OpenBSD forked

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
94 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD forked

Marc Espie-2
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 07:30:59PM +0000, Miod Vallat wrote:
> > I do hope they succeed on that matter at least.  If they can't even
> > get amd64/i386/arm working with LLVM, then it's a rough road ahead for
> > us when we also have to worry about sparc, sh, mips, hppa, vax, and
> > m88k too.
>
> There's always the possibility to split OpenBSD, `outsourcing' the
> platforms which do not matter except to crazy nutcases to `RusticBSD'.
>

I would prefer the crazy nutcases apply their considerable knowledge
to stuff that still matters.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD forked

Gilles Chehade-7
In reply to this post by Marc Espie-2
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 01:20:09PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> >
> > Actually, before a webserver, I'd recommend learning how to write a shell
> > as it will have you deal with lots of concepts you would not see
> > otherwise ... then network programming :-p
>
> Just because you suffered thru a fucked-up education that's
> ass-backwards doesn't mean you should wish it on other people.
> ('may you live in interesting times', the old chinese curse).
>

Your opinion is pointless, you actually *like* perl ;-)


> A shell is one of the most complicated pieces of C code to get right,
> between the fucked-up parser, the lazy evaluation, the arcane shit you
> have to do to various file descriptors, and the signal handling.
>
> Among other things.
>

That's because you think the goal is to write a perfect shell.
The goal is to use fork, exec, signals, process groups, etc...

The shell will ultimately suck, but you will learn a lot doing
this broken piece of software.


> Heck, write your own kernel, it's simpler ;)
>

You... like... perl.
Which explains why you'd think writing a kernel is simpler than a shell,
and why writing a shell is more complex than network programming :-)

--
Gilles Chehade

https://www.poolp.org                                          @poolpOrg

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD forked

Sevan / Venture37-2
On 22 Jun 2012, at 12:57 PM, Gilles Chehade <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Your opinion is pointless, you actually *like* perl ;-)

I've heard rumours that there are members of the team who are left handed &
use the dvorak layout *tut*
:)

Sevan

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD forked

Marc Espie-2
In reply to this post by Gilles Chehade-7
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 01:57:10PM +0200, Gilles Chehade wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 01:20:09PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually, before a webserver, I'd recommend learning how to write a shell
> > > as it will have you deal with lots of concepts you would not see
> > > otherwise ... then network programming :-p
> >
> > Just because you suffered thru a fucked-up education that's
> > ass-backwards doesn't mean you should wish it on other people.
> > ('may you live in interesting times', the old chinese curse).
> >
>
> Your opinion is pointless, you actually *like* perl ;-)
>
>
> > A shell is one of the most complicated pieces of C code to get right,
> > between the fucked-up parser, the lazy evaluation, the arcane shit you
> > have to do to various file descriptors, and the signal handling.
> >
> > Among other things.
> >
>
> That's because you think the goal is to write a perfect shell.
> The goal is to use fork, exec, signals, process groups, etc...

yeah, right... and do it without any proper courses either.

So that, afterwards, when I quizz students, they don't even understand
how wait() works or anything about signal semantics.

Yet they validated that specific project...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD forked

Gilles Chehade-7
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 02:33:13PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 01:57:10PM +0200, Gilles Chehade wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 01:20:09PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Actually, before a webserver, I'd recommend learning how to write a shell
> > > > as it will have you deal with lots of concepts you would not see
> > > > otherwise ... then network programming :-p
> > >
> > > Just because you suffered thru a fucked-up education that's
> > > ass-backwards doesn't mean you should wish it on other people.
> > > ('may you live in interesting times', the old chinese curse).
> > >
> >
> > Your opinion is pointless, you actually *like* perl ;-)
> >
> >
> > > A shell is one of the most complicated pieces of C code to get right,
> > > between the fucked-up parser, the lazy evaluation, the arcane shit you
> > > have to do to various file descriptors, and the signal handling.
> > >
> > > Among other things.
> > >
> >
> > That's because you think the goal is to write a perfect shell.
> > The goal is to use fork, exec, signals, process groups, etc...
>
> yeah, right... and do it without any proper courses either.
>
> So that, afterwards, when I quizz students, they don't even understand
> how wait() works or anything about signal semantics.
>
> Yet they validated that specific project...
>

That's an implementation detail :-p

Someone who really wants to understand things will look at the man
pages and try to understand, someone who doesn't give a damn about
getting things done right will produce crap with or without proper
courses ...

--
Gilles Chehade

https://www.poolp.org                                          @poolpOrg

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD forked

Eric Furman-3
In reply to this post by Gilles Chehade-7
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012, at 01:57 PM, Gilles Chehade wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 01:20:09PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually, before a webserver, I'd recommend learning how to write a shell
> > > as it will have you deal with lots of concepts you would not see
> > > otherwise ... then network programming :-p
> >
> > Just because you suffered thru a fucked-up education that's
> > ass-backwards doesn't mean you should wish it on other people.
> > ('may you live in interesting times', the old chinese curse).
> >
>
> Your opinion is pointless, you actually *like* perl ;-)
>
>
> > A shell is one of the most complicated pieces of C code to get right,
> > between the fucked-up parser, the lazy evaluation, the arcane shit you
> > have to do to various file descriptors, and the signal handling.
> >
> > Among other things.
> >
>
> That's because you think the goal is to write a perfect shell.
> The goal is to use fork, exec, signals, process groups, etc...
>
> The shell will ultimately suck, but you will learn a lot doing
> this broken piece of software.
>
>
> > Heck, write your own kernel, it's simpler ;)
> >
>
> You... like... perl.
> Which explains why you'd think writing a kernel is simpler than a shell,
> and why writing a shell is more complex than network programming :-)

So what is wrong with perl??
It is nearly a standard in the UNIX Admin world.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD forked

Gilles Chehade-7
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 08:57:21AM -0400, Eric Furman wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > You... like... perl.
> > Which explains why you'd think writing a kernel is simpler than a shell,
> > and why writing a shell is more complex than network programming :-)
>
> So what is wrong with perl??
> It is nearly a standard in the UNIX Admin world.

Friday trolling and messing with Marc ;-)

--
Gilles Chehade

https://www.poolp.org                                          @poolpOrg

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD forked

Marc Espie-2
In reply to this post by Gilles Chehade-7
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 02:55:02PM +0200, Gilles Chehade wrote:
> That's an implementation detail :-p
>
> Someone who really wants to understand things will look at the man
> pages and try to understand, someone who doesn't give a damn about
> getting things done right will produce crap with or without proper
> courses ...
>

I don't think you can really understand fork/exit/wait without proper
course material, just from the man pages.

That is, read R.J.Steven, obviously.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD forked

Marc Espie-2
In reply to this post by Eric Furman-3
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 08:57:21AM -0400, Eric Furman wrote:

> So what is wrong with perl??
> It is nearly a standard in the UNIX Admin world.

Nothing is wrong with perl :)

Well, perl is a post-modern baroque language.

Which means that it is possible to write code the way you want to write it.

Some people do not like that, they think there should be One True Way to
do things and nothing else.

Since narrow-minded people dominate the world... lots of people don't
like perl.

Some people come to perl thinking it's gonna be clean and lofty. But it's
not. Perl solves real problems, so it has about as many warts as C.

People who want tidy solutions that don't exist to real world, not so tidy
problems, do not like perl.



Perl is still around and well, it morphed and evolved to incorporate
any interesting technology that came its way.

You've got to realize a lot of OpenBSD devs are old farts who do not grasp
anything modern (and modern includes OO techniques, so perl5 doesn't appeal
to them). To be fair, a lot of them are actually interested in computer
knowledge, so they had a look at Smalltalk. Those happy few won't be lost
with perl.

Perl isn't that popular with morons, though. Most of the management types used
to write code in Cobol, now they write in Cobol's descendant (yep, that's
java).

Oh, yeah, and the hipsters types swear by ruby, which is just tweaked perl.

(or maybe I missed the latest big trend, I don't know whether that's still
haskell, or node.js).

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD forked

Franco Fichtner-2
In reply to this post by Marc Espie-2
On Jun 22, 2012, at 2:33 PM, Marc Espie wrote:

>>> A shell is one of the most complicated pieces of C code to get right,
>>> between the fucked-up parser, the lazy evaluation, the arcane shit you
>>> have to do to various file descriptors, and the signal handling.
>>>
>>> Among other things.
>>>
>>
>> That's because you think the goal is to write a perfect shell.
>> The goal is to use fork, exec, signals, process groups, etc...
>
> yeah, right... and do it without any proper courses either.
>
> So that, afterwards, when I quizz students, they don't even understand
> how wait() works or anything about signal semantics.
>
> Yet they validated that specific project...

Doing coursework is like a good introduction, but cannot help grasp every
concept and titbit of what you are doing. You'll do just as much as you
need to in order to pass, and half of the code is probably wrong or simply
not needed. I used to fix other semesters' coursework just for fun, and most
of the time I wondered how they ever passed in the first place.

