Jump to content

Talk:OpenBSD

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kurtseifried (talk | contribs) at 10:21, 29 November 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


To Do

Let's see if we cannot list what's missing from this article:

  • That's not really one that needs attention in my mind, since the programme's history is like 20 years and the frequency of bugs and security problems is no worse than any other MTA. But I suppose it could talk about the misconception of sendmail being a problem. 65.95.241.239 14:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • sendmail's security track record is considerably worse than that of postfix and qmail (although to be fair, like you say, it has been around a lot longer). But yeah, I did originally mean the misconception that sendmail (at least the OpenBSD version) is a problem. SimonMorgan 15:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd not say its track record is worse, it's 10 years longer than most so there are more bugs recorded but the frequency of problems isn't really different from the other mail daemons. Janizary 18:09, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

OSSs lacking info

Big fun time.

It seems that pages related to free, open source operating systems aren't that informative. It's all well and good to have basic stuff like histories of projects, but sometimes I think it'd be nice to have details regarding the capabilities, and future directions of the various systems. I am doing what I can, but it's a really big job. Check out the new "string cleaning" stuff on this page for an example of something that might be better handled by a full-time programmer. --MJA

OpenBSD Criticisms

OpenBSD is sometimes critisized for using Solaris on their main webserver. --Krik 09:19, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Only by those who haven't troubled to read the FAQ: Why does www.openbsd.org run on Solaris?. I don't think that constitutes a criticism worth reporting. --Penfold 13:19, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC)
In other words, they aren't running Solaris on their servers, but the people who host OpenBSD do, right? -- Maru Dubshinki
Meaning that a university with a lot of bandwidth is willing to host the OpenBSD website for them. Janizary 20:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Logo Permissions

Theo de Raadt gave me a permission to include a picture with OpenBSD logo. Click "Sloven?čina" at the main article to se it --193.2.136.41 12:57, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Why was the information regarding K&R->ANSI conversion reverted? I don't think removing people's work without reason is beneficial. --Generic Player

I'm guessing it came across as a subtle dig at other OSS/FS OS projects. A more neutral reword would simply mention that this K&R-to-ANSI code replacement is a goal of the project. --Korpios 06:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
A decent rewrite would state why. -- Maru Dubshinki

