Re:This is why I couldn't use OpenBSD exclusively.
on
Heap Protection Mechanism
·
· Score: 4, Informative
But they don't care, they're not trying to be FreeBSD or a Linux distribution, they're trying to be OpenBSD and a part of that is not letting people's perception of optimum performance get in the way of doing what is right by them.
You gotta remember, the project doesn't do it for outsiders, what they do is for themselves. They want security and are willing to pay performance and ease of use to get it, it's like a mantra for them, never take the path of least resistance.
If this looses like 5 or 10 percent of it's performance on my machines I won't mind, it's another layer of protection and I like having it and am fine with the cost, faster hardware isn't that expensive. If something I run crashes, I will report to the people that wrote it, telling them that I found a problem that was found by OpenBSD's malloc, maybe they'll even devote an old test box to checking for bugs on it.
If OpenBSD was trying to be a Linux distribution then we'd not have most of the good stuff that makes OpenBSD unique.
Same concept yes, but it's been built from scratch over the past 3 years to not be such a massive slow-down to the system. You'd have known this had you read the linked KernelTrap article.
You idea is stupid, why on earth should the OpenSSH developers waste their time keeping forks for a bunch of countries in that manner? Those codebases would have to be hosted and worked on only in those countries that do not uphold those patents and not allow for the download of it into countries which do upload the patents, simply to avoid litigation. Purely insane concept on your part to think it worth effort. It'd be the opposite of the old crypto export problem they had with the United States back in the day.
If you want something like that, you fork it - or go use the OpenSSH-FOLK fork.
Anyways, as I said, you're so far off your rocker that you've entered orbit.
Not emulation pinprick, translation. The compatibility layer translates calls from their Linux kernel versions to the native ones with pretty much no overhead.
They think that adding stuff that random people want is more important that following the goals of the project. He's just wrong and wrongheaded about it.
You cannot go adding everything that people want when that defeats the purpose of the project; you cannot add non-free things when a goal is to be free, you cannot encumber it with patented goup when a goal is to be unencumbered and you cannot support every alternative version of every implementation of standards when a goal is to be clean and simple.
Though NetSSH would be great to see, since there is already a FreSSH.
It's not an abuse of power to say, "no, that idea goes against the goals of this project." The goals are out there, read the mailing list, there are even a few on their website where you can read them.
If you have different goals, start your own project.
If you're unable to spend the time to know how to properly submit a patch then it's your problem, not theirs, it's their project.
If you are wanting something to be accepted into it, you have to make it work the way the developers want it to work.
Your attitude is completely asshat backwards, it's not up to them to help you get what you want, it's up to you to get them what you want. But if you want to add in support for an algorithm that is patened, too bad, it won't happen. If you want to start favouring PAM, too bad. If you want to have it support the GnuTLS, too bad.
How hard is it to conform to the KNF? Are you saying it's so hard to conform to good coding guidelines that it's not worth adding the functionality you want? Fine, the functionality won't be added.
This isn't forcing their personal view on anyone, it's enforcing their views on their own project. No one is forcing you to be a user, there is no knife held to your neck waiting for the second you download lsh.
Don't like it? Go cry to your mother, maybe she can make it all better.
People that are demanding of people that are giving them free stuff are the people with the problem.
If I give a bim on the streets a 5 dollar bill I do not expect him to yell at me for not giving him a 20 and a handjob - infact, that would piss me right off. And guess what, that's what you people are doing.
You're complaining about people giving you a hand, but not giving you all you want.
"Shut up and hack" works no matter the situation, if you're not a contributing member of the community you have no say in the community - it's that simple. You don't even have to develope it yourself, you can hire someone to add what you want, then you're a contributing member.
Noone is forcing people to use free software, if you don't want to use it because people don't care about you that's fine, people still won't care. They are not running a popularity contest, they are developing software for themselves and letting you have it too.
I, Nimrangul, am not any of the above, I am (d) smarter than you.
K&R didn't write the original language, Kernighan was the guy that helped make it popular, Richie is the father of C.
If the patch is so poorly written that the developers cannot easily understand it it is not worth accepting because it would make the codebase worse and it is not worth rewriting because it will take work to try and understand it. The programmer supplying the code should be able to read the code in the programme and follow the style within if nothing else.
