OpenBSD Journal

More Developers

Contributed by merdely on from the new-meat dept.

The OpenBSD project added six new developers since the last story welcoming new developers:

  • Anders Magnusson (ragge@): pcc
  • Landry Breuil (landry@): ports
  • Stefan Kempf (stefan@): pcc
  • Joel Sing (jsing@): sgi
  • Mike Belopuhov (mikeb@): pctr, lkm, kernel
  • Owain Ainsworth (oga@): dri, some agp

Glad to have you aboard!

(Comments are closed)

Comments

  1. By Anonymous Coward (74.14.157.141) on

    So, does that mean that pcc development is moving into OpenBSD? Or just that there will be more close development between the two teams?

    Comments

    1. By phessler (204.16.153.246) on

      > So, does that mean that pcc development is moving into OpenBSD? Or just that there will be more close development between the two teams?

      it appears that the primary pcc devel is done in their own tree, but OpenBSD is closely following the development.

  2. By Anonymous Coward (65.95.181.191) on

    Welcome, new developers! May you commit often, and well! ~raises beer stein~

  3. Comments
    1. Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward (219.90.173.40) on

        You're not missing much. Its just some nutjob chanting "developers, developers, developers, developers" (ad infinitum), he then screams a bit, followed by more chanting, followed by dancing around on stage, more screaming and chanting.

        Comments

        1. By Anonymous Coward (24.2.129.160) on

          > Its just some nutjob

          Unfortunately this "nutjob" also leads one of the biggest software develompent houses in the world. The whole sound byte is actually a loop of a small part of a keynote speech he did.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Ballmer


          Comments

          1. By Anonymous Coward (213.118.238.47) on

            > > Its just some nutjob
            >
            > Unfortunately this "nutjob" also leads one of the biggest software develompent houses in the world. The whole sound byte is actually a loop of a small part of a keynote speech he did.
            >
            > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Ballmer
            >
            >
            >

            Any way you look at it, it remains a nutjob.

            http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2509986258263917383
            http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2992183880068262304

  4. By ficovh (189.188.34.154) ficovh@gmail.com on

    This is the good news. Mainly the development of "pcc"

    Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward (84.58.240.108) on

      > This is the good news. Mainly the development of "pcc"
      >
      >

      Great news. PCC would fit perfect in the OpenBSD-base. For the ports you can use other licensed compiler like gcc. Can't wait to test it.

  5. By Karl Sjödahl (Dunceor) dunceor@gmail.com on

    A lot of addation of developers this year. That is great!

    Good luck to you all new ones.

  6. By Paladdin (213.97.233.52) on

    I'm glad to see the interest pcc suscitated, and am looking forward to test every step acomplished. By now, I try to compile my own projects in pcc... so far, looking good! :)

  7. By Brynet (Brynet) on

    It's great to see someone volunteering to do some DRI/DRM related work..

    Hopefully we'll see some commits from that new developer soon :)

  8. By Anonymous Coward (86.125.253.236) zoliky@lavabit.com on

    What I need to do to help the ports tree?

    Comments

    1. By Mike Erdely (merdely) on http://erdelynet.com/

      > What I need to do to help the ports tree?

      Upgrade to -current.
      Subscribe to ports@.
      Give feedback to peoples' submissions.
      Look for ports that need updates and update them.

      That'd be a good start.

  9. By Anonymous Coward (85.178.54.88) on

    Hopefully I'm wrong, but this news causes a bad taste in my mouth. Glad to see a BSD-licensed compiler that really looks promising, it gets assimilated almost immediately.

    I'd prefer a totally autonomous approach in developing pcc instead of double memberships of it's developers in several projects.

    YMMV, though, but I doubt it will profit the BSD universe aside from OpenBSD as it have could without this connection.

    Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward (71.138.166.49) on

      > I'd prefer a totally autonomous approach in developing pcc instead of double memberships of it's developers in several projects.

      Funny, people say similar things about OpenSSH...let's see how that turns out!

    2. By Can E. Acar (66.75.248.152) canacar@ on www.openbsd.org

      > Hopefully I'm wrong, but this news causes a bad taste in my mouth. Glad to see a BSD-licensed compiler that really looks promising, it gets assimilated almost immediately.