Schism background

Can anyone provide some background on the OpenBSD/NetBSD schism? It seems to be near impossible to find actual information on it that's not presented from one particular point of view... -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 23:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Theo's webpage has an archive of the email conversation which caused him to leave. Text HTML --Darrien 16:05, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
I know. I tried reading that, too, but frankly, it's not useful, for three reasons at least: a) some emails from conversations threads are left out, even though they are replied to / quoted later on. b) it's so badly formatted / presented that it makes you wonder whether there even was any intent to make it readable. c) it's just one side's presentation, namely that of Theo - what I'm looking for is something that's a neutral account of what has actually happened. Thanks, though. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 23:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think it's all going to be fairly POV, as it seems to have been a personal rather than technical conflict. You might find this summary of coremail helpful. --Gruepig 00:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. That seemed rather POV, too, but at least it was readable. ^_~ --Schnee (cheeks clone) 05:05, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That article is extremely biased, saying things like "OpenBSD is everything NetBSD is, plus more" and trying to convince the reader that Theo was victimized by evil core. Which he probably was, but the article is still presenting only one side of the story. And the author has serious misunderstandings about the potential for code-sharing between forks and the licensing of the Linux kernel. About the only nice thing you can say is that it was readable. --Yath 01:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you spend any time reading Theo's posts to the OpenBSD mailing lists you'll realise that he pulls no punches in what he says and has no reservations about using rather "colourful" language when dealing with people. A good example of this can be seen in this mailing list post where he accuses Daniel J. Bernstein of acting like a "fucking asshole loser" for questioning why his software was removed from ports. AFAIK it's this kind of behaviour that got his commit access to NetBSD revoked. --SimonMorgan 14:40, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)
That's your opinion. Theo doesn't seem to adhere to the politically correct movement. Nobody forces anyone to use OpenBSD. If you find Theo's behavior so offensive, you know what to do. Stop whining. --24.202.172.138 20:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually read what I said or did you just pick out random words on which to base your reactionary diatribe? I don't see anywhere where I expressed any "opinion" as opposed to simple facts. Theo swears a lot and doesn't mind insulting people in public. I didn't say they don't deserve it, I didn't say that's a bad thing and I sure as hell didn't say I find it offensive. For somebody so quick to protect Theo's right to express his opinion in any way he sees fit you seem awfully keen to lambast people you deem to be expressing opinions to the contrary. SimonMorgan 00:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please, don't be a hypocrite. Saying Theo "ACCUSES Daniel J. Bernstein of acting like...", and "this is the KIND of BEHAVIOR..." are a way to hide your opinion. Sure, subtle, but often effective. Extrapolating on the why Theo got expulsed of NetBSD from news posts is ridiculous. Try again. --24.202.172.138 19:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that you're a fucking idiot. How's that for subtle? End of discussion. SimonMorgan 17:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you spend any time reading DJB's e-mails in that discussion you would realize that was a completely valid use of the term "FUCKING ASSHOLE LOSER", as he was being a complete dick to everyone at OpenBSD because they were honouring a request of his to not redistribute modified versions of his software, they removed them from ports because he did not want things being redistributed and OpenBSD did not want to request permission to distribute every one of DJB's programmes every time they did anything to them. He proceeded to raise a stink about it because his opinion is right and everyone involved with OpenBSD is wrong. Janizary 00:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus, what's wrong with you people? Where did I say it wasn't justified? SimonMorgan 00:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing, I was adding that the guy was being a total ass and had earned more than a telling off, outsiders may come around some day and read this you know. Janizary 00:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you leave it up to the reader to decide whether he deserved it or not? SimonMorgan 10:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the manner in which you referred to Theo's statement, saying he accused him of being an asshole makes it sound like there is some sort of interpretation required, that perhaps it was going too far to do so. Theo doesn't go out of his way to call people cockheads, they provoke it and he obliges them. Daniel, someone that you would think would act like a professor, started making a total dick of himself telling everyone how wrong they were, because they didn't agree with his opinion, there's litle else you can call that and it's always nice to have a second opinion in these things so people can at least read both sides of the story. In talk pages at least. Janizary 15:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. As it happens I do think there is some sort of interpretation required, like most things in life. How do you suppose you're giving a "second opinion" when, by your own admission, I'm leaving it up to the reader to formulate an interpretation? People can read both sides of the story by clicking on the link I went out of my way to provide. SimonMorgan 21:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, we all know how many people on Slashdot read the article before making judgements and even discussing the subject. 69.197.95.218 13:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't Slashdot you fucking retard. And what's your point anyway? That people should post their opinions about things on the Internet because nobody takes the time to read things so that they can form their own opinions? Congratulations, you win the award for most idiotic paradox. End of discussion. SimonMorgan 17:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was pointing out that people don't always take the time to read things that they can or should, thus it is best to have as much information readily and as many opinions available as possible in a discussion, so as to give depth to the issue at hand. You seem really defensive of your opinion that Theo is a brutal uncaring dick, while I and others have been adding that he is not arbitrarily like that but is only this way when provoked. Slow your roll some time, you cannot end a discussion by saying it's over - you're not the only one in it. Janizary 00:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How the fuck does having a bunch of random opinions help anybody become enlightened? Jesus, every time you open your mouth you seem like an even bigger moron than before. And now all of a sudden my opinion is that Theo is a "brutal uncaring dick"? Where the fuck did I say that? Let me make this clear for you: I don't think that. My original post was simply my contribution to a discussion on why Theo was kicked off the NetBSD project and you and 24.202.172.138 added 2 + 2 and got 5. In fact, I find his attitude refreshing. Why waste your time or mince your words when dealing with idiots, right? Congratulations, you and 24.202.172.138 have been preaching to the converted. Give yourselves an extra +20 moron points. And why are you accusing me of being defensive? Because I'm swearing and insulting you? What about when your beloved Theo does the same thing? Now go back to kissing pictures of Theo or whatever it is you zealots spend your time doing and STOP WASTING MY FUCKING TIME. I will not be replying to this thread again because the sensation bears a distinct similarity to banging my head against a brick wall. And when I said "end of discussion", I meant the one between me and you. SimonMorgan 10:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Random opinions show that there is an issue that people have a split opinion on, like with the FSF and it's use of Free or the OSI and it's use of Open Souce - both are trying to redefine words to meet their own agendas, there are people that constantly argue about that and it helps to point out to those who are not familiar with all parties involved that there is something here which is in dispute - that not all of what you read there will be the pure truth with no bias added. The use of language is only the inferred reason Theo was removed and the one that people outside of the core who supported his removal used at the time - there was never an official word given, nothing concrete. I am not forcing you to debate this matter, it's your choice. I was adding a simple comment before you started acting as though a prickly didlo was going off in your backside. I pointed out that DJB went to Theo's house and shit on his waffles, so Theo told him to take it elsewhere because he was being a complete and total fucking asshole. Theo has said pretty much the same thing to Richard Stallman several times for going on the OpenBSD mailing lists and preaching his gospel. Janizary 15:56, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Please, let's firstly keep this civil and without personal attacks. Secondly, let's keep the conversation relevant to improvements that can be made to the article. Dysprosia 00:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3.7 changes added

