Talk:OpenBSD/Archive 2

message: I have added screenshots earlier and they have been removed; I don't disagree with the removal, as a screenshot doesn't really show anything intrinsic to the operating system. Perhaps we can get a final consensus here and now? Dysprosia 08:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that screenshots rarely show anything unique to the OS, but I have no objection to them being used - in moderation - to add a bit of colour to the page. Three or four reasonably interesting or relevent screenshots are fine, ten would be too many and a heap of Yay-This-Is-My-Desktop screenshots would be pointless. NicM 12:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: In this case nothing brazenly important can be shown, but requests were made to include a few screenshots of OpenBSD in action within the Peer Review and thus a couple have been made and put up for display.  I will be putting up a login prompt and a booting screenshot as well, at which point I will remove Screenshots from the Desktop subsection of Uses and just let it be it's own section.  While I don't have any particular interest in screenshots being shown - I had not put one up prior to the request - I don't mind adding them since mundane users of other operating systems that do not understand what most of this article describes will at least have the ability to see how differently OpenBSD can look as a contrast to say, Windows 98 or Mac OS X.  Because of this mundane concern I am currently looking for a way to properly expand the Desktop section so that it better explains the seperation of X and underlying operating system.  Janizary 15:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, those boot images are very illustrative. I've removed the JWM example since it's a bit "non-default", I hope you don't mind. Dysprosia 22:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I am going to be adding another couple screenshots in the near future to illustrate a couple different, non-GNOME and non-KDE environments, so it'd be better to keep that up if this turns out alright.  Janizary 00:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't really know what use showing those environments would be other than to illustrate those environments (and not the operating system itself), since presumably those environments would look the same with a different underlying operating system. Such is the case with X. Dysprosia 03:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly, that is exactly what I am hoping to show with these - that the operating system isn't dependent on a particular GUI.  I will be expanding that Desktop part to try and use the two together to make sure any random person would understand that it is just another thing you can run on OpenBSD, not OpenBSD itself, and that you can make it look however the hell you please.  Janizary 05:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  But that seems like a weak use for the pictures. Compared to the boot images which powerfully show what OpenBSD is like, one could potentially grab an image from some other window manager article and put it on the page and the reader would be none the wiser. I suppose I'm trying to say it seems like overkill for me, in the sense of just because Windows XP for example can be skinned and themed may not warrant images of a lot of these skins and themes. Dysprosia 06:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The JWM one has a neat custom backdrop. A couple of vanity pictures can't be any problem, just so long as it doesn't get excessive and the images are interesting. As far as Janizary's aims go, I question whether this article is the place to educate people in the facts of life (if it is, where are we going to stop? what about those who think FreeBSD is the same as OpenBSD? or that Gentoo portage came before *BSD ports? or that the standard shell is bash? are we going to spoonfeed this kind of stuff for everyone?). In any case, if it must be done, I think it may be best with a paragraph and two seperate screenshots (eg, KDE running on OpenBSD, KDE running on Linux) under the desktop section without mixing the point up with the existing screenshots. NicM 07:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshots 

message: After reading the article I got the impression that there is something wrong with code released under the GPL and that the licence is not liberal enough. They are saying that they do not want to use tools and code released under the GPL, so much so that they will go and rewrite tools yet they still use GCC compiler does someone want to clear that section up under what is wrong with code under the GPL (as currently to me it seems like a load of fanatics want every bit of code in their project to go into the public domain where no one has ownership and copyright of it and are willing to go to the extremes of re-writing free open-source software to do it).
: Not the public domain, the BSD Licence.  And yes, that is what they want.  If they had the resources to replace things like the gcc, like say the plan9cc, they would replace all the remaining tools which are licenced in a manner that is less free then their standard.  Unfortunately, it's a lot of work to make a C compiler suite, so without either a big wad of cash, a devoted team of developers or a good codebase to start from, I don't think the gcc will be replaced for a while.  The remaining bits of code with restricting licences within the system are being slowly filtered out, but some things would be a massive undertaking to rewrite - those are the ones that will be last to go.  Janizary 10:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that anyone has any issue with the quality of the GPL code out there. But if one wants to release code under a more liberal license than the GPL, then you either convince the authors of the GPL code to dual license or you replace the code. Dysprosia 02:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, OpenBSD developers do complain about the terrible quality of the GNU programmes.  The quality of their code is also used as an example of what not to do.  Joseph Mallett of xMach also disliked the GPL code, so much so that it was all removed from xMach back in 2001, becase it was on average more bloated and less usable than the alternatives in FreeBSD or OpenBSD's codebase.  Janizary 10:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, there you go then :) Dysprosia 03:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  GPL -- Why Not 

message: I found this site but do not consider myself familiar enough with the topic to make any changes. Anyone to review and incorporate this opposite POV? ~~helix84 00:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a site done up by some stupid kids from phrack, much like GOBBLES and Richard Stallman on the OpenBSD mailing list, it's something people ignore.  They don't substantiate anything nor do they actually say anything, it's rhetoric and nonsense with no body to it.  It's like the usual fanatical Linux fan's reaction to any mention of anything that isn't their favourite distribution - not worth paying attention to.  Though I suppose it might be flattering for some developers to know these wingnuts are watching their every action with such devotion, even if it's because of their psychological insecurities.  Janizary 03:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I mostly agree about this particular site (its a troll, nothing more) but ISTR some coherent criticism from the likes of the PAX guys, in among a lot of complaining about which came first (maybe this part should be mentioned too). Anybody want to see if they can find anything sane? NicM 08:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: This PPT has some (partly out-of-date, I think) discussion of W^X vs PaX. NicM 09:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No such thing as a sane discussion between the PaX guys and OpenBSD folk.  The paxers generally won't quit acting like children about who does what better and when, for some reason it is impossible for them to just give discussions and instead have to throw insults and troll.  For the most part the OpenBSD side is more along the lines of "we didn't even know you existed, now that we do we don't care."  grsecurity guy seems to be sane and capable of making points, but is usually just a trolling punk when he actually tries to say things.  Hell, the guy attacks the character of other software developers as if he was still in elementary school, he's worse than Mike "der Mouse" Parker of NetBSD for gall.  Janizary 10:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Not the same thing at all, der Mouse is just a punk that hates de Raadt because Theo went and did his own thing instead of kow-towing to the NetBSD core and doing all his work for NetBSD.  Spender is just a prick, he's got no reason, he's just an arrogant ass, he hates people that he's never even delt with.  170.65.128.6 21:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security 

message: The footnote numbers are not corresponding to their numbers below.  For instance, note number 13 corresponds to reference number 6.  And the references only go up to 6.  So where 13 came from is beyond me.  What is wrong here and how do we fix it? -James Howard (talk/web) 12:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia assigns an additional number to external links without content, for example abc would appear as, eg, abc[4]. I've used this form for links to mailing lists and other "conversational"-type references (which are hard to describe, generally quite short and people might want to read immediately), and used real references for papers, articles and suchlike. Personally, I quite like it this way but if you want to go through and make all the references proper ones that link via the bottom, I have no great objection. NicM 13:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  footnote numbers? 

message: In the US, the noun is spelled license. In the UK, it is spelled licence. But in both places, the verb is spelled license. So, while some of the changes were Americanizations, others were simply corrections. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-23 00:19
: Fixed that, my first revert, that had just been me using sed when I should have used a spellcheck.   The second was just a blind revert.  I think I got it cleaned up now.  Janizary 00:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Licence vs. License

message: The structure is currently a bit mixed up and this means the article doesn't really flow very well. This has partly come from the lack of an overarching plan and content simply being added in what feels like the right place (I am as guilty of this as anyone! ;-). Changing structure is a big job so I'd like to work up a design here before making changes.
I think there are four types of information we are trying to cover:
*Historical: how OpenBSD started, the various campaigns and audits and arguments, hackathons
*Philisophical: licensing, security philosophy
*Technical: how OpenBSD works, security additions (W^X, malloc, crypto), UIs, ports tree etc etc
*Opinion: criticism of OpenBSD, the user community
Unfortunately, there is such a mix I'm not really sure where to start... Perhaps it may be better just to split the article based on those sections, like so:
*History of OpenBSD
**The fork from NetBSD
**The POSSE project
**Hackathons
**The present day
*OpenBSD's philosophy and goals
**The BSD license, NDAs, openness, etc
**Security philosophy and focus
*OpenBSD's features
**Security features
***Memory protection
***API changes
***The network stack
***Cryptography
**pf, spamd, privsep, other unique/interesting daemons
**Xorg, and OpenBSD on the desktop
**Documentation
**The ports tree
**Image and marketing
*Criticism of OpenBSD
**Performance and usability criticisms
**Theo
**Security criticism, if we can find any non-trolling stuff
I'm not suggesting each of these should be a section heading, simply that they should be covered in the same area. Some of the subjects cover several areas: pf has licensing, history and technical aspects. I think it is best to pick which is most important and discuss the topic in one place.
I think if done carefully, something similar to the above would build the article up quite well: the reader  learns about where OpenBSD comes from, what the project stands for and its goals, then what they have done towards these goals/this philosophy. Then we round it off with discussion of some of the downsides... Comments, suggestions, anyone? NicM 18:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article structure