      How is it "assimilated"? Anders Magnusson is already a long time NetBSD developer. He is already maintaining pcc separately from the OpenBSD tree. Him getting an openbsd.org account only shows the interest and commitment of the OpenBSD project in pcc. Not the other way around.

      > I'd prefer a totally autonomous approach in developing pcc instead of double memberships of it's developers in several projects.

      I'd prefer Anonymous Cowards to check their facts and think before they troll on these forums. None of it is obviously happening.

      > YMMV, though, but I doubt it will profit the BSD universe aside from OpenBSD as it have could without this connection.

      How does this "connection" prevent anyone from using pcc (within the limits of the BSD license) is beyond me. Unless some fall prey to the NIH syndrome and choose to reinvent the wheel. In this case, it is simply 'their problem'.

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward (74.13.48.67) on

        > How is it "assimilated"? Anders Magnusson is already a long time NetBSD developer. He is already maintaining pcc separately from the OpenBSD tree. Him getting an openbsd.org account only shows the interest and commitment of the OpenBSD project in pcc. Not the other way around.

        Indeed, but it would be nice if he slips in a vax patch every once an a while if he happens to see something broken, afterall, he's the NetBSD/vax man.

      2. By Anonymous Coward (85.178.54.88) on

        > > Hopefully I'm wrong, but this news causes a bad taste in my mouth. Glad to see a BSD-licensed compiler that really looks promising, it gets assimilated almost immediately.
        >
        > How is it "assimilated"? Anders Magnusson is already a long time NetBSD developer. He is already maintaining pcc separately from the OpenBSD tree. Him getting an openbsd.org account only shows the interest and commitment of the OpenBSD project in pcc. Not the other way around.

        See, he's a _NetBSD_ developer. Now, besides being developer of pcc _and_ NetBSD, he should have put his NetBSD commit rights on hold to ensure a most neutral development of pcc. If it's politics, science, or personal relationships -- this would have been the way.

        > > I'd prefer a totally autonomous approach in developing pcc instead of double memberships of it's developers in several projects.
        >
        > I'd prefer Anonymous Cowards to check their facts and think before they troll on these forums. None of it is obviously happening.

        Yo guy, I checked the facts, you wrote them again and the next sentence you say I'm trolling. YMMD.

        > > YMMV, though, but I doubt it will profit the BSD universe aside from OpenBSD as it have could without this connection.
        >
        > How does this "connection" prevent anyone from using pcc (within the limits of the BSD license) is beyond me.

        Sure it is 'beyond you'. You don't see the matter of fact of possible influences to pcc. Imagine Theo says the main architecture will be, uh, MIPS instead of this i386/x64 stuff. Would this influence pcc's development? See.

        > Unless some fall prey to the NIH syndrome and choose to reinvent the wheel. In this case, it is simply 'their problem'.

        And your tone is your problem...

        Comments

        1. By art (194.237.150.171) on

          I see you think you are so wise to tell people how they should spend their free time.

        2. By Anonymous Coward (cnst) on

          > Imagine Theo says the main architecture will be, uh, MIPS instead of this i386/x64 stuff. Would this influence pcc's development? See.

          Get real. Theo would not suggest such utter bullshit. If you think noone realises that i386 rules the world, you are mistaken.

          If you wanna help, you better start mailing patches to pcc-list@ludd.ltu.se, instead of suggesting on how people should spend their free time.

          C.

          Comments

          1. By Anonymous Coward (85.178.54.88) on

            > > Imagine Theo says the main architecture will be, uh, MIPS instead of this i386/x64 stuff. Would this influence pcc's development? See.
            >
            > Get real. Theo would not suggest such utter bullshit. If you think noone realises that i386 rules the world, you are mistaken.

            I never said that; 'imagine' was used as a signalling word to 'imagine' something and the consequences.

            Imagine Theo says now -- as he takes care of your utter bullshit * -1 -- that all platforms besides i386/x64 should be abandoned from OpenBSD development. Would pcc follow?

            If it was not connected that tightly to OpenBSD, would the pcc developers decide differently?

            > If you wanna help, you better start mailing patches to pcc-list@ludd.ltu.se, instead of suggesting on how people should spend their free time.
            >
            > C.

            Reading undeadly.org is not mailing patches, so why do you do it?

            Comments

            1. By Marc Espie (213.41.185.88) espie@openbsd.org on


              > Reading undeadly.org is not mailing patches, so why do you do it?