Hello, I have made the following changes (diff here) to the page regarding the recent changes in the 3.7 snapshots. I forgot to login and didn't notice. --Kintaro 10:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Presently being rewritten

If you look in the history, you'll find that I am making all sorts of random changes to this article. Please fix any mistakes on dates and data I make, I am doing parts of this from my memory and have to track down better details for some of this, especially the information on grep, diff and gzip. I will be looking in the archives of mailing lists for better details and if that fails, cvs. 65.94.52.193 21:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's it for now. I'll try and go over that tomorrow to see if I made any gross errors, but I think it's pretty much right. 65.94.52.193 23:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Application development with Eclipse

I believe it would be useful to indicate that Eclipse 3.1 (the latest stable version) is in the ports tree. I know Wikipedia isn't a publicity platform, but I think it is worthwhile to inform potential users of that fact.

Currently, high-level application developers are very much interested in Eclipse and NetBeans. They get the impression (I have only anecdotal evidence) that OpenBSD has only low-level (not in the pejorative meaning) dev. tools.

Pascal D.

I don't think "low-level" is used as a pejorative in this context. Anyway, including that info in the article seems like a good idea. --Yath 20:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that would be a mistake. If someone wants to know that Eclipse is in the ports tree, they can take a look for themselves -- there is a link in the article. This is an article primarily about OpenBSD and not the software that runs on it. Dysprosia 02:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is an article about OpenBSD and not the software that runs on it. Though, asking for people new to OpenBSD to browse the Web CVS ports tree to figure out if Eclipse or NetBeans is available isn't a nice solution. The goal is to inform potential users of the fact that "major" applications ARE available for this OS too. I am not going to fight 'till death for that one though. ;-) --[Pascal D.] 24.202.172.138 16:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Development team

The development team for OpenBSD is "Theo de Raadt"? He is the coordinator alright, but "the" team? --[Pascal D.] 24.202.172.138 16:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it inline with various other projects listed under "Free software operating systems". SimonMorgan 21:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"liberating code" is POV

The article reads:

"In their many years of "liberating" code, OpenBSD has made some significant strides - here are some highlights:"

Followed by a list that includes several replacements of GPL utilities. According to wikipedia, GPL is a free software license. Even according to the OpenBSD project, GPL is free (since they still include GPLed code in base). But the article is impliing that it had to be "liberated". I consider that to be POV.

However, just replacing the word with something else that doesn't imply GPL is not free is not enough, IMHO. This is supposed to be a list of "significant strides". And I don't think that things like re-writing grep or bc are significant strides. Specialy when there's already a free version available (which is probably more complete).

I suggest simply removing the references to "GPL to BSD" rewrites.