The developers aren't being payed here, it's not their job to do things for you. If your head is so far up your ass that you cannot be bothered to do anything right, then why should anyone pay attention to what you send them?
And since when, pray tell, did I become a developer? I'm just someone with more brain cells in my left nut then either of you dicksticks have in your heads.
You don't seem to understand how software development works in an open source environment, so allow me to illuminate your ignorance.
First, you complain about a lack of cross compiling support, if you'd be bothered reading you know that OpenBSD does not support it by choice, they refuse. Therefore you will never see it happen in OpenSSH without a developer joining the project with that goal in mind or someone being hired to add such support, cause no developer has it in their mind to do it.
Furthermore a software developer that works completely in their own free time does not have to do anything, they are a philanthropist, giving to the community for the good of all. They have no obligations, not tasks to complete, what they desire to do they do and what they do not they do not.
In an open source project, those that supply code are the people that are respected - not the people that are kindly, not the people that are photogenic, not even the people who are sociopolitical philosophers - the developers are the people who code and the coders are the people that matter.
If you want some happy little nymph to help you in all ways and make your life wonderful, pick up a crack pipe - it's as close as you're going to get.
This is the real world and unless you are paying for something noone has any need to do anything for you.
It doesn't matter if what people say, it's what people do.
When someone submits a shitty, poorly made patch with code that is unreadable it is not the responsability of a volunteer to sort through the nonsense and make use of the patch, that's a waste of their extremely valuable time. If the person cannot be bothered to do it right, they are ignored because they obviously cannot read and are draining resources from the project with the time required to find out how useless their patch is.
A real project doesn't have "wannabe developers", those people are the ones that submit patches, the developers actually get things done.
OpenSSH has initiative; it's become the single biggest ssh suite in the world. It also has maturity, it's been around for years and has become a stable and useful suite. And OpenSSH doesn't want respect from outsiders, respect doesn't matter, the project isn't being done for the respect of others.
You're here whining, perhaps you should be at a terminal putting OpenSSH so far ahead that SSH.com seems like the ancient pyramids instead of complaining that people are working hard to put together something like OpenSSH at all.
OpenSSH's developers refuse shitty patches until they are sent in a manner that conform to the code standards and goal's of the project, if the people sending patches are too stupid to read and code properly before hand, why should the developers then hold hands and recode every shittily cobbled patch for them?
If you have a bug, you submit a report, if you want a feature you submit the patch - it's that simple.
You people just don't understand how to put up or shut up.
Gentlemen, behold! A troll being marked Insightful on Slashdot! OpenBSD are the ones with KNF, that's Kernel Normal Form, the style that all code in the base operating system (which includes OpenSSH) must conform to.
Seamonkey is old, we need something new, hip, something that today's youth will really identify with and get behind... Like Hypnotoad, Phatphoque, or GreasyGoose.
Kids today like two random words being mashed together, right? Ubuntu has to be a sign.
The original Lexx miniseries may have been worth mentioning, but the complete and utter bullocks produced in the spin-off series made everything unbearably bad.
The acting was never good in either, but at least the concept for the miniseries had been alright.
Seaquest was not worth being made, the concept was wretched and the execution worse.
Farscape was much better than either.
I don't think Star Trek: Deep Space Nine can really be considered because people that watched it were split, some liked it, some loathed it. I loathed the show, for despite some interesting work in it, it was not a compelling or particularly interesting story nor characters.
I don't think Star Trek: Voyager should have been on that list, because of their constant goofing around with time travel and nanobots. It was just too bothersome the way they would pull one, the other or both out at the drop of the hat to fix anything.
OpenBSD has a Benevolent Dictator, Theo de Raadt.
DragonFly BSD has a Benevolent Dictator, Matt Dillon.
There is next to no fighting between the BSDs, which you could easily learn from making use of the mailing lists and news archives that Google has in it's search index. There are conflicts between specific developers, but when it comes to code - they are often willing to help one another retrofit their code to suit another BSD.
Linux systems are fragmented to such a scale it is hard to identify a system worth making use of, while there are only 4 BSDs, 1 of which openly states it's not quite ready yet.
You're delusional if you think that just because there is a Microsoft everyone will unite to "fight the good fight". Because it didn't happen when that was IBM and it's not come close to happening in the past 10 years of Microsoft's market dominance.
Linux distributions are squabbling over the pie just as badly as their Unix counterparts did in the past, there are hundreds of distributions of Linux out there, hundreds.
Argubly indeed, I don't even use the damned thing. It's only important to nutjobs that like these annoying office applications. vi works just fine, I've yet so see a single reason to use anything but plain text.
There have been plenty of forks that didn't do that though, almost all the forks have been so completely out of the 3 main BSD's league that they've been ignored. This is different for DragonFly BSD because it s run by Matt Dillon, the guy's got skill and determination - and I suppose enough money that he doesn't need to work too much to eke out a living.
DragonFly BSD's not been around as long as MirOS or many other projects, but it's got someone that knows what they're doing in charge, someone that would be doing it even without anyone else working with him.
Because of who started it and why DragonFly BSD has had an easy edge over the others, that is why it has become the fourth over time - but it did not start out as a full-blown contender, this took time.
You're not just supposed to randomly hire someone, you are supposed to have a contract with them to add the functionality you want for a price they quote you for it, if they fail to do it, you don't pay them. If you are subcontracting someone, you have proof that it isn't your fault for the delay. You also can sue them for breach of contract if they are to be paid in part at the start of the project and fail to complete it, that's why you get everything down on paper. It's the same as if you were a contractor hired to refinish a basement, you contract professionals to do the specialist parts like plumbing and if they fail, it's their fault and your ass is properly covered.
Just because you picked gung-ho idiots before does not mean that hiring actual developers should be much of a risk. Like, for example, when Nick Halqvist was hired by GeNUA to add SMP support to OpenBSD's i386 platform. Instead of hiring some random shmuck, just hire the actual developers, the people that know what they are doing.
I never understand why people are so against using open source stuff when it's not exactly what they want, since they can get a programmer to add the functionality or appearance that they want.
The choice between paying a huge license fee on some things which are either computer, cpu or user based programme or paying a one time fee for making something work just the way you like it has always seemed strange, since noone ever picks the second option.
People seem to think that the open source options cannot become just what they need, while at the same time the closed source ones rarely are either. It baffles me.
It's like they think that since it's not what they want now, it never will be.
And people that just want a free piece of software just cannot understand that the people making the software are not making it for them, but for themselves... They're giving these people a hand and that hand is being bitten. That bothers me, people that are being given free code to do with as they please demanding things of philanthropists - as if the world owes them.
Rob Lowe, Tom Cruise, Nicholas Cage and a few others have been tossing around the Internet for the 2007 Iron Man, but nothing really solid has been said, not even who directs.
Wine was MIT licenced, not BSD. And there still exists Rewind, a fork which is still MIT licenced.
It didn't even work badly for Wine, they feared that it would lead to problems with people not contributing back. Nothing bad happened, they just got scared.
Slashdot Mirror
You gotta remember, the project doesn't do it for outsiders, what they do is for themselves. They want security and are willing to pay performance and ease of use to get it, it's like a mantra for them, never take the path of least resistance.
If this looses like 5 or 10 percent of it's performance on my machines I won't mind, it's another layer of protection and I like having it and am fine with the cost, faster hardware isn't that expensive. If something I run crashes, I will report to the people that wrote it, telling them that I found a problem that was found by OpenBSD's malloc, maybe they'll even devote an old test box to checking for bugs on it.
If OpenBSD was trying to be a Linux distribution then we'd not have most of the good stuff that makes OpenBSD unique.
Same concept yes, but it's been built from scratch over the past 3 years to not be such a massive slow-down to the system. You'd have known this had you read the linked KernelTrap article.
If you want something like that, you fork it - or go use the OpenSSH-FOLK fork.
Anyways, as I said, you're so far off your rocker that you've entered orbit.
Not emulation pinprick, translation. The compatibility layer translates calls from their Linux kernel versions to the native ones with pretty much no overhead.
They think that adding stuff that random people want is more important that following the goals of the project. He's just wrong and wrongheaded about it.