              Because it improves our sense of self-esteem, and of superiority, compared to moronic slackers/whiners like you.

              Comments

              1. By Anonymous Coward (85.178.54.88) on

                >
                > > Reading undeadly.org is not mailing patches, so why do you do it?
                >
                > Because it improves our sense of self-esteem, and of superiority, compared to moronic slackers/whiners like you.

                Are, you can read, you son of a b*tch. :)

                Comments

                1. By Anonymous Coward (70.173.172.228) on

                  > >
                  > > > Reading undeadly.org is not mailing patches, so why do you do it?
                  > >
                  > > Because it improves our sense of self-esteem, and of superiority, compared to moronic slackers/whiners like you.
                  >
                  > Are, you can read, you son of a b*tch. :)

                  Are?

        3. By Can Acar (66.75.248.152) canacar@ on http://www.openbsd.org/

          > See, he's a _NetBSD_ developer. Now, besides being developer of pcc _and_ NetBSD, he should have put his NetBSD commit rights on hold to ensure a most neutral development of pcc. If it's politics, science, or personal relationships -- this would have been the way.

          But it is just 'software' why do you think software must be developed in isolation without any ties to anything what so ever. What is so special about pcc, or any other piece of software, that one must remove all external influence before developing?


          > Yo guy, I checked the facts, you wrote them again and the next sentence you say I'm trolling. YMMD.

          Knowing all the facts and still claiming that OpenBSD will somehow hurt pcc, and doing it in an OpenBSD forum is plain trolling, and I am falling for it, since I can not concentrate on the report I am supposed to be writing instead.


          > Sure it is 'beyond you'. You don't see the matter of fact of possible influences to pcc. Imagine Theo says the main architecture will be, uh, MIPS instead of this i386/x64 stuff. Would this influence pcc's development? See.

          The only thing I see is some contrived example that falls short of making a point. Why would Anders Magnusson or anyone else working on pcc would be bound by Theo's words in that matter? The OpenBSD developers, much like the developers of most open source projects contribute to the project because they care, and because that is how they wish to spend their free time. If Theo wants a feature/direction for pcc, and could not get any other developer interested, he would have to implement it himself, and send diffs.


          > > Unless some fall prey to the NIH syndrome and choose to reinvent the wheel. In this case, it is simply 'their problem'.
          >
          > And your tone is your problem...

          Timo?

          Comments

          1. By Anonymous Coward (219.90.173.40) on

            > Timo?

            Haha, you know, that's exactly what I was thinking!

            Comments

            1. By Timo Schoeler (eclipser) on http://riscworks.net

              > > Timo?
              >
              > Haha, you know, that's exactly what I was thinking!

              Wow.

          2. By Timo Schoeler (eclipser) on http://riscworks.net

            > > See, he's a _NetBSD_ developer. Now, besides being developer of pcc _and_ NetBSD, he should have put his NetBSD commit rights on hold to ensure a most neutral development of pcc. If it's politics, science, or personal relationships -- this would have been the way.
            >
            > But it is just 'software' why do you think software must be developed in isolation without any ties to anything what so ever. What is so special about pcc, or any other piece of software, that one must remove all external influence before developing?
            >
            >
            > > Yo guy, I checked the facts, you wrote them again and the next sentence you say I'm trolling. YMMD.
            >
            > Knowing all the facts and still claiming that OpenBSD will somehow hurt pcc, and doing it in an OpenBSD forum is plain trolling, and I am falling for it, since I can not concentrate on the report I am supposed to be writing instead.
            >
            >
            > > Sure it is 'beyond you'. You don't see the matter of fact of possible influences to pcc. Imagine Theo says the main architecture will be, uh, MIPS instead of this i386/x64 stuff. Would this influence pcc's development? See.
            >
            > The only thing I see is some contrived example that falls short of making a point. Why would Anders Magnusson or anyone else working on pcc would be bound by Theo's words in that matter? The OpenBSD developers, much like the developers of most open source projects contribute to the project because they care, and because that is how they wish to spend their free time. If Theo wants a feature/direction for pcc, and could not get any other developer interested, he would have to implement it himself, and send diffs.
            >
            >
            > > > Unless some fall prey to the NIH syndrome and choose to reinvent the wheel. In this case, it is simply 'their problem'.
            > >
            > > And your tone is your problem...
            >
            > Timo?

            Obviously, no.

