Re: OpenBSD project goals
Yes, of course doing a little research on a subject before posting is beyond the capabilities of the common misc poster. I should become grumpy, but alas, that name is already taken. This is because grumpyness is so overrated, those days. Back in the beginnings of Unix all you needed was a long beard. Now people don't wear them and pretend to be grumpy instead, but this won't fool old-timers. Miod
Re: OpenBSD project goals
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Martin Schrvder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/6/24 Pierre Riteau [EMAIL PROTECTED]: As someone already said earlier, you can write your letter in troff with mg or vi and create a postscript file from that. Real Men wrote their thesis directly in PostScript using ed. :-) Oh great! Another real men thread! I wonder what Real Women use. And Real Transexuals. and so on... -speaking as the perpetrator of the last Real Men thread... 8-) -- http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity. -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation. Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted. -- Gene Spafford learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0feature=related
Re: OpenBSD project goals
As someone already said earlier, you can write your letter in troff with mg or vi and create a postscript file from that. Real Men wrote their thesis directly in PostScript using ed. :-) Oh great! Another real men thread! I wonder what Real Women use. That's an easy one: Real Women are smarter than Real Men and have them write their thesis in addition to their own... Miod
Re: OpenBSD project goals
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Miod Vallat wrote: Oh great! Another real men thread! I wonder what Real Women use. That's an easy one: Real Women are smarter than Real Men and have them write their thesis in addition to their own... Miod Nah, you have it all wrong. Why get an advanced degree in the first place? When I owned my computer business I used to tell people I'm not an engineer, I employ them. diana
Re: OpenBSD project goals
bofh wrote: Oh great! Another real men thread! I wonder what Real Women use. Sorry, next time I'll check the archives.
Re: OpenBSD project goals
Oh great! Another real men thread! I wonder what Real Women use. likely the right tool because they don't need to show off.
Re: OpenBSD project goals
Thilo Pfennig wrote: Hi, I am using OpenBSD on a desktop system for about a year now and have some open questions about the project goals. I have read http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html , but I think it does not answer some questions. One question is what the ideal status of OpenBSD would be. Right now there are core applications (which include also Sendmail and Apache) and the ports. Would it be a goal for OpenBSD to provide most functionality as part of core? It already does provide EVERYTHING! http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=articlesid=20080607131856 I mean its clear that the ports and packages are not audited as the applications in core are. But generally there is no argument for why one application should get more auditing than another, except when you say that you want to provide only one of a kind. Maybe this question is not OpenBSD specific but merely a question of what a goal of an operating system should be. The goals on the project homepage focus more on what is different on OpenBSD. My understanding is that OpenBSD (most BSDs and Unices and also Plan9) strive to provide all basic functionalities as part of the core distribution. And on Linux the mentality is rather that the operating system is rather a collection of different parts - and that each part is an individual package - so there is generally no sense of a core besides the Linux kernel and maybe the base-files package. Another interesting and realted question is what should be provided by default. OpenBSD got some criticism that it has not enabled many services by default Not true! Having just OpenSSH server running is already more services than Windows which run 99% of Desktop machines. and does not take into account non-default installs of some random packages or ports when it comes to security leaks. But OTOH OpenBSD provides Apache and Xorg/Xenocara as core file sets, which I think no other operating system does? As far as I looked other BSDs provide Apache and Xorg as ports rather? So one could also say that OpenBSD is actually providing not less but more. Most Linuxes will install and Xorg plus a desktop like KDE or GNOME by default - but then all those are just distribution-provided packages which are not audited well on most Linuxes. Right now I see the wholeheartedness on working on the operating system as what makes up OpenBSD and differs it from other OSes. I think although security is a focus this is really more a benefit of the development process. I mean security does not come from statements and also not from having it as a goal. I would say that the Debian guys wont say that security was unimportant to them, nor would any OS state that. The difference lies in how people act - and maybe also how much progress is seen of just providing the latest and greatest. Regards, Thilo
Re: OpenBSD project goals
Thilo Pfennig wrote: Hi, I am using OpenBSD on a desktop system for about a year now and have some open questions about the project goals. I have read http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html , but I think it does not answer some questions. One question is what the ideal status of OpenBSD would be. better: more secure, more capable. Right now there are core applications (which include also Sendmail and Apache) and the ports. Would it be a goal for OpenBSD to provide most functionality as part of core? Of course. Look at the release pages, for example: http://www.openbsd.org/43.html I mean its clear that the ports and packages are not audited as the applications in core are. But generally there is no argument for why one application should get more auditing than another, except when you say that you want to provide only one of a kind. oh, by more functionality you mean more third-party apps. I'd argue that is NOT functionality of the OS, but, well, more third- party applications. Put yourself in the developer's position: You wish to add a third-party app to OpenBSD. Now, the number of really good, carefully crafted, security-absolutely-first apps out there is pretty close to zero. So, you need