Robertmh 19:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right about terminology, but you are confusing the issue of "significant strides", read the sentence backwards. Dysprosia 22:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely wrong, liberating is a word which implies the removal of restrictions, that is exactly what is being done. The GPL is not something that needs to be mentioned with this part, because it is soon followed by all those GPL programmes which were replaced, listing the reason for the replacement on a programme by programme basis. Your point of view on what a significant stride is is obviously different from that of the OpenBSD team, which are looking to make this system more liberal - thus any replacement of a restrictive item is a step forward. If someone wanted, they could make an even more liberated operating system, it could be released under the public domain. That would be even more liberal than OpenBSD. Think in degrees, where the GPL is less free than the BSDL and thus being replaced with the more liberal one. Janizary 09:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course in this sense the word liberating means removal of restrictions. But this is not clear to all, and thus may not be exactly NPOV. Explaining what is going on would be best and neutral. Dysprosia 09:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO the current wording (In addition, OpenBSD has a history of fighting for more liberally licenced releases of code) is fair and NPOV. Whether or not you agree with the BSD philosphy or the GPL philsophy is irrelevant since the license of a BSD type licenses is clearly more liberal then GPL. If you really feel the need to change it, then perhaps something like "In addition, OpenBSD has a history of fighting for more liberally licensed that is fewer license restrictions on releases of code" Nil Einne 17:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]

Licensing

"In addition, OpenBSD has a history of fighting for more liberally licenced releases of code. In the past, this stance has led to several conflicts. Some have resulted in developers completely replacing tools from the ground up. Others in the reshaping of an existing tool which is appropriately licenced but lacks functionality. Less frequently, although whenever possible, code has been relicenced by the copyright holders so as to fulfill the needs of the project."

I feel the above needs rewording. Originally the last line said "Less frequently, code has been relicenced by the copyright holders so as to fulfill the needs of the project." I've changed it because unless I'm mistaken the OpenBSD teams usually makes an attempt to have code relicensed but it often doesn't succeed. The original line IMHO appears to suggest the developers have frequently snubbed that route. However I still feel the wording is not accurate since IMHO it still doesn't accurately reflect the picture which as said, AFAIK is that the developers always do their best to relicense code but they are frequently unable to because the license holders refuse. Perhaps something like:

"In addition, OpenBSD has a history of fighting for more liberally licenced releases of code. In the past, this stance has led to several conflicts. Whenever possible, code has been relicenced by the copyright holders so as to fulfill the needs of the project. However this path has had limited success. In these instances, developers have completely replaced tools from the ground up or reshaped an existing tool which is appropriately licenced but lacks functionality."

What do you all think? It might still need a bit of work since it doesn't flow as nicely as I would like but AFAIK it more accurately reflects the situation Nil Einne 17:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is better. I say go for it, although I would soften it a little, eg "However, this path has sometimes had limited success." Also, you can't have instances without specifying of what, so perhaps "In instances where code was not able to be relicensed, ..." although this might sound a bit clumsy, perhaps "In some instances, ..." is best. NicM 19:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]
On second thoughts, I would change it to:
"In addition, OpenBSD has a history of fighting for more liberally licenced releases of code. In the past, this stance has led to several conflicts. To allow code with an unsuitable licence to be used by the project, OpenBSD developers usually attempt to have it relicenced by the copyright holders. However, this path has sometimes had limited success. As an alternative, developers have completely replaced tools from the ground up or reshaped an existing tool which is appropriately licenced but lacks functionality."
NicM 19:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

GPL -- Why Not

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Well, there you go then :) Dysprosia 03:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Licen[cs]ing?