You cannot go adding everything that people want when that defeats the purpose of the project; you cannot add non-free things when a goal is to be free, you cannot encumber it with patented goup when a goal is to be unencumbered and you cannot support every alternative version of every implementation of standards when a goal is to be clean and simple.
Though NetSSH would be great to see, since there is already a FreSSH.
If you have different goals, start your own project.
If you're unable to spend the time to know how to properly submit a patch then it's your problem, not theirs, it's their project.
If you are wanting something to be accepted into it, you have to make it work the way the developers want it to work.
Your attitude is completely asshat backwards, it's not up to them to help you get what you want, it's up to you to get them what you want. But if you want to add in support for an algorithm that is patened, too bad, it won't happen. If you want to start favouring PAM, too bad. If you want to have it support the GnuTLS, too bad.
How hard is it to conform to the KNF? Are you saying it's so hard to conform to good coding guidelines that it's not worth adding the functionality you want? Fine, the functionality won't be added.
This isn't forcing their personal view on anyone, it's enforcing their views on their own project. No one is forcing you to be a user, there is no knife held to your neck waiting for the second you download lsh.
Don't like it? Go cry to your mother, maybe she can make it all better.
People that are demanding of people that are giving them free stuff are the people with the problem.
If I give a bim on the streets a 5 dollar bill I do not expect him to yell at me for not giving him a 20 and a handjob - infact, that would piss me right off. And guess what, that's what you people are doing.
You're complaining about people giving you a hand, but not giving you all you want.
"Shut up and hack" works no matter the situation, if you're not a contributing member of the community you have no say in the community - it's that simple. You don't even have to develope it yourself, you can hire someone to add what you want, then you're a contributing member.
Noone is forcing people to use free software, if you don't want to use it because people don't care about you that's fine, people still won't care. They are not running a popularity contest, they are developing software for themselves and letting you have it too.
I, Nimrangul, am not any of the above, I am (d) smarter than you.
If the patch is so poorly written that the developers cannot easily understand it it is not worth accepting because it would make the codebase worse and it is not worth rewriting because it will take work to try and understand it. The programmer supplying the code should be able to read the code in the programme and follow the style within if nothing else.
The developers aren't being payed here, it's not their job to do things for you. If your head is so far up your ass that you cannot be bothered to do anything right, then why should anyone pay attention to what you send them?
You don't seem to understand how software development works in an open source environment, so allow me to illuminate your ignorance.
First, you complain about a lack of cross compiling support, if you'd be bothered reading you know that OpenBSD does not support it by choice, they refuse. Therefore you will never see it happen in OpenSSH without a developer joining the project with that goal in mind or someone being hired to add such support, cause no developer has it in their mind to do it.
Furthermore a software developer that works completely in their own free time does not have to do anything, they are a philanthropist, giving to the community for the good of all. They have no obligations, not tasks to complete, what they desire to do they do and what they do not they do not.
In an open source project, those that supply code are the people that are respected - not the people that are kindly, not the people that are photogenic, not even the people who are sociopolitical philosophers - the developers are the people who code and the coders are the people that matter.
If you want some happy little nymph to help you in all ways and make your life wonderful, pick up a crack pipe - it's as close as you're going to get.
This is the real world and unless you are paying for something noone has any need to do anything for you.
It doesn't matter if what people say, it's what people do.
When someone submits a shitty, poorly made patch with code that is unreadable it is not the responsability of a volunteer to sort through the nonsense and make use of the patch, that's a waste of their extremely valuable time. If the person cannot be bothered to do it right, they are ignored because they obviously cannot read and are draining resources from the project with the time required to find out how useless their patch is.
A real project doesn't have "wannabe developers", those people are the ones that submit patches, the developers actually get things done.
OpenSSH has initiative; it's become the single biggest ssh suite in the world. It also has maturity, it's been around for years and has become a stable and useful suite. And OpenSSH doesn't want respect from outsiders, respect doesn't matter, the project isn't being done for the respect of others.
Do you understand now, pinprick?
You're here whining, perhaps you should be at a terminal putting OpenSSH so far ahead that SSH.com seems like the ancient pyramids instead of complaining that people are working hard to put together something like OpenSSH at all.
OpenSSH's developers refuse shitty patches until they are sent in a manner that conform to the code standards and goal's of the project, if the people sending patches are too stupid to read and code properly before hand, why should the developers then hold hands and recode every shittily cobbled patch for them?
If you have a bug, you submit a report, if you want a feature you submit the patch - it's that simple.
You people just don't understand how to put up or shut up.
Gentlemen, behold! A troll being marked Insightful on Slashdot! OpenBSD are the ones with KNF, that's Kernel Normal Form, the style that all code in the base operating system (which includes OpenSSH) must conform to.
Kids today like two random words being mashed together, right? Ubuntu has to be a sign.
The acting was never good in either, but at least the concept for the miniseries had been alright.
Seaquest was not worth being made, the concept was wretched and the execution worse.
Farscape was much better than either.
I don't think Star Trek: Deep Space Nine can really be considered because people that watched it were split, some liked it, some loathed it. I loathed the show, for despite some interesting work in it, it was not a compelling or particularly interesting story nor characters.
I don't think Star Trek: Voyager should have been on that list, because of their constant goofing around with time travel and nanobots. It was just too bothersome the way they would pull one, the other or both out at the drop of the hat to fix anything.
OpenBSD has a Benevolent Dictator, Theo de Raadt.
DragonFly BSD has a Benevolent Dictator, Matt Dillon.
There is next to no fighting between the BSDs, which you could easily learn from making use of the mailing lists and news archives that Google has in it's search index. There are conflicts between specific developers, but when it comes to code - they are often willing to help one another retrofit their code to suit another BSD.
Linux systems are fragmented to such a scale it is hard to identify a system worth making use of, while there are only 4 BSDs, 1 of which openly states it's not quite ready yet.
You're delusional if you think that just because there is a Microsoft everyone will unite to "fight the good fight". Because it didn't happen when that was IBM and it's not come close to happening in the past 10 years of Microsoft's market dominance.
Linux distributions are squabbling over the pie just as badly as their Unix counterparts did in the past, there are hundreds of distributions of Linux out there, hundreds.
Argubly indeed, I don't even use the damned thing. It's only important to nutjobs that like these annoying office applications. vi works just fine, I've yet so see a single reason to use anything but plain text.
DragonFly BSD's not been around as long as MirOS or many other projects, but it's got someone that knows what they're doing in charge, someone that would be doing it even without anyone else working with him.
Because of who started it and why DragonFly BSD has had an easy edge over the others, that is why it has become the fourth over time - but it did not start out as a full-blown contender, this took time.
Just because you picked gung-ho idiots before does not mean that hiring actual developers should be much of a risk. Like, for example, when Nick Halqvist was hired by GeNUA to add SMP support to OpenBSD's i386 platform. Instead of hiring some random shmuck, just hire the actual developers, the people that know what they are doing.
The choice between paying a huge license fee on some things which are either computer, cpu or user based programme or paying a one time fee for making something work just the way you like it has always seemed strange, since noone ever picks the second option.
People seem to think that the open source options cannot become just what they need, while at the same time the closed source ones rarely are either. It baffles me.
It's like they think that since it's not what they want now, it never will be.
And people that just want a free piece of software just cannot understand that the people making the software are not making it for them, but for themselves... They're giving these people a hand and that hand is being bitten. That bothers me, people that are being given free code to do with as they please demanding things of philanthropists - as if the world owes them.
Hey, she was hot when she was young. With a body like she had her singing was irrelevant.
Rob Lowe, Tom Cruise, Nicholas Cage and a few others have been tossing around the Internet for the 2007 Iron Man, but nothing really solid has been said, not even who directs.
Yes, Catwoman and Batman are both DC properties.
I can see the series of films already, the first about Iron Man, then him being beaten down and War Machine taking over and then Iron Man coming back.
Anyone else notice how those are all the second grade comics of Marvel being done? I mean, seriously, who would want to watch a film about Ant-Man?
Wine isn't licenced under the GPL, it's under the LGPL.
It didn't even work badly for Wine, they feared that it would lead to problems with people not contributing back. Nothing bad happened, they just got scared.