          3. By Timo Schoeler (eclipser) on http://riscworks.net

            > > See, he's a _NetBSD_ developer. Now, besides being developer of pcc _and_ NetBSD, he should have put his NetBSD commit rights on hold to ensure a most neutral development of pcc. If it's politics, science, or personal relationships -- this would have been the way.
            >
            > But it is just 'software' why do you think software must be developed in isolation without any ties to anything what so ever. What is so special about pcc, or any other piece of software, that one must remove all external influence before developing?

            What is 'so special' about pcc is that it'd be a nice, BSD-licensed compiler, and the first /useable/ of its kind. So it'd be a shame if it gets bound in any way to one BSD (read: OpenBSD) rather than being shared on an equal basis between all BSDs. That of course would require to separate it from any BSD to keep influences as small as possible.

            To answer your ``it's just software'' argument: bcw(4) also is 'just' software, isn't it? :)

            > > Yo guy, I checked the facts, you wrote them again and the next sentence you say I'm trolling. YMMD.
            >
            > Knowing all the facts and still claiming that OpenBSD will somehow hurt pcc, and doing it in an OpenBSD forum is plain trolling, and I am falling for it, since I can not concentrate on the report I am supposed to be writing instead.

            Poor guy. You're a whiny, don't you see?

            > > Sure it is 'beyond you'. You don't see the matter of fact of possible influences to pcc. Imagine Theo says the main architecture will be, uh, MIPS instead of this i386/x64 stuff. Would this influence pcc's development? See.
            >
            > The only thing I see is some contrived example that falls short of making a point. Why would Anders Magnusson or anyone else working on pcc would be bound by Theo's words in that matter?

            Have you ever been faced with real life? I mean with the things that happen in front of your door? Girls, women, bosses, tax payers, assholes, nazis, brokers, politicians, war, hatred, influence, brainwashing etc? Obviously not, because you don't see that people are influenced (and acting differently than they would have without being influenced) without knowing.

            > The OpenBSD developers, much like the developers of most open source projects contribute to the project because they care, and because that is how they wish to spend their free time. If Theo wants a feature/direction for pcc, and could not get any other developer interested, he would have to implement it himself, and send diffs.

            Yeah, instead he insults people, I know. Everybody knows. So what?

            > > > Unless some fall prey to the NIH syndrome and choose to reinvent the wheel. In this case, it is simply 'their problem'.

            I say 'bcw(4)' again. This one was just typical.

            If the OpenBSD coders were consequent guys (compare it to the lyrics of 4.1, 3.9, 3.8, etc) then they would not even LOOK at other guys code, may it come from NetBSD, FreeBSD or the GNU/Linux folks. Why? Because it already influences the code you're going to write.

            I'm wasting my time. It's like trying to tell an Apple fanboy that in comparison to the machines Apple built in the 90s their machines nowadays just suck.

            > > And your tone is your problem...
            >
            > Timo?

            Seems it's not just me (or the gazillion of other 'flamewar starters' from ancient times, see marc) that's amused about your childish use of language.

            Keep coding! :)

            Comments

            1. By Matthias Kilian (91.3.36.118) on

              > > > > Unless some fall prey to the NIH syndrome and choose to reinvent the wheel. In this case, it is simply 'their problem'.
              >
              > I say 'bcw(4)' again. This one was just typical.

              And now there's bwi(4) from Dragonfly BSD. NIH, but in our tree and beeing worked on.

              Comments

              1. By Timo Schoeler (eclipser) on http://riscworks.net

                > > > > > Unless some fall prey to the NIH syndrome and choose to reinvent the wheel. In this case, it is simply 'their problem'.
                > >
                > > I say 'bcw(4)' again. This one was just typical.
                >
                > And now there's bwi(4) from Dragonfly BSD. NIH, but in our tree and beeing worked on.

                *Now*. Where was the first bcw(4) stolen from...?

                Comments

                1. By Anonymous Coward (74.138.132.55) on

                  > > > > > > Unless some fall prey to the NIH syndrome and choose to reinvent the wheel. In this case, it is simply 'their problem'.
                  > > >
                  > > > I say 'bcw(4)' again. This one was just typical.
                  > >
                  > > And now there's bwi(4) from Dragonfly BSD. NIH, but in our tree and beeing worked on.
                  >
                  > *Now*. Where was the first bcw(4) stolen from...?

                  What a terrible, hateful, pitiful person you are. Can't you just *please* shut up and let these people code in peace?

                  Comments

                  1. By Anonymous Coward (85.178.42.205) on

                    > > > > > > > Unless some fall prey to the NIH syndrome and choose to reinvent the wheel. In this case, it is simply 'their problem'.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > I say 'bcw(4)' again. This one was just typical.
                    > > >
                    > > > And now there's bwi(4) from Dragonfly BSD. NIH, but in our tree and beeing worked on.
                    > >
                    > > *Now*. Where was the first bcw(4) stolen from...?
                    >
                    > What a terrible, hateful, pitiful person you are. Can't you just *please* shut up and let these people code in peace?

                    No, I just look at the OpenBSD release lyrics and compare what is stated there to reality: Voilà -- exactly the opposite of what is said is done by OpenBSD developers.

                    So, what's your polemic about? Lack of arguments on your side?

                    Comments

                    1. By Anonymous Coward (71.138.167.224) on

                      > So, what's your polemic about? Lack of arguments on your side?

                      Shouldn't we ask YOU about that first?

                2. By Matthias Kilian (91.3.36.118) on

                  > > > > > > Unless some fall prey to the NIH syndrome and choose to reinvent the wheel. In this case, it is simply 'their problem'.
                  > > >
                  > > > I say 'bcw(4)' again. This one was just typical.
                  > >
                  > > And now there's bwi(4) from Dragonfly BSD. NIH, but in our tree and beeing worked on.
                  >
                  > *Now*. Where was the first bcw(4) stolen from...?

                  Huh? So OpenBSD suffers from the NIH syndrome and is stealing code at the same time?

                  Sorry, but this kind of logic doesn't apply in my universe. And in fact we don't reinvent the wheel (except when necessary) or steal code.

                  Comments

                  1. By Timo Schoeler (eclipser) on http://riscworks.net

                    > > > > > > > Unless some fall prey to the NIH syndrome and choose to reinvent the wheel. In this case, it is simply 'their problem'.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > I say 'bcw(4)' again. This one was just typical.
                    > > >
                    > > > And now there's bwi(4) from Dragonfly BSD. NIH, but in our tree and beeing worked on.
                    > >
                    > > *Now*. Where was the first bcw(4) stolen from...?
                    >
                    > Huh? So OpenBSD suffers from the NIH syndrome

                    I never said this.

                    > and is stealing code at the same time?

                    I mentioned the bcw(4) disaster...

                    > Sorry, but this kind of logic doesn't apply in my universe. And in fact we don't reinvent the wheel (except when necessary)

                    That's exactly the point. Maybe you should see the problem of attaching a truck's wheel onto a sportscar, or vice versa?

                    > or steal code.

                    NO, NEVER ;)

            2. By Can E. Acar (66.75.248.152) canacar@ on http://www.openbsd.org/

              Hi Timo,

              How nice of you to continue the same arguments where the other troll left off. Or perhaps it has taken some time for you to figure out how to hide your IP by registering.

              And I am sorry to have named you and caused you to come forward with more trolling. There is a phrase in my native language: "iti an sopayi hazirla" which is a perfect fit for the occasion.

              Now why don't you just go play somewhere else?

              Comments

              1. By Timo Schoeler (eclipser) on http://riscworks.net

                > Hi Timo,
                >
                > How nice of you to continue the same arguments where the other troll left off.

                This is a free world, isn't it? Why can't you stand a discussion and refuse to give some facts instead of insulting people?

                > Or perhaps it has taken some time for you to figure out how to hide your IP by registering.

                Obviously you aren't aware of the fact that I registered to this site ages before. So, another polemic try of yours went south...

                > And I am sorry to have named you and caused you to come forward with more trolling.

                That's not trolling; *you* are trolling as you are not able to face the facts. Period.



                > There is a phrase in my native language: "iti an sopayi hazirla" which is a perfect fit for the occasion.

                There's a saying in Germany that says 'Nur getroffene Köter jaulen', which fits perfectly here, too.

                I told you to read the release lyrics and compare them to reality. You saw that I am right, and now you start insulting.

                > Now why don't you just go play somewhere else?

                Says who? You? Who even didn't learn how to discuss?

                :D

                Comments

                1. By Anonymous Coward (219.90.173.40) on

                  The last word.