to patch and revise your target application to bring it to OpenBSD standards. You pass the changes back up stream, and they do what you expect: they ignore them...after all, they want to have complete compatibility with all other (i.e., Linux) OSs, they are busy adding new features, or just don't like you (keep in mind, your patches just said, your code sucks, even if delivered in the most polite manner possible). SO, now you pretty much have to maintain a fork of the app, merging in new functionality, and then re-cleaning the code. Yuck. Oh, btw: you get to make sure it works on around seventeen platforms. So in short: no, you will probably not be seeing OpenOffice as part of base. You will probably see more internally-developed features, like OpenNTPD, OpenBGPD, etc., and probably better support for adding third-party apps...but not huge quantities of new third-party productivity apps. Maybe this question is not OpenBSD specific but merely a question of what a goal of an operating system should be. The goals on the project homepage focus more on what is different on OpenBSD. My understanding is that OpenBSD (most BSDs and Unices and also Plan9) strive to provide all basic functionalities as part of the core distribution. for varying definitions of all basic functionality. I'm STUNNED by the things that various other OSs consider basic and extra. Still love Solaris installing OpenOffice, and not a compiler as part of a basic install (for sarcastic definitions of love). And on Linux the mentality is rather that the operating system is rather a collection of different parts - and that each part is an individual package - so there is generally no sense of a core besides the Linux kernel and maybe the base-files package. Another interesting and realted question is what should be provided by default. OpenBSD got some criticism that it has not enabled many services by default and does not take into account non-default installs of some random packages or ports when it comes to security leaks. But OTOH OpenBSD provides Apache and Xorg/Xenocara as core file sets, which I think no other operating system does? As far as I looked other BSDs provide Apache and Xorg as ports rather? So one could also say that OpenBSD is actually providing not less but more. right. so why worry yourself with the ramblings of some? There are idiots everywhere. Work hard enough, you can find people who will praise you, and people who will condemn you, and if no one is condemning you, you probably aren't doing anything. The OpenBSD goal is not to appease every critic...or even any of them. Remember what your parents told you about do your best, don't worry about what other people say? I've seen very, very few projects where this is followed more absolutely. Most Linuxes will install and Xorg plus a desktop like KDE or GNOME by default - but then all those are just distribution-provided packages which are not audited well on most Linuxes. and sometimes, they even work! From what I've seen, Linux is not something I really wish to be compared to. The Linux people sometimes seem to spend time looking at Windows, and set their goal of doing better than Windows. The OpenBSD goal seems to be to do better than OpenBSD. :) Right now I see the wholeheartedness on working on the operating system as what makes up OpenBSD and differs it from other OSes. I think although security is a focus this is really more a benefit of the development process. I mean security does not come from statements and also not from having it as a goal. I would say that the Debian guys wont say that security was unimportant to them, nor would any OS state that. The difference lies in how people act - and maybe
Re: OpenBSD project goals
Nick Holland schrieb: So in short: no, you will probably not be seeing OpenOffice as part of base. Understood, but I wrote about functionality conciously: I would mean ability to write a letter rather than OO.org. The OpenBSD goal is not to appease every critic...or even any of them. Remember what your parents told you about do your best, don't worry about what other people say? I've seen very, very few projects where this is followed more absolutely. Well some criticism from outside is important and healthy. If not you can end up just being ignorant yourself. Like some distros who dont care about security at all. And yes, it is your actions that count, not your words. There are a number of buggy bits of software out there that chant the right words, but clearly don't live by them...or those that show a lack of actual quality which causes me to doubt their real security. Amen. ;) Like the security extensions of Firefox that itself make Firefox more vulnerable as he is by default, already. Thilo
Re: OpenBSD project goals
Nick Holland wrote: You pass the changes back up stream, and they do what you expect: they ignore them...after all, they want to have complete compatibility with all other (i.e., Linux) OSs, The problem isn't Linux compatibility, the problem is when they want it to compile on Netware 2.x and their 3B2.
Re: OpenBSD project goals
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 04:30:12PM +0200, Thilo Pfennig wrote: Nick Holland schrieb: So in short: no, you will probably not be seeing OpenOffice as part of base. Understood, but I wrote about functionality conciously: I would mean ability to write a letter rather than OO.org. In the base install are vi and mg, both of which can be used to write letters. One of the things I like about OpenBSD is that the base install does not come with a bunch of extra stuff to satisfy every possible use of a computer. Out of the box it's functional at some level for almost any use, and for networking/firewalling little or nothing needs to be added. For desktop use it's a different story, and that's fine. Ever notice that Ubuntu is now Ubuntu, Kubuntu, *buntu? So make separate distros to represent basic user choices? Bah! With OpenBSD I install the OS and then pkg_add what I want. I like that approach better. Besides, I'm using the ion window manager and I can't find Ionbuntu. -- Darrin Chandler| Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation
Re: OpenBSD project goals
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 04:30:12PM +0200, Thilo Pfennig wrote: Nick Holland schrieb: So in short: no, you will probably not be seeing OpenOffice as part of base. Understood, but I wrote about functionality conciously: I would mean ability to write a letter rather than OO.org. mg and vi come to mind...