message: I've restructured the article a lot here, based on the FAC comments of and feedback from Taxman. Please comment here. If there are no major objections, I'll change the real article in a couple of days. NicM 18:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am pretty much satisfied with what you've done with this - the parts of Hackathon and POSSE project I will move to their articles, though that will then require some tempering against OpenBSD bias I think I can manage that.  I will also be doing a bit on the OpenBSD developers and perhaps try and make a complementing article of OpenBSD history, one that has a release-by-release run through and contraversy details that don't really fit into the main OpenBSD article.  A bit much for an encyclopedia, but I guess I am just an inclusionist at heart.  Janizary 23:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I said a couple of days and everyone seems happy, so I've updated the article. Let the complaints begin. NicM 23:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The security article could do with some beefing up too, if you fancy it. I'll add more stuff on privsep and priv revocation sometime if I have time. NicM 23:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructured article 

message: What about Citrus added to OpenBSD? It's not mentioned in the article and is very interesting stuff to be mentioned and explained into the article and the relation with OpenBSD. Timofonic 23:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a third-party thing. It certainly isn't part of OpenBSD so I don't see that it needs to be mentioned directly. It looks like vaporware at the moment, but perhaps a see also may be appropriate if it goes anywhere. NicM 23:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vaporware? You are quite wrong,look OpenBSD CVS. PF can now be considered 3rd party because supported by three members of the BSD family. It's a BSD standard more than a 3rd party stuff Timofonic 23:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying this CITRUS project has been adopted by OpenBSD? NicM 23:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text:   The Citris project, in the same way as the KAME project, is not a BSD project.  It's a project done by third party.  Some of the FreeBSD developers work on the Citris stuff, but it's not a FreeBSD project.  pf is a BSD project, because it's done in a BSD as a part of the operating system, just like OpenSSH.  There is nothing standard about Citris, because NetBSD and FreeBSD use some of their code.  OpenBSD has not integrated anything that I am aware of from Citris, and much of NetBSD's wchar support was done entirely in NetBSD.  It is an unfinished project to add internationalization, but it's not done and has not been integrated into OpenBSD - so I see no reason to mention it.   Janizary 23:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Citrus? 

message: This article is not the place for advice on where or how to obtain this book. If the PDF of this book (note the article mentions Absolute OpenBSD not Absolute BSD) is completely free to everyone, a simple link to it in brackets (like this: (PDF), except that this particular PDF is Absolute BSD) would be fine, but it isn't free to everyone. If there is a better site that details the book than http://www.absoluteopenbsd.com, then change the link to point to it. NicM 13:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolute OpenBSD PDF 

message: The motto in the article is "Secure by Default", but isn't the current motto "Free, Functional & Secure"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.252.72.127 (talk • contribs) .
*Yes. NicM 13:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motto 

message: ... especially when one of them is a redirect to the other?  Have you read WP:LAME?  In anyevent avoiding the rediect should be the issue.  The name of the actual article is not changable per wikipedia polocy and the display text is not an issue here. Dalf | Talk 23:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about that one where the guy keeps adding links to things that don't exist?  Janizary 23:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did see the irony in that actually.  Though that is (while lame in a way) at least a content dispute rather than redirect traversal for the purposes of promoting spelling diffrences that wikipedia offically does not care about :).  FWIW if someon removes the red link again I will not revert it again, though my heart will fill with sadness.  Dalf | Talk 00:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are you guys actually edit waring over the spelling of non-displayed text? 

message: Nate, please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English, which states:
Proper names should retain their original spellings, for example, United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force.
Policy clearly supports the spelling of "General Public License" in this case. --Yath 02:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all well and good, but by far the most common use is simply the acronym. --maru  (talk) contribs 08:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Acronyms should be explained at least once in an article. This is good practice. Dysprosia 08:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't go that far. Acronyms where the meaning may be important or where the text is clearer should be spelled out, but I wouldn't spell out DEC, AMD, SPARC, RAID, the MIT in "MIT License", CVS, K&R, DDOS, ANSI, VPN, KDE, GNOME, POSIX, ATI, NVIDIA, ISO, etc, because either their extension is irrelevent—enough of what they are is explained in the text—or it is unlikely to jog the memory of those who don't know the phrase, any more than the acronym at least does. NicM 10:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have a point, there. Perhaps let me say some acronyms should be explained at least once in an article ;) Dysprosia 10:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of GPL