                2. By Can Acar (66.75.248.152) canacar@ on http://www.openbsd.org/

                  Ok, I will bite.

                  First you post as an "Anonymous Coward", and claim that OpenBSD "influence" is bad for pcc.

                  I asked the reason why you think so.

                  Your response did NOT make sense, and I said so.

                  You could not stand an argument, and started attacking my "language" instead.

                  Recalling recent heated discussions on pcc and misc mailing lists, and noticing that the IP address is in Germany, I made a guess about your identity.

                  You started posting with your real name, rejected that the earlier poster was you, and continued with the same arguments, and even posted once in between without logging in, thus revealing once again the IP you are trying to hide. You are pitifully obvious in your attempts to hide your identity, and furthermore, you lie.

                  You can not stand an argument and fall back to name calling. You think your arguments make sense when you make obscure references to lyrics and your sense of reality and broadcom wireless. They do not.

                  You choose to slander OpenBSD with references to a mistake one developer made. You disregard all the good things OpenBSD stand for, and try to repair your wounded ego by attacking it any way you can.

                  All your posts are full of arguments that you fail to follow through. You never try to understand what others are saying. You keep repeating stuff, and try to find clever (to you) twists around other people's arguments, but never bother to clarify/explain.

                  You are not worth discussing anything with, because you simply can not discuss.

                  Comments

                  1. By Timo Schoeler (eclipser) on http://riscworks.net

                    > Ok, I will bite.
                    >
                    > First you post as an "Anonymous Coward",

                    No.

                    > and claim that OpenBSD "influence" is bad for pcc.

                    Obviously I'm not the only one (and I know for sure as I got private
                    eMails from other guys, even from NetBSD developers, backing my
                    opinion, when the thread went on on misc@)

                    > I asked the reason why you think so.
                    >
                    > Your response did NOT make sense, and I said so.

                    First, it was not *my* response, and second, it makes sense.

                    > You could not stand an argument, and started attacking my "language"
                    > instead.

                    First, this was not *me*, and second, (s)he criticized use of language
                    on OpenBSD lists (and this forum) in general; this happened several
                    times in the past and will go on in the future -- with different people
                    involved, of course, because I don't use OpenBSD any more and am almost
                    finished switching customers to other OSs.

                    > Recalling recent heated discussions on pcc and misc mailing lists,
                    > and noticing that the IP address is in Germany, I made a guess about
                    > your identity.

                    Wow. Another proof of your weird logics. I use an IP address in
                    Germany. Dear God! And of course I am the only one from Germany
                    visiting this site! Ever heard of VPN? Actually, I was in south Europe
                    when the thread first started on misc@.

                    > You started posting with your real name, rejected that the earlier
                    > poster was you,

                    And still do because I know better than you.

                    > and continued with the same arguments,

                    Her/his arguments are fine.

                    > and even posted once in between without logging in, thus revealing
                    > once again the IP you are trying to hide.

                    I myself use a dynamic IP. I'm a bad obfuscator, eh? :D

                    > You are pitifully obvious in your attempts to hide your identity, and
                    > furthermore, you lie.

                    If you say so, believe in it. Nobody cares.

                    > You can not stand an argument and fall back to name calling. You
                    > think your arguments make sense when you make obscure references to
                    > lyrics and your sense of reality and broadcom wireless. They do not.

                    Geez! The OpenBSD project states several times that it writes own code
                    -- at maximum gets some inspiration from other BSDs code. Instead, bcw
                    (4) was just plain stolen from the GNU guys.

                    I couldn't even defend this when I was a real OpenBSD fan back then.
                    THIS WAS NO MISTAKE.

                    You don't copy source code, exchange the variable's names and leave the
                    rest untouched and sell this as *your* code as a 'mistake'.

                    This is ridiculous!

                    > You choose to slander OpenBSD with references to a mistake one
                    > developer made.

                    It was not a mistake, it was done on purpose by this person. Period.

                    > You disregard all the good things OpenBSD stand for,

                    No, I don't. And I wrote in an eMail on misc@ what I still like about OpenBSD -- you are just plain wrong.

                    I show that there's not that much light or 'holyness' as you all claim. Therefore, you start insulting and whining.

                    > and try to repair your wounded ego by attacking it any way you can.

                    There's no wounded ego, why should there be one? You guys were in the
                    role of the victim all the time, there's no escape, so I can (and do)
                    feel like the guy that pulls the trigger. Period.

                    > All your posts are full of arguments that you fail to follow through.

                    You say. But my posts are better because they *contain* arguments,
                    yours *do not*.

                    > You never try to understand what others are saying.

                    There were no facts from your side. Just insults. What's so difficult
                    to understand here? YOU JUST DID NOT GIVE ANY FACTS.

                    'Mistake' (wrt bcw(4)) is not a fact, that's a plain lie.

                    > You keep repeating stuff,

                    Yes, until you can give any argument(s) that proves me wrong. I am very
                    nice to you!

                    > and try to find clever (to you) twists around other people's
                    > arguments, but never bother to clarify/explain.
                    >
                    > You are not worth discussing anything with, because you simply can
                    > not discuss.

                    *You* say? No able to give arguments, no able to live without insulting
                    people, not able to resolve simple logics?

                    What's your definition of 'discussion'? Consult a dictionary, man!

                    Comments

                    1. By ddp (ddpbsd) on http://undeadly.org

                      > > Ok, I will bite.
                      > >
                      > > First you post as an "Anonymous Coward",
                      >
                      > No.
                      >
                      > > and claim that OpenBSD "influence" is bad for pcc.
                      >
                      > Obviously I'm not the only one (and I know for sure as I got private
                      > eMails from other guys, even from NetBSD developers, backing my
                      > opinion, when the thread went on on misc@)
                      >

                      Anyone that contributes code to pcc influences it, whether it's an OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, or linux developer. Are all of these influences bad for pcc? How would/could we eliminate all outside influences from pcc?

                      >
                      > Geez! The OpenBSD project states several times that it writes own code
                      > -- at maximum gets some inspiration from other BSDs code.

                      Could you point to a specific reference? We know for a fact that OpenBSD developers get more than ideas from outside, since we're using Apache, bind, sendmail, and plenty of other outside code.

                      >Instead, bcw
                      > (4) was just plain stolen from the GNU guys.
                      >
                      > I couldn't even defend this when I was a real OpenBSD fan back then.
                      > THIS WAS NO MISTAKE.
                      >
                      ...
                      >
                      > It was not a mistake, it was done on purpose by this person. Period.
                      >

                      It was definitely a mistake (check a dictionay if necessary). Was it intentional? Only one person knows for sure.

                    2. By Can Acar (66.75.248.152) canacar@ on http://www.openbsd.org/

                      > > You can not stand an argument and fall back to name calling. You
                      > > think your arguments make sense when you make obscure references to
                      > > lyrics and your sense of reality and broadcom wireless. They do not.
                      >
                      > Geez! The OpenBSD project states several times that it writes own code
                      > -- at maximum gets some inspiration from other BSDs code.

                      Where does it state that?

                      Check out: http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html item #2:

                      "Integrate good code from any source with acceptable copyright (ISC or Berkeley style preferred, GPL acceptable as a last recourse but not in the kernel, NDA never acceptable). "

                      It is directly opposite of what you are imagining.

                      We import a lot of code from other projects, check out CVS logs and you will see a lot of "... from {Free|Net|Dragonfly}BSD". Believe it or not, Theo was complaining a couple of days ago that we are not taking enough code/ideas/fixes from other projects.

                      We write our own code when out goals could not be met. We had to pull ipf out because of a bad license. Yes, the license is later fixed, but we already had pf then. We try to find an alternative to gcc, not only because of the license, but because it is so huge and unmaintainable and full of bugs. Why would anyone develop a "compiler from scratch" when some promising alternatives exist. Instead we support them.

                      We write our own code when no other alternatives exist. A couple of networking guys decided that zebra/quagga was crap, and decided to write their own. Now we have a well designed/secure/efficient set of routing daemons. Similiarly for ntpd.

                      Perhaps you are confusing this recent addition of all new daemons and stuff with an agenda towards "rewrite everything". I assure you, it is NOT. Like every project, we have people that do as they please with their free time. If the results are "good enough" they are in.

                      Of course I am idealizing. Of course there are much more complex interactions, guidance, cooperation, even fighting among the developers. But the end result is pretty close to what I wrote above.

                      > Instead, bcw (4) was just plain stolen from the GNU guys.
                      > I couldn't even defend this when I was a real OpenBSD fan back then.
                      > THIS WAS NO MISTAKE.
                      > You don't copy source code, exchange the variable's names and leave the
                      > rest untouched and sell this as *your* code as a 'mistake'.
                      >
                      > This is ridiculous!

                      And this is how your "idealized" view of OpenBSD came crashing down?
                      I am sorry to hear that. You have to live with the truth. We are all people. We make mistakes, we fix them, and move on.

                      I believe what the developer in question did was a mistake. It is perfectly fine to use parts of other code while developing/testing the driver, provided that you rewrite those parts later. GPL even explicitly allows such private use.

                      The biggest mistake was publishing it. It was fixed promptly. What else do you want?


                      > > You choose to slander OpenBSD with references to a mistake one
                      > > developer made.
                      >
                      > It was not a mistake, it was done on purpose by this person. Period.

                      Do you know him? How do you know he did this on purpose?
                      Do you have any thing to justify your accusation above?

                      Please?

                      It is twice now that you have made such statements, without backing them up. This is not discussion. This is name calling and trolling.


                      > > You disregard all the good things OpenBSD stand for,
                      >
                      > No, I don't. And I wrote in an eMail on misc@ what I still like about OpenBSD -- you are just plain wrong.
                      > I show that there's not that much light or 'holyness' as you all claim. Therefore, you start insulting and whining.

                      Perhaps you thought there was some 'holyness' back when you were a 'real OpenBSD fan'. Then you saw some things that did not match with your idealized view of OpenBSD. You are disillusioned and perhaps bitter.

                      Perhaps what you keep writing appears as whining, insulting and trolling to other people. Have you considered this?

                      You know what OpenBSD is? It is a bunch of people who like to solve their own problems. They can code, and so they do just that. Nothing more, nothing less. We all have different reasons for running/using/developing OpenBSD. Theo, being the non-compromising *beep* he is, keeps the project pointed towards its goals.


                      > > and try to repair your wounded ego by attacking it any way you can.
                      >
                      > There's no wounded ego, why should there be one? You guys were in the
                      > role of the victim all the time, there's no escape, so I can (and do)
                      > feel like the guy that pulls the trigger. Period.

                      Yes, poor OpenBSD, all crying and whining. Too bad you are the only one seeing it.


                      > > All your posts are full of arguments that you fail to follow through.
                      >
                      > You say. But my posts are better because they *contain* arguments,
                      > yours *do not*.
                      >
                      > > You never try to understand what others are saying.
                      >
                      > There were no facts from your side. Just insults. What's so difficult
                      > to understand here? YOU JUST DID NOT GIVE ANY FACTS.

                      See above for my view of OpenBSD. Most are facts, some are illusions. I just do not try to impose my illusions on people as you try to do your own.


                      > 'Mistake' (wrt bcw(4)) is not a fact, that's a plain lie.

                      And the proof is ... where?


                      > > You keep repeating stuff,
                      >
                      > Yes, until you can give any argument(s) that proves me wrong. I am very
                      > nice to you!

                      I am starting to feel sorry for you.


                      > > and try to find clever (to you) twists around other people's
                      > > arguments, but never bother to clarify/explain.
                      > >
                      > > You are not worth discussing anything with, because you simply can
                      > > not discuss.
                      >
                      > *You* say? No able to give arguments, no able to live without insulting
                      > people, not able to resolve simple logics?
                      >
                      > What's your definition of 'discussion'? Consult a dictionary, man!

                      I can live without insulting people most of the time. It is when people start repeating the same nonsense that I feel the urge.



  10. By jason (TheDudeAbides) jason@snakelegs.org on http://www.snakelegs.org

    Any thoughts about using mcpp as the preprocessor for pcc?

    Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward (219.90.173.40) on

      > Any thoughts about using mcpp as the preprocessor for pcc?

      Looks like someone has http://marc.info/?l=pcc-list&w=2&r=1&s=mcpp&q=b

  11. By ddp (ddpbsd) ddpbsd@gmail.com on http://undeadly.org

    Just wanted to say thanks and congrats to the new developers!

Latest Articles

Credits

Copyright © - Daniel Hartmeier. All rights reserved. Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors, submission implies license to publish on this web site. Contents of the archive prior to as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original deadly.org with Jose's and Jim's kind permission. This journal runs as CGI with httpd(8) on OpenBSD, the source code is BSD licensed. undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]