The real enlightenment comes with the longer projects, when you can look at
the same codebase day in, day out. You see the stuff you did half a year ago
and shrug. You see other people doing unspeakable things (good and bad). And
from time to time you realize the full potential of subtle bugs doing all
kinds of crazy things. Sometimes it makes you laugh, sometimes you'll wonder
who's going to get fired for it. But in the end you learn so much every day
and you'll never be the same again.

It really doesn't matter what you do, but if you are not going to use what
you write you should think twice about doing it. Maybe you can also focus on
adding that feature you always wanted to your favorite software and learn how
to deal with revision control tools. Learn debugging unknown (and maybe
complex) code, and even learn how hard it can be to avoid code regressions.


Franco

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD forked

john slee
In reply to this post by Gilles Chehade-7
On 22 June 2012 22:55, Gilles Chehade <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Someone who really wants to understand things will look at the man
> pages and try to understand, someone who doesn't give a damn about
> getting things done right will produce crap with or without proper
> courses ...

hear => forget
see => remember
do => understand

And the manpages, while of admirable quality in OpenBSD, are
largely written for people who already understand (or aren't far off)
and just need a quick reference. For many things they don't go into
the details of 'why'

Someone who really, really wants to understand things will look at
the source code. eg. if I was sufficiently deranged to want to know
the guts of UNIX terminal IO, I might look at tmux

John

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD forked

Wayne Oliver
In reply to this post by Marc Espie-2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2012/06/22 3:14 PM, Marc Espie wrote:
> Oh, yeah, and the hipsters types swear by ruby, which is just
> tweaked perl.

Love that line!
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJP5HKfAAoJENzqTnPMiNZl/6MH/014Ia96FQbvZOsfcRadck0P
3wCOnHTBH7Vxu2mYZVlqP+ZmflnT7AGDc16icjxjrRHuRwrHH9Kw3OFnTDG6lGZ/
wNVm+AD7MsMraFrLiUnlyDp99KG78Kdny9IyY6FhCp9+TKdEVFvBL3+w0ZuDpf2K
CJOmWG4h4GAWp8ICyWhLBYpEqWCYxP9zfL23cR1kqKNtJ35LyWTlIyrtvyALQEII
ZCZeyIMoVWy4Zl97mmod7PRxOu0/w6uIM/g0nQxhCudNmUN3p5xJShPQKhmJ0uJS
M7e/bqcANMXi5NX08YNrDonsuIqN++JEpypK8NVepamiJ0s6vqyQHlbmAKERRL8=
=Gi0R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD forked

Diana Eichert
In reply to this post by Marc Espie-2
On Fri, 22 Jun 2012, Marc Espie wrote:
SNIP
> A shell is one of the most complicated pieces of C code to get right,
> between the fucked-up parser, the lazy evaluation, the arcane shit you
> have to do to various file descriptors, and the signal handling.
>
> Among other things.
>
> Heck, write your own kernel, it's simpler ;)

yeah, just ask Linus Torvalds ....

Past hissy-fits are not a predictor of future hissy-fits.
Nick Holland(06 Dec 2005)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD forked

Diana Eichert
In reply to this post by Marc Espie-2
morons

if you can't write forth code you should stay home.

diana



Past hissy-fits are not a predictor of future hissy-fits.
Nick Holland(06 Dec 2005)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD forked

russell-38
On 06/22/2012 06:35 AM, Diana Eichert wrote:
> morons
>
> if you can't write forth code you should stay home.
>
> diana
>
I Love me my hand crafted postscripts...
Does that count?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD forked

cognacc
In reply to this post by Diana Eichert
Who is J.R. Steven?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD forked

Darrin Chandler
In reply to this post by Diana Eichert
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 07:35:06AM -0600, Diana Eichert wrote:
> morons
>
> if you can't write forth code you should stay home.
>
> diana

WORD

--
http://code.phxbsd.com/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD forked

Otto Moerbeek
In reply to this post by cognacc
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 04:02:51PM +0200, Mic J wrote:

> Who is J.R. Steven?

I think Marc intended to mention W. Richard Stevens.
See http://www.kohala.com

        -Otto

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD forked

Marc Espie-2
In reply to this post by russell-38
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:07:43AM -0700, russell wrote:
> On 06/22/2012 06:35 AM, Diana Eichert wrote:
> >morons
> >
> >if you can't write forth code you should stay home.
> >
> >diana
> >
> I Love me my hand crafted postscripts...
> Does that count?

Not really, PostScript is a mix between forth and lisp.

heck, with the dictionary lookups, you can even craft OO code
on top of it (yeah, I did).

The only really forthy-way was the way you used to lose context
from one page to another and had to manually pack/unpack content
in stