch, hard drive, and a few other highly technical (btw - the should be read with sarcasm for you Microsoft folks out there) terms, that it is acceptable to call yourself an IT professional. Fact of the matter is that I have become convinced that those that know how to actually TROUBLESHOOT problems are in the very small minority in this industry. QFT. It is a rather rare skill and a difficult one to get across in an interview. You're fighting against people who talk buzzwords when you know that the buzzwords aren't real knowledge. Don't get me wrong - I am by no means complaining - for it is how I get paid. I am just sick of so-called professionals with Master's Degrees in IT telling me that they are right and I am wrong because they think pushing a few buttons and having a degree makes them smarter than some of us that earned our experience. I remember the glory days of DOS - if you wanted to run something, you had to find it yourself and run the correct command. If you didn't want to go and find it, write a batch file. These days GUIs make everything push-button and obscure the details. While some GUIs allow you to get the job done quicker (there are things like web browsing for which a GUI is almost essential, even if it's *curses based), they dumb things down and often make specialised operations impossible. Old School Unix = People that KNOW what they are doing. I work with Macs, PC's, Windows, Novell, Mac OS, Linux, Unix, Windows, DOS (Yes some customers still use this), THEOS (anyone else heard of that one???). I have the certifications to prove my knowledge - but none of that means bupkiss if I can't fix a problem I have never seen before. The strength of Old-School Unix folks is their resourcefulness in fixing the problems they are faced with - whether they have seen that specific problem or not - without having to whine to everyone that it just doesn't work. If there is a problem -they fix it - sometimes that means writing code or hacking together a solution. I can't begin to tell you how many times a client has a call into Microsoft and we fix the problem hours (if not days) before Microsoft calls back simply by actually troubleshooting and researching the problem. Sometimes this means we actually (gasp) edit the registry. Oh yes, M$ were very much against that, even when it was the only solution and the one suggested in their knowledge base! This is good reading that goes through the horrors of such things, as well as their training slash indoctrination: http://www.kmfms.com/unmaintainable.txt Now to bring this to the place of why this relates to OpenBSD. I love OpenBSD, we have some installs that have been in place for several years and I never even think about them. I lose sleep every night I go home when I think about all the Windows systems we manage, but I never even think about the OpenBSD boxes we have put in place. Performance - well three years running with no patches and never a problem and never been compromised. Let me see ANY other OS make that claim. Microsoft Server - connect to internet - compromised within minutes (actually happened to a customer of ours...) I remember the first time I installed OpenBSD - I was amazed at how intuititve the installer was. Previous installs of Linux were pretty good, but nothing compared
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On 18/09/2009, at 11:59 AM, 4625 wrote: I like fluidsynth. Well, I got it. Could you explain me how do you ran it? Are you serious? the way the manual says to. What make you think that I did not saw the manual? You should probably stop posting about now, you're starting to make yourself look realy bad. paulm
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
Oh, these arguments are rich! They never cease to crack me up. So and so crypto cipher is weak...blah blah blah... Show me the cluster of supercomputers than can break them in any kind of meaningful time frame and I *might* start to worry. Oh wait, I forgot about those super secret NSA ones... Please, give me a break... On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 00:21 +0200, Milan BartoE! merlyn...@gmail.com wrote: First, it uses 128-bits Thank You for telling, I'm much stiller now. Third, if you care, use softraid. Already reading man page, thanks :-) 2009/9/16 Ted Unangst ted.unan...@gmail.com: First, it uses 128-bits, and second, the practical attacks against blowfish are what exactly? Third, if you care, use softraid. On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Milan BartoE!merlyn...@gmail.com wrote: old 64-bit blowfish? 2009/9/16 Ted Unangst ted.unan...@gmail.com: On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Milan BartoE!merlyn...@gmail.com wrote: I still hear people (mostly younger people) complain about OpenBSD performance I still hear people telling that OpenBSD is secure. It's of course true, but e.g. vnconfig uses quite weak crypto mechanism. I preffer to say OpenBSD is bugfree. Otherwise, it's still the best OS ever. what is weak about vnconfig crypto?
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
I still hear people telling that OpenBSD is secure. It's of course true, but e.g. vnconfig uses quite weak crypto mechanism. Will you break mine? Sorry, I won't :-) I just wanted to know what's true on that (read thread some time back where this is discussed).
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
I still hear people telling that OpenBSD is secure. It's of course true, but e.g. vnconfig uses quite weak crypto mechanism. Will you break mine? I just wanted to know what's true on that (read thread some time back where this is discussed). Claiming its weak seems like a bad way to get whats true. But you probably noticed that on misc@ already. I've found out, that's the best way (but it's maybe the bad habbit from czech forums), because people will defend and argue rather than answering dump questions like is the crypto really secure? :-) So thank you for enlightenment, I'll try to be better...
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
Remember Optimization is the root of all evil from Knuth ? Why optimize something if it isn't needed ? if you show me something that clearly won't solve a problem due to it's performance, it's time to optimize otherwise it's just wasting time. Uhh but this could be faster yeah, and gnu ls could have less than 3131 switches and beer could be dry. Cool I found a *huge* openbsd bottleneck, solve the bottleneck forget all the rest. Honestly if someone is that concerned about performance go to linux, they will sacrifice anything in their performance crusade. We could also, all shut up and code.
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 09:36:49AM -0300, Christiano Farina Haesbaert wrote: | Remember Optimization is the root of all evil from Knuth ? Misquoting does not help your case. *PREMATURE* optimization is the root of all evil. Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd -- [++-]+++.+++[---].+++[+ +++-].++[-]+.--.[-] http://www.weirdnet.nl/
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
hmm, on Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 02:14:27AM +, Jacob Meuser said that On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 02:09:32AM +0200, frantisek holop wrote: hmm, on Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 06:46:27PM +, Jacob Meuser said that so who's benchmarking install/upgrade time? lost time due to instability? lost time due to gratuitous API changes? lost time tuning setups? lost time searching on google instead of reading manuals? and that's why your argument limps when henning replied to the request for stupid benchmarks with an observation, you said that wasn't what you wanted. so you reply to my requests with observations and say my argument limps? your implied arguments being: openbsd is better in the questions you lined up. all i said was, it's not that black and white every time. -f -- wedding: a funeral where you smell your own flowers.
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
2009/9/16 Paul de Weerd we...@weirdnet.nl: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 09:36:49AM -0300, Christiano Farina Haesbaert wrote: | Remember Optimization is the root of all evil from Knuth ? Misquoting does not help your case. *PREMATURE* optimization is the root of all evil. Ooops my mistake, still the rest applies :P.
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
* Cian Brennan cian.bren...@redbrick.dcu.ie [2009-09-15 23:32]: OpenBSD sucks at this one. The fact that base isn't packaged is a *huge* pain if you run lots of it. As is the short support timeline. bullshit. i run way over a hundred openbsd machines. upgrades take me less than 5 minutes. maintainance is lower than an anything else I know. usually it's some 3rd party app that requires attention and not the OS. support timeline boo hoo. just backport the one or two patches yourself or - better - just fucking upgrade. it is trivial if your procedures are right. - is it easy to upgrade the machines? Again. OpenBSD really sucks at this one. wut? trivial. takes me under 5 minutes usually. Building from source is light years more difficult than 'apt-get update apt-get upgrade, or 'yum upgrade' or the like. so don't fucking do it, use releases and packages. -- Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg Amsterdam
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote: Building from source is light years more difficult than 'apt-get update apt-get upgrade, or 'yum upgrade' or the like. so don't fucking do it, use releases and packages. So how does one remedy CVE-2009-0696 like that? From the web site: 007: RELIABILITY FIX: July 29, 2009 All architectures A vulnerability has been found in BIND's named server (CVE-2009-0696). An attacker could crash a server with a specially crafted dynamic update message to a zone for which the server is master. A source code patch exists which remedies this problem. Sounds like building from source is necessary to me. As does: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq10.html#Patches If there genuinely is something as easy as yum update bind, then great. But if so, it doesn't seem to be documented, and this is the reason I haven't rolled out more OpenBSD boxen in the real world. I run OpenBSD on my own machines. But I'm with Cian here. Keeping up to date really is its Achilles heel compared to other OSes, and is holding it back for corporate use. Tet -- b It seems intuitively obvious to me, which means that it might be wrong.b -- Chris Torek
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
From: L. V. Lammert l...@omnitec.net On Wed, 16 Sep 2009, Henning Brauer wrote: Building from source is light years more difficult than 'apt-get update apt-get upgrade, or 'yum upgrade' or the like. so don't fucking do it, use releases and packages. *OR* learn how to use environment variables and set your PKG_PATH create an alias for pkg_find and get equivalent functionality. That doesn't help if you're running OpenBSD-STABLE. Updating packages is easy. Snapshots really aren't an option; OpenBSD is a good firewall and networking option but selling the concept of snapshots to management is less than trivial. The example of the BIND fix is a good one. On a server which hadn't built STABLE before it was a bit of a faff to sort out, especially as IIRC the fix wasn't available in CVS until some time after the advisory had been sent. I'll grant that the patch was available direct on the OpenBSD website very quickly, though. At the risk of a flaming, sysmerge is also a pain in the arse. Once you know how to use patch files and diff properly I'm sure it is absolutely wonderful, but it also copes badly with files that have not changed in any significant way. Which is not to say that the enhancements in 4.6's install and beyond are not welcome, of course. Oh, and to belay the predicatable 'well, why don't you fix it' response - I am looking at fixing things, just not the above. PK
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On 15/09/2009, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote: i have a bgp machine forwarding 800MBit/s of real world generic internet traffic. can handle at least twice that. enough of a benchmark? Any chance you could post the spec. of said machine? I'd especially be interested in CPU/Chipset/NICs/RAM,... Many thanks,... -- Opportunity is most often missed by people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. Thomas Alva Edison Inventor of 1093 patents, including: The light bulb, phonogram and motion pictures.
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
* - Tethys tet...@gmail.com [2009-09-16 17:37]: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote: Building from source is light years more difficult than 'apt-get update apt-get upgrade, or 'yum upgrade' or the like. so don't fucking do it, use releases and packages. So how does one remedy CVE-2009-0696 like that? From the web site: 007: RELIABILITY FIX: July 29, 2009 All architectures A vulnerability has been found in BIND's named server (CVE-2009-0696). An attacker could crash a server with a specially crafted dynamic update message to a zone for which the server is master. A source code patch exists which remedies this problem. Sounds like building from source is necessary to me. As does: boo hoo. run one machine somewhere and make release. done. -- Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg Amsterdam
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote: Sounds like building from source is necessary to me. boo hoo. run one machine somewhere and make release. done. And that attitude is why OpenBSD will never be more than a hobby OS. Sigh. Tet -- b It seems intuitively obvious to me, which means that it might be wrong.b -- Chris Torek
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
boo hoo. run one machine somewhere and make release. done. Once you have a built release you can run upgrades everywhere from that release tarball. man release to figure out how to do that. Now you may ask, why don't we do that? We simply do not have the resources and time to devote racks of machines, developer time, and internet bandwidth to building stable somewhere for all architectures, and distributing it securely. Us (the developers) would rather spend our time improving the os and our resources at distributing it and making it better than expending a lot of effort because someone is too lazy to rtfm and patch something themselves. If you want push butan, get os, please go run windows 7 or OSuX.. you'll be much happier, as will we because the neediness of our user community goes down. The fact that you have to not be lazy to use OpenBSD is important to us. Unlike a commercial OS, or linux, we don't measure our success in how popular it is, or if we're going to replace the evil microsoft any time soon. we *WANT* needy lazy users to use those other OS's so we can concentrate on making something that works and is stable for people who really need it, like ourselves.
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
If there genuinely is something as easy as yum update bind, then great. But if so, it doesn't seem to be documented, and this is the reason I haven't rolled out more OpenBSD boxen in the real world. I run OpenBSD on my own machines. But I'm with Cian here. Keeping up to date really is its Achilles heel compared to other OSes, and is holding it back for corporate use. So when you do yum update bind how many people are you extending trust to? Note that this isn't a rhetorical question, I'm actually quite curious how people rationalize this aspect of binary updates. When I apply a patch that I can read I'm pretty sure what I'm getting*. -N * If you haven't read it before you must read Reflections on Trust: http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
Ross Cameron wrote: On 15/09/2009, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote: i have a bgp machine forwarding 800MBit/s of real world generic internet traffic. can handle at least twice that. enough of a benchmark? Any chance you could post the spec. of said machine? I'd especially be interested in CPU/Chipset/NICs/RAM,... Hi Ross, Not sure that Henning will give more details on this. I understand that prefer not to, witch is fine. He did provide most of what you are asking here however. Sun 4150, you can get the spec on that box. Not to many processor choise there, so even the slowest one will be good. Ram, he said as close as 1Gb only and network cards, use em. Many Sun use that be default, not all the time but many. For the chipset, well, the DMESG would help to get that, but sadly they changed time to time, so not sure you will always get the same anyway. (; I have the 4100, not the 4150, I can send you that if you want, but not the same hardware obviously. I was more curious about other component of the setup to do it right, but sadly I am not sure my questions were well received. I was more interested on what some users and specially Henning as he is involved in bgpd a lots as to what filtering a BGP setup would/could use to make it better. Not sure he is welling to offer more details, witch is totally fine really, I can understand not wanted to do so. I hope this gives you some anywar to some of your questions never the less. Best, Daniel
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 05:47:08PM +0100, - Tethys wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote: Sounds like building from source is necessary to me. boo hoo. run one machine somewhere and make release. done. And that attitude is why OpenBSD will never be more than a hobby OS. Sigh. Correction, a professional OS that requires its users to be professionals. Not a bunch of whining windows update people that have to call IT to launch excel. In case you hadn't noticed we are old school UNIX users that don't mind fixing whatever problem is at hand. Including writing code or fixing a bug. This is why in the olden days your IT department was worth something and wasn't a bunch of monkeys reading a script. It is exactly your attitude that has ruined the computer industry.
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 05:47:08PM +0100, - Tethys wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote: Sounds like building from source is necessary to me. boo hoo. run one machine somewhere and make release. done. And that attitude is why OpenBSD will never be more than a hobby OS. Sigh. So? I'm a software engineer by profession. But my OpenBSD work is a hobby. Still I have produced some of my finest work as a developer in OpenBSD. You are free to take our work and turn it into some corporate acceptable OS (whatever that means). We just won't do that for you, we concentrate on what's essential to *us*. The moment the OpenBSD turns into some coorporate thing, it probably will lose all attraction to me. I have enough coorporate things to do during my day job. -Otto
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
Marco Peereboom escribis: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 05:47:08PM +0100, - Tethys wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote: Sounds like building from source is necessary to me. boo hoo. run one machine somewhere and make release. done. And that attitude is why OpenBSD will never be more than a hobby OS. Sigh. Correction, a professional OS that requires its users to be professionals. Not a bunch of whining windows update people that have to call IT to launch excel. In case you hadn't noticed we are old school UNIX users that don't mind fixing whatever problem is at hand. Including writing code or fixing a bug. This is why in the olden days your IT department was worth something and wasn't a bunch of monkeys reading a script. It is exactly your attitude that has ruined the computer industry. +1
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
OP Here. Wow. Did not mean to start this sort of discussion. I only wanted some suggestions on how to deal with critics of OpenBSD's performance that I run into on occasion who cite that old, outdated, silly article. Anyway, thanks for all the performance feedback. As to the others, in this thread, who find using or managing OpenBSD difficult, I'd say you're either using it for something it was not intended or lack the knowledge to administer it. You can fix the latter by learning more about OpenBSD (best man pages on the planet), but not the former. If you really want to run the latest version of Snort (or whatever) and you want it in binary form, then OpenBSD is not what you're looking for. Apt-get and the like are nice and convenient for less technical users who do not wish to configure and build from source, but claiming OpenBSD is deficient b/c it lacks suchs things is inappropriate IMO. Thanks OpenBSD. We've purchased a 4.6 mug and tee-shirt. Keep up the good work!
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:59:43 -0700 (PDT) 4625 4625...@gmail.com wrote: From: 4625 4625...@gmail.com To: misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:59:43 -0700 (PDT) Sender: owner-m...@openbsd.org Organization: Buzzer X-Mailer: 4158xHC1dZubQ On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:39:46 -0400 Tom Smith wrote: But, I'd like to have hard technicaly data to demonstrate that while Linux and FreeBSD may scale to a gazillion CPUs and PetaBytes of Memory that OpenBSD makes a fine firewall or desktop or mail server, etc and point out that the old article so many people cite is indeed *old*. Firewall and mail server - may be. But desktop would not be so fine. I dunno. I use OBSD on desktops where stability and security are issues. Dhu
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:24:44PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 05:47:08PM +0100, - Tethys wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote: Sounds like building from source is necessary to me. boo hoo. run one machine somewhere and make release. done. And that attitude is why OpenBSD will never be more than a hobby OS. Sigh. Correction, a professional OS that requires its users to be professionals. Not a bunch of whining windows update people that have to call IT to launch excel. In case you hadn't noticed we are old school UNIX users that don't mind fixing whatever problem is at hand. Including writing code or fixing a bug. This is why in the olden days your IT department was worth something and wasn't a bunch of monkeys reading a script. It is exactly your attitude that has ruined the computer industry. You have an odd definition of professional, and the kind of attitude that sounds like you haven't actually worked in the computer industry in a while. Generally, the computer industry is about providing services to end users. And things like easy updates, specialisation of labour and all of that kind of stuff have made us an awful lot better at taht than 'old school UNIX' ever was. But hey, if you want to pretend we all still live in the early 90s, feel free. I hope it works out well for you. OpenBSD's a wonderful OS, but it's lack of easy upgradability is a *disadvantage, not something to be proud of. And yes, there are good reasons why it doesn't exist, the linuxes do have massively more man power, and developers time *is* probably better spent on new features, rather than on packaging. Acting smug about your failings just makes you look like silly, however.
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On 2009-09-16, Peter Kay - Syllopsium syllops...@syllopsium.com wrote: At the risk of a flaming, sysmerge is also a pain in the arse. Once you know how to use patch files and diff properly I'm sure it is absolutely wonderful, but it also copes badly with files that have not changed in any significant way. it's better at this in 4.6 than 4.5, and better again in -current.
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 08:22:19PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2009-09-16, Peter Kay - Syllopsium syllops...@syllopsium.com wrote: At the risk of a flaming, sysmerge is also a pain in the arse. Once you know how to use patch files and diff properly I'm sure it is absolutely wonderful, but it also copes badly with files that have not changed in any significant way. it's better at this in 4.6 than 4.5, and better again in -current. AFAIK debian won't magically merge your changed conffiles either. Or have they come up with artificial thought-reading intelligence?
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 08:59:35PM +0100, Cian Brennan wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:24:44PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: [snipzorz] It is exactly your attitude that has ruined the computer industry. You have an odd definition of professional, and the kind of attitude that sounds like you haven't actually worked in the computer industry in a while. Generally, the computer industry is about providing services to end users. And things like easy updates, specialisation of labour and all of that kind of stuff have made us an awful lot better at taht than 'old school UNIX' ever was. But hey, if you want to pretend we all still live in the early 90s, feel free. I hope it works out well for you. OpenBSD's a wonderful OS, but it's lack of easy upgradability is a *disadvantage, not something to be proud of. And yes, there are good reasons why it doesn't exist, the linuxes do have massively more man power, and developers time *is* probably better spent on new features, rather than on packaging. Acting smug about your failings just makes you look like silly, however. I think you're missing the point; marco was talking about the dumbing down of what's considered acceptible for being called a professional; in this case, mostly the fact that once you start presenting system administration as a series of buttons to push, you get button-pushing monkeys, not people who solve problems.
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:30:47PM +0300, Jussi Peltola wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 08:22:19PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2009-09-16, Peter Kay - Syllopsium syllops...@syllopsium.com wrote: At the risk of a flaming, sysmerge is also a pain in the arse. Once you know how to use patch files and diff properly I'm sure it is absolutely wonderful, but it also copes badly with files that have not changed in any significant way. it's better at this in 4.6 than 4.5, and better again in -current. AFAIK debian won't magically merge your changed conffiles either. Or have they come up with artificial thought-reading intelligence? That's on the roadmap for their upcoming Psionic Penguin release.
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
I think you're missing the point; marco was talking about the dumbing down of what's considered acceptible for being called a professional; in this case, mostly the fact that once you start presenting system administration as a series of buttons to push, you get button-pushing monkeys, not people who solve problems. But come on Bret, that's what the industry WANTS.. you can PAY monkeys less! Push Butan
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 02:55:44PM -0600, Bob Beck wrote: I think you're missing the point; marco was talking about the dumbing down of what's considered acceptible for being called a professional; in this case, mostly the fact that once you start presenting system administration as a series of buttons to push, you get button-pushing monkeys, not people who solve problems. But come on Bret, that's what the industry WANTS.. you can PAY monkeys less! Push Butan ...receive bacon lube
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 03:01:49 + Jacob Meuser wrote: But, I'd like to have hard technicaly data to demonstrate that while Linux and FreeBSD may scale to a gazillion CPUs and PetaBytes of Memory that OpenBSD makes a fine firewall or desktop or mail server, etc and point out that the old article so many people cite is indeed *old*. Firewall and mail server - may be. But desktop would not be so fine. 3) Also try to find thread with subject '/usr/ports/audio/timidity' in po...@openbsd.*** archive. I think your problem can be traced to the different default voices. I've test timidity with a different sound fonts and with the same config, like I have one in FreeBSD, on the same PC. btw, FreeBSD doesn't support multichannel audio. Don't know do I really need multichannel. But I'm sure, I should boot FreeBSD-4.11 to listen midi files. -- /4625
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
Marco Peereboom escribis: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 05:47:08PM +0100, - Tethys wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote: Sounds like building from source is necessary to me. boo hoo. run one machine somewhere and make release. done. And that attitude is why OpenBSD will never be more than a hobby OS. Sigh. Correction, a professional OS that requires its users to be professionals. Not a bunch of whining windows update people that have to call IT to launch excel. In case you hadn't noticed we are old school UNIX users that don't mind fixing whatever problem is at hand. Including writing code or fixing a bug. This is why in the olden days your IT department was worth something and wasn't a bunch of monkeys reading a script. It is exactly your attitude that has ruined the computer industry. Well said. -- Christiano Farina HAESBAERT Do NOT send me html mail.
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 08:59:35PM +0100, Cian Brennan wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:24:44PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 05:47:08PM +0100, - Tethys wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote: Sounds like building from source is necessary to me. boo hoo. run one machine somewhere and make release. done. And that attitude is why OpenBSD will never be more than a hobby OS. Sigh. Correction, a professional OS that requires its users to be professionals. Not a bunch of whining windows update people that have to call IT to launch excel. In case you hadn't noticed we are old school UNIX users that don't mind fixing whatever problem is at hand. Including writing code or fixing a bug. This is why in the olden days your IT department was worth something and wasn't a bunch of monkeys reading a script. It is exactly your attitude that has ruined the computer industry. You have an odd definition of professional, and the kind of attitude that sounds like you haven't actually worked in the computer industry in a while. Generally, the computer industry is about providing services to end users. And things like easy updates, specialisation of labour and all of that kind of stuff have made us an awful lot better at taht than 'old school UNIX' ever was. No my friend. The computer industry is here to save money. Your description is about having the industry as a means to itself. Thanks again for playing. But hey, if you want to pretend we all still live in the early 90s, feel free. I hope it works out well for you. Works fine. Too bad there are all those youtubers and twatters on the net. It was a much nicer place without them. OpenBSD's a wonderful OS, but it's lack of easy upgradability is a *disadvantage, not something to be proud of. And yes, there are good reasons why it doesn't exist, the linuxes do have massively more man power, and developers time *is* probably better spent on new features, rather than on packaging. Acting smug about your failings just makes you look like silly, however. I update all my openbsd machines in less than 10 minutes including boot time. That is less time than it takes to download a linux kernel. Not sure what this upgradeability you are talking about. I patched in my years of openbsd use twice from source. Once for ssh and once for bind. I have no clue what you are on about. It is all perceived ease. Your argument has no practical merit.
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 08:59:35PM +0100, Cian Brennan wrote: You have an odd definition of professional, and the kind of attitude that sounds like you haven't actually worked in the computer industry in a while. Generally, the computer industry is about providing services to end users. And things like easy updates, specialisation of labour and all of that kind of stuff have made us an awful lot better at taht than 'old school UNIX' ever was. Yes, buying shit loads of crappy solutions from any vendor without even understanding the basic concepts is not being retarded. Hey it works ! and they pay me ! Fuck that. But hey, if you want to pretend we all still live in the early 90s, feel free. I hope it works out well for you. If you had done your homework you would know that the early 90s is UNIX dark age. UNIX was never intentend to reach everyone, we despised intel and PC in the 80s mainly cause the architecture is plain lame, so stop whining and trying to change a 40 years old culture, or move to the so called The New Hackers Culture, The New Hackers Bullshit if I may. Providing service to users ? what kind of world do you live, just because we expect the user to know better than the designer ? We provide mechanism not policy, policy dies, mechanism stays. Who the fuck uses a computer if not users ? Your definition of service is utterly flawed, in order to use the service UNIX provides you're required not to be stupid. OpenBSD's a wonderful OS, but it's lack of easy upgradability is a *disadvantage, not something to be proud of. And yes, there are good reasons why it doesn't exist, the linuxes do have massively more man power, and developers time *is* probably better spent on new features, rather than on packaging. Acting smug about your failings just makes you look like silly, however. Blah blah blah... -- Christiano Farina HAESBAERT Do NOT send me html mail.
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 02:54:06PM +0200, frantisek holop wrote: hmm, on Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 02:14:27AM +, Jacob Meuser said that On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 02:09:32AM +0200, frantisek holop wrote: hmm, on Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 06:46:27PM +, Jacob Meuser said that so who's benchmarking install/upgrade time? lost time due to instability? lost time due to gratuitous API changes? lost time tuning setups? lost time searching on google instead of reading manuals? and that's why your argument limps when henning replied to the request for stupid benchmarks with an observation, you said that wasn't what you wanted. so you reply to my requests with observations and say my argument limps? your implied arguments being: openbsd is better in the questions you lined up. all i said was, it's not that black and white every time. not necessarily. I would expect OpenBSD to do well, because those things are more important to the developers than getting the highest rating for a particularly specific use case (i.e. a benchmark). but I really am curious if there are such data. -- jake...@sdf.lonestar.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:47:08 +0100 - Tethys wrote: And that attitude is why OpenBSD will never be more than a hobby OS. The same words I can say about Linux. -- /4625
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:20:05 -0400 Tom Smith wrote: Anyway, thanks for all the performance feedback. As to the others, in this thread, who find using or managing OpenBSD difficult, I'd say ...make OS for newbies, and only newbies will want to use this OS. -- /4625
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:36:49 -0300 Christiano Farina Haesbaert wrote: Remember Optimization is the root of all evil from Knuth ? To act contrary to common sense would be ignore optimization. Look on MS Windows - each new version require more resources and constrain to buy new hardware every 2-3 years. -- /4625
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 06:39:31 +0200 Bret S. Lambert wrote: 1) In X on OpenBSD 4.5 mouse cursor may freeze sometimes. On FreeBSD 4.11 (on the same PC) - never. Doesn't happen for me... Did you ever report this? with information to reproduce it? I do not think so. It is not a bug, I think. Just performance problem. I'll consider about bug report. By the way, I did send a few reports to ports maintainers. Got no response for a long time. If they were of the quality of the bug reports you've made on misc@, it's no goddamn wonder they didn't respond. What if I'm unable make better report? -- /4625
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
Bob Beck wrote: boo hoo. run one machine somewhere and make release. done. Once you have a built release you can run upgrades everywhere from that release tarball. man release to figure out how to do that. Now you may ask, why don't we do that? We simply do not have the resources and time to devote racks of machines, developer time, and internet bandwidth to building stable somewhere for all architectures, and distributing it securely. Us (the developers) would rather spend our time improving the os and our resources at distributing it and making it better than expending a lot of effort because someone is too lazy to rtfm and patch something themselves. If you want push butan, get os, please go run windows 7 or OSuX.. you'll be much happier, as will we because the neediness of our user community goes down. The fact that you have to not be lazy to use OpenBSD is important to us. Unlike a commercial OS, or linux, we don't measure our success in how popular it is, or if we're going to replace the evil microsoft any time soon. we *WANT* needy lazy users to use those other OS's so we can concentrate on making something that works and is stable for people who really need it, like ourselves. If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man. -- Mark Twain Here, like so many other situations and places in this world, people are feeding for free (or nearly so) and bitching about the fare. Enough already.
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 02:01:02PM -0700, 4625 wrote: On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 03:01:49 + Jacob Meuser wrote: But, I'd like to have hard technicaly data to demonstrate that while Linux and FreeBSD may scale to a gazillion CPUs and PetaBytes of Memory that OpenBSD makes a fine firewall or desktop or mail server, etc and point out that the old article so many people cite is indeed *old*. Firewall and mail server - may be. But desktop would not be so fine. 3) Also try to find thread with subject '/usr/ports/audio/timidity' in po...@openbsd.*** archive. I think your problem can be traced to the different default voices. I've test timidity with a different sound fonts and with the same config, like I have one in FreeBSD, on the same PC. this is the frst time you ever said anything about what patches you're using, which is why I never took your report seriously. I wonder if FreeBSD's patch-playmidi would make any difference. busted reverb could sound like missed samples. btw, FreeBSD doesn't support multichannel audio. Don't know do I really need multichannel. maybe you don't. but for me, multichannel audio is more important for a desktop than some busted old software midi player. But I'm sure, I should boot FreeBSD-4.11 to listen midi files. or you could use a less ancient midi player. -- jake...@sdf.lonestar.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
Bob Beck wrote: Once you have a built release you can run upgrades everywhere from that release tarball. man release to figure out how to do that. Now you may ask, why don't we do that? We simply do not have the resources and time to devote racks of machines, developer time, and internet bandwidth to building stable somewhere for all architectures, and distributing it securely. I started doing this a couple years ago. But not for all architectures and I also must add that these are not 'official'. I'm not an OpenBSD developer, just some nut who thinks this might be useful for others. Sometimes I wonder why I keep doing it ;-) Maurice
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
I have been actively maintaining a firewall cluster and a VPN cluster of BSD system since 3.5. I have upgraded each system from a factory boot cd every 6 - 8 months. I have never had any problems due the to upgrade not once. I run a 4000 PC network in a 24x7 Health Care environment. There is nothing more reliable and straight forward than OBSD's upgrade procedure. Which reminds me time order 4.6
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
But, I'd like to have hard technicaly data to demonstrate that while Linux and FreeBSD may scale to a gazillion CPUs and PetaBytes of Memory that OpenBSD makes a fine firewall or desktop or mail server, etc and point out that the old article so many people cite is indeed *old*. Firewall and mail server - may be. But desktop would not be so fine. 3) Also try to find thread with subject '/usr/ports/audio/timidity' in po...@openbsd.*** archive. I think your problem can be traced to the different default voices. I've test timidity with a different sound fonts and with the same config, like I have one in FreeBSD, on the same PC. this is the frst time you ever said anything about what patches you're using, which is why I never took your report seriously. I wonder if FreeBSD's patch-playmidi would make any difference. It is not port or patch problem, but perfomance (on my opinion). btw, FreeBSD doesn't support multichannel audio. Don't know do I really need multichannel. maybe you don't. but for me, multichannel audio is more important for a desktop than some busted old software midi player. But I'm sure, I should boot FreeBSD-4.11 to listen midi files. or you could use a less ancient midi player. Could you advice me one? -- /4625
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 04:14:13PM -0700, 4625 wrote: But, I'd like to have hard technicaly data to demonstrate that while Linux and FreeBSD may scale to a gazillion CPUs and PetaBytes of Memory that OpenBSD makes a fine firewall or desktop or mail server, etc and point out that the old article so many people cite is indeed *old*. Firewall and mail server - may be. But desktop would not be so fine. 3) Also try to find thread with subject '/usr/ports/audio/timidity' in po...@openbsd.*** archive. I think your problem can be traced to the different default voices. I've test timidity with a different sound fonts and with the same config, like I have one in FreeBSD, on the same PC. this is the frst time you ever said anything about what patches you're using, which is why I never took your report seriously. I wonder if FreeBSD's patch-playmidi would make any difference. It is not port or patch problem, but perfomance (on my opinion). well, that patch sure looks like it's correcting an inopportune typo. but I'm not a timidity user. I'm not going to spend time trying to test that, because it's hard to test regressions if you don't know how it was to begin with ... btw, FreeBSD doesn't support multichannel audio. Don't know do I really need multichannel. maybe you don't. but for me, multichannel audio is more important for a desktop than some busted old software midi player. But I'm sure, I should boot FreeBSD-4.11 to listen midi files. or you could use a less ancient midi player. Could you advice me one? I like fluidsynth. -- jake...@sdf.lonestar.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
Marco Peereboom wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 05:47:08PM +0100, - Tethys wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote: Sounds like building from source is necessary to me. boo hoo. run one machine somewhere and make release. done. And that attitude is why OpenBSD will never be more than a hobby OS. Sigh. OpenBSD is built by the developers for the developers. The fact that you and I get to use it is a nice side effect of the developers releasing the OS as free software. Instead of whining, you should be greatfull. Correction, a professional OS that requires its users to be professionals. Not a bunch of whining windows update people that have to call IT to launch excel. In case you hadn't noticed we are old school UNIX users that don't mind fixing whatever problem is at hand. Including writing code or fixing a bug. This is why in the olden days your IT department was worth something and wasn't a bunch of monkeys reading a script. It is exactly your attitude that has ruined the computer industry. Well said. I enjoy the fact that I can install an OpenBSD machine, setup the relevant services for that machines purpose and not have to sit and push buttons and turn knobs all day. The machine does its job without the need for me to hold its hand.
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009, Bret S. Lambert wrote: I think you're missing the point; marco was talking about the dumbing down of what's considered acceptible for being called a professional; in this case, mostly the fact that once you start presenting system administration as a series of buttons to push, you get button-pushing monkeys, not people who solve problems. Just reminds me a quote: Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the universe is winning. ~Author Unknown Teers, -- Daniel Bolgheroni FEI - Faculdade de Engenharia Industrial http://www.dbolgheroni.eng.br/mykey ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) against HTML e-mail X / \
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
But come on Bret, that's what the industry WANTS.. you can PAY monkeys less! Push Butan ...receive bacon lube Keep it Sizzlin! (you can't hear it but I'm doing the little techno pelvic dance right now..)
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:55:57PM +, Jacob Meuser wrote: I wonder if FreeBSD's patch-playmidi would make any difference. It is not port or patch problem, but perfomance (on my opinion). well, that patch sure looks like it's correcting an inopportune typo. but I'm not a timidity user. I'm not going to spend time trying to test that, because it's hard to test regressions if you don't know how it was to begin with ... maybe you don't. but for me, multichannel audio is more important for a desktop than some busted old software midi player. Offered by you midi player cost my attention, I hope. But I'm sure, I should boot FreeBSD-4.11 to listen midi files. or you could use a less ancient midi player. Could you advice me one? I like fluidsynth. Thank you. I will see on it. Does fluidsynth support Unison and Utopia sound fonts? -- /4625
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Bob Beck b...@ualberta.ca wrote: boo hoo. run one machine somewhere and make release. done. Once you have a built release you can run upgrades everywhere from that release tarball. man release to figure out how to do that. Now you may ask, why don't we do that? We simply do not have the resources and time to devote racks of machines, developer time, and internet bandwidth to building stable somewhere for all architectures, and distributing it securely. Us (the developers) would rather spend our time improving the os and our resources at distributing it and making it better than expending a lot of effort because someone is too lazy to rtfm and patch something themselves. If you want push butan, get os, please go run windows 7 or OSuX.. you'll be much happier, as will we because the neediness of our user community goes down. The fact that you have to not be lazy to use OpenBSD is important to us. Unlike a commercial OS, or linux, we don't measure our success in how popular it is, or if we're going to replace the evil microsoft any time soon. we *WANT* needy lazy users to use those other OS's so we can concentrate on making something that works and is stable for people who really need it, like ourselves. [...] Well said. Recently, I introduced a friend to OpenBSD 4.5 through the CDs', and deliberately asked him to follow the install manual (he was firstly surprised to see only 4 pages) and go ahead and install. Within 30 minutes he came running out of the lab, with eyes sparkling and said -- never ever have I seen such a small install manual, and an installation that goes through perfect as indicated in there. He manages a redhat ent linux farm, and is now trying to assess the stability of OpenBSD, so that he can cutover some of his linux boxes to OpenBSD. My personal experience tells me this -- OpenBSD is simple and elegant. Irrespective of what benchmarks tell you, they can never tell me anything about simplicity and as a result anything about elegance. So they are useless for me atleast. There is no point purchasing an Audi A6, when my 10 yr old Fiat does the same job, and does it well (reaches me in time - the additional time I buy due to Audi's speedup is not worth spending the additional $$ that it costs). Tradeoffs, tradeoffs,... -Amarendra
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 07:15:36PM -0600, Bob Beck wrote: But come on Bret, that's what the industry WANTS.. you can PAY monkeys less! Push Butan ...receive bacon lube Keep it Sizzlin! (you can't hear it but I'm doing the little techno pelvic dance right now..) And, thank God, I can't see it either -- Carson Harding - harding (at) motd (dot) ca
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 02:57:43PM -0700, 4625 wrote: What if I'm unable make better report? http://www.openbsd.org/report.html
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 06:39:30PM -0700, 4625 wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:55:57PM +, Jacob Meuser wrote: I wonder if FreeBSD's patch-playmidi would make any difference. It is not port or patch problem, but perfomance (on my opinion). well, that patch sure looks like it's correcting an inopportune typo. but I'm not a timidity user. I'm not going to spend time trying to test that, because it's hard to test regressions if you don't know how it was to begin with ... maybe you don't. but for me, multichannel audio is more important for a desktop than some busted old software midi player. Offered by you midi player cost my attention, I hope. But I'm sure, I should boot FreeBSD-4.11 to listen midi files. or you could use a less ancient midi player. Could you advice me one? I like fluidsynth. Thank you. I will see on it. Does fluidsynth support Unison and Utopia sound fonts? $ pkg_info -c fluidsynth Information for inst:fluidsynth-1.0.8p2 Comment: SoundFont2 software synthesizer $ -- jake...@sdf.lonestar.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 01:15:27AM +0200, frantisek holop wrote: hmm, on Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:23:58PM +0200, Claudio Jeker said that like to prove. In the end many of fefe's test programs did not actually measure what he assumed they would. and he was open to get patches to remedy those problems. Hah. That's why he did not update his site since 2003. Do you realy think that OpenBSD 3.4 and 4.6 are the same? general dislike of any benchmark in the world is also part of the openbsd culture just like some qualities of misc@ (although it's been quite quiet lately). if the numbers were better, the general sentiment would be rather different i believe. Actually, I think that bad sentiment comes from the article itself: OpenBSD 3.4 was a real stinker in these tests. The installation routine sucks, the disk performance sucks, the kernel was unstable, and in the network scalability department it was even outperformed by it's father, NetBSD. OpenBSD also gets points deducted for the sabotage they did to their IPv6 stack. If you are using OpenBSD, you should move away now. With this he proofed himself as non credible and uninterested in serious measuring. linux is faster in many respects (just look at zaurus) so what? and in many it is slower or plain unusable without further hacks. It mostly depends on what you need, so choose your tool wisely. i dont use openbsd for its speed, but on the other hand i dont downplay the importance of measuring things up and comparing it with the others once in a while. i am sure speed in the end is of councern, otherwise the os woudln't be in C but, whatchamacallit, python. The reason for C has nothing to do with speed. some things can be measured actually quite easily: how much content a web server serves (not that much without sendfile()), how do the databases perform, etc, this is all benchmark in the end, and the programs doing the benchmarking are actually the daemons themselves. so there, everyone is benchmarking 24/7 :] And here again comes this style of uninformed dumb rant. Why do you think a web server will not do that much without sendfile()? Honestly it is exactly the opposide, a web server that never touches the disk for content delivery will outperform all others and can server enough data to fill a gigabit link. sendfile() is no magic pill, sure it saves work and helps increasing the performance but it still needs to get the data from the disk at one point which is very slow. -- :wq Claudio
Re: Defending OpenBSD Performance
So since benchmarking is out, how do we then find out where potential problems are. What does OpenBSD developers do, since surely they don't benchmark :) Maybe we should profile instead ? I'm not very experienced with webservers, but here how i would approach it. 1. i have a problem, i think about it where/what the problem could be 2 i check the logs - test my equipment 3. I create 1 or a few profiling tests / micro benchmarks to test my assumptions or make certain i haven't misinterpreted my problems. 4. Step back and interpret results 5. think of other tests / micro benchmarks that could further enlighten me and confirm/unconfirm(?) my findings What i wouldnt do, is design a mother of a benchmark that covers all the bases. It's to hard to get right. It would take to much time. How would OpenBSD dev's approach a issue. How are issues generally searched for/ found out? I imagine something like OpenBSD dev works on the httpd daemon - asks for testing. I find a problem, ex: it'd slow like heck - check configuration - interfaces - logs What now - i write back to dev. dev asks me to do what? What does the dev do behind the scenes? regards mic