Re: OpenBSD project goals
2008/6/24 Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 04:30:12PM +0200, Thilo Pfennig wrote: Understood, but I wrote about functionality conciously: I would mean ability to write a letter rather than OO.org. mg and vi come to mind... And troff. :-) Best Martin
Re: OpenBSD project goals
And troff. :-) The OpenBSD base install contains groff, not troff. (groff is 3rd party software maintained by Gnu.)
Re: OpenBSD project goals
Marco Peereboom ha scritto: On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 04:30:12PM +0200, Thilo Pfennig wrote: Nick Holland schrieb: So in short: no, you will probably not be seeing OpenOffice as part of base. Understood, but I wrote about functionality conciously: I would mean ability to write a letter rather than OO.org. mg and vi come to mind... cat EOF filename too... :)
Re: OpenBSD project goals
On 6/24/08, Matthew Szudzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And troff. :-) The OpenBSD base install contains groff, not troff. (groff is 3rd party software maintained by Gnu.) That statement is about as useful as saying OpenBSD contains BSD ls, not ls.
Re: OpenBSD project goals
On 24. 06. 2008 16:41, Marco Peereboom wrote: Understood, but I wrote about functionality conciously: I would mean ability to write a letter rather than OO.org. mg and vi come to mind... Hm, I'm just curious how do you imagine writing a letter with vi or mg (ok, i really don't know mg so well..). Don't understand this the wrong way I really want to know, because you maybe know something I don't. I would consider using latex for writing a letter.. Best regards, Samo
Re: OpenBSD project goals
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:10:37PM +0200, Samo Jelovsek wrote: On 24. 06. 2008 16:41, Marco Peereboom wrote: Understood, but I wrote about functionality conciously: I would mean ability to write a letter rather than OO.org. mg and vi come to mind... Hm, I'm just curious how do you imagine writing a letter with vi or mg (ok, i really don't know mg so well..). Don't understand this the wrong way I really want to know, because you maybe know something I don't. I would consider using latex for writing a letter.. Best regards, Samo As someone already said earlier, you can write your letter in troff with mg or vi and create a postscript file from that.
Re: OpenBSD project goals
2008/6/24 Pierre Riteau [EMAIL PROTECTED]: As someone already said earlier, you can write your letter in troff with mg or vi and create a postscript file from that. Real Men wrote their thesis directly in PostScript using ed. :-) Best Martin
Re: OpenBSD project goals
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:18:05PM +0200, Pierre Riteau wrote: On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:10:37PM +0200, Samo Jelovsek wrote: On 24. 06. 2008 16:41, Marco Peereboom wrote: Understood, but I wrote about functionality conciously: I would mean ability to write a letter rather than OO.org. mg and vi come to mind... Hm, I'm just curious how do you imagine writing a letter with vi or mg (ok, i really don't know mg so well..). Don't understand this the wrong way I really want to know, because you maybe know something I don't. I would consider using latex for writing a letter.. Best regards, Samo As someone already said earlier, you can write your letter in troff with mg or vi and create a postscript file from that. One of the more important features of unix always has been document processing and typesetting. -Otto
Re: OpenBSD project goals
nah, real men wrote a program to write their thesis for them ;-) /Pete On 24 Jun 2008, at 22:29, Martin Schrvder wrote: 2008/6/24 Pierre Riteau [EMAIL PROTECTED]: As someone already said earlier, you can write your letter in troff with mg or vi and create a postscript file from that. Real Men wrote their thesis directly in PostScript using ed. :-) Best Martin
Re: OpenBSD project goals
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:28:27PM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote: On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:18:05PM +0200, Pierre Riteau wrote: On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:10:37PM +0200, Samo Jelovsek wrote: On 24. 06. 2008 16:41, Marco Peereboom wrote: Understood, but I wrote about functionality conciously: I would mean ability to write a letter rather than OO.org. mg and vi come to mind... Hm, I'm just curious how do you imagine writing a letter with vi or mg (ok, i really don't know mg so well..). Don't understand this the wrong way I really want to know, because you maybe know something I don't. I would consider using latex for writing a letter.. Best regards, Samo As someone already said earlier, you can write your letter in troff with mg or vi and create a postscript file from that. One of the more important features of unix always has been document processing and typesetting. -Otto Exactly. The first user of Unix besides the developers of the system was the Patent departement at Bell Labs, as early as 1971, to prepare patent applications (http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/hist.html).
Re: OpenBSD project goals
Pete Vickers wrote: nah, real men wrote a program to write their thesis for them ;-) In PostScript.