This is a ridiculous edit war. I'm a stupid American so I'm more accustomed to the spelling with an "s", but it's no great burden on me to read words spelled the British way. As I understand it, OpenBSD is primarily a Canadian product, so it seems to make a lot of sense to spell the British way (assuming that's how they do it there). Let's stop this. Take a vote or something. Fsiler 06:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the article is British English and it has been that way for some time. I'd vote for it to stay that way but am willing to accept a change after a sensible discussion. Unfortunately, one persistent, ignorant person is making it a problem - they aren't even bothering to change it throughout the article! I think that if they were willing to discuss it, they would have brought it here themselves but I hope that sooner or later they get bored or consider the possibility they may be wrong and discuss it sensibly. NicM 13:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
I've left a message for the user. Note that OpenBSD is produced by contributors globally, including many Americans; the article uses Canadian spellings because OpenBSD is based in Canada. Yes, I'm nit-picking :-) Mindmatrix 16:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the article uses British/Canadian spelling because the primary contributors to the article have been British and Canadian. On the whole, the OpenBSD project itself uses American spelling (colorls, package FLAVORs, license etc). I don't think this is a compelling reason to change, however. NicM 17:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
Without being adversarial, I don't understand your logic. WIkipedia is largely an American project, at least in origin, and OpenBSD uses American spellings, so we should use British ones here? Personally, given that information I would come to the conclusion that the American spelling is probably the way to go. Fsiler 21:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the policy was to stick with the existing style unless there is a compelling reason to change. I don't really think this is a compelling reason. If anyone wants to go through and change the entire article to American spelling & style, I don't mind, so long as it is consistent. Others might complain, though. NicM 23:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
To clarify: the article was British English when I started editing it so I have stuck with that. In the end, I think the style is fairly irrelevent - just as long as it is consistent, ie, if you use license, you also use specialized. I certainly don't think people should be allowed to change it willy-nilly, in an incomplete manner and without discussion. I don't think the project's style, or the origins of Wikipedia, are really that important - people contribute to both from around the world. The only thing that leans me slightly towards American style is the fact that some of the border text uses American spelling. Personally, I prefer British so I am happy to leave it, but if someone else wants to do the work, changing it is fine. NicM 23:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
You have also changed the article willy-nilly and without discussion, and labelled those changing to American spelling "ignorant" in your change comments without merit. Tell me, how are they ignorant exactly? Either spelling is valid. User:Yath not only made similar edits to yours, but also outright deleted this thread the first time I created it, and without so much as an explanation in the change log. I consider that a hostile action. Personally I don't see exactly what's so "British" about the article, and I think you and Yath have been unnecessarily pushy about the issue.
It appears that you were involved with the peer review of this article. Looks like it didn't go very well. Did you consider that maybe if you'd work on the article, rather than worrying so much about your "British presentation", you might get to FA status? Fsiler 00:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, use of licence and specialized is consistent in Canadian english. Wikipedia could save us all many headaches if it adopted an XML-style language handling technique, so that we could have things like:
<word>
<lang:en_US>license</lang:en_US>
<lang:en_CA>licence</lang:en_CA>
<lang:en_UK>licence</lang:en_UK>
</word>
This would require user agents (eg: browsers) to pick up such tags, though. Content negotiation should be built in to most agents, but is woefully underused. Mindmatrix 00:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any wikipedia policies governing spelling, which is probably a good thing, since British articles should probably use British conventions and so forth. However, this is an article about OpenBSD, a project which essentially uses American conventions. From the OpenBSD 3.7 afterboot man page:
    There is also other third-party software that is available in source form
    only, either because it has not been ported to OpenBSD yet, or because
    licensing restrictions make binary redistribution impossible.  Sometimes
    checking the mailing lists for past problems that people have encountered
    will result in a fix posted.
Note, in particular, the spelling of "license", not "licence". I think we should use the OpenBSD conventions here. Fsiler 00:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that's because one of the American developers wrote that man page. Who knows? Does OpenBSD actually have a policy about spelling? :-) Anyway, I don't care what English variant is used, though I'd like to emphasize my point above that content negotiation would be useful, since it could deliver articles to individuals in their choice of english, irrespective of the subject matter or any other user's preferences, excepting of course that proper names are always spelled , uh, properly. There are far too many articles that go through edit wars to fix "errors" that don't truly exist... Mindmatrix 01:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they don't have an explicit policy, but:
fms@screw /usr/local/man$ grep -Ri licence *|wc -l
      0 
fms@screw /usr/local/man$ grep -Ri license *|wc -l
     43
So there are many instances of the word "license" but none of "licence" in /usr/local/man on OpenBSD 3.7Fsiler 02:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The edits I referred to as ignorant added the text "The correct spelling of license", together with a link to a dictionary. As you say, both spellings are correct. So, asserting one is correct over the other is ignorance. You'll note that this was not the first time this person had made this change and been reverted by me and others. He also changed the spelling in only part of the article, removed wikification and changed the spelling of a word to be incorrect. I can't really speak for what other users have done, but you seem to be the only person here actively pushing for one style over the other. Would you like to make the change properly, or are you just trying to extend this discussion? I have said quite clearly I prefer British style and spelling but am quite happy to accept a change, so long as it is agreed upon and done consistently. This entire thing is irrelevent, it doesn't matter what style the article uses, so long as it is the same throughout. NicM 10:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
As everyone has probably noticed, I changed to American spelling. I looked for instances of other words spelled other ways but didn't see any; also removed a couple of the links which looked like [[BSD license|BSD licence]]. I also didn't remove any wikification, so hopefully this won't be considered vandalism this time :).Fsiler 12:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is fine by me. I've changed a couple of other words to American spelling too, but there isn't much. Punctuation was already American/Canadian style. Hopefully now we won't have the opposite problem with all the ignorant Britishers spending their time changing it back to licence every few weeks ;-) NicM 12:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
Since I was the guy that spelled things Canadian when making the licencing section of the article, I do disagree with it. Since there was no reason to change from one to the other it should not have been done. Wikipedia policy is to leave it as it lies, though keeping it all in one type. The policy is not to go changing to other spellings arbitrarily, and that is what you have done. It's not a typo, it's not incorrect, it's not wrong at all, so it should not have been changed. It doesn't actually matter if the project itself spells things the American way, the article was made the Canadian way. Janizary 14:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, I don't care which form is chosen, though I prefer Canadian spelling. However, a discussion shouldn't be assumed complete after only a few hours - editors should be given a chance to respond before the changes are made. I'd also like to point out that we are changing because of an anon troll, and making the changes that the user wanted in the first place. (If you think my use of the word troll is inappropriate, read the messages at the bottom of my talk page.) Mindmatrix 00:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are, of course, correct about how a few days of delay would have been desirable. I also agree he is a troll although I think him sparking off the discussion wasn't a bad thing. The article is not so big we could not change back if the discussion turns that way, having given people a chance to take a look and see how American spelling would appear. Should we have a clear vote or something over a couple of days? NicM 08:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, we've had time to run over this now. Can we go back to how it was before? Janizary 18:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an OpenBSD article, not an article about Canada or the UK. I believe it has been firmly established that OpenBSD uses American spellings, so why on earth should we change the article back? I fear it will only invite more troll reverts. Fsiler 21:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because the change shouldn't have been made in the first place. I thought that had been iterated before. Changing from English to American should not have been done, so it should be put back. There was no consensus to actually go American, even after you made the change. Janizary 02:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The only reasonable argument for sticking with "licence" is that wikipedia policy says something to the effect of "leave it be unless you have a reason to change." Well, there was an edit war. Regardless of how you may not like the parties involved, that's a reason to change it. For better or worse, it's changed. Now, can we just leave it be and actually fix something meaningful? Fsiler 10:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A troll is not a reason to change something - ever. Trolls aren't users, they aren't contributors and they aren't to be paid heed. That the random schmuck was threatening to use a bot means he gets banned. Edit wars are settled after a conclusion is reached in the talk page, not after someone changes it to the other way. That you agreed with the troll's assertion that American is somehow the only right way to spell things in this article does not make it time to change to that alternative spelling. We have you and a troll on the American side, NicM and Mindmatrix kinda apathetic to the situation and myself on the English side. Since the guy that wrote the core of this article spelled it one way it should have stuck that way in the first place - though if there had been some kind of a consensus in this talk to converting to American it would have at least been acceptable. If you can get more people to support your opinion in this discussion then it won't be a problem, but as it stands you are the only person that has a say saying it should have been changed and you did it prematurely and without proper consultation of the other contributors. Janizary 13:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Security

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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).[reply]
This PPT has some (partly out-of-date, I think) discussion of W^X vs PaX. NicM 09:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:OpenBSD&oldid=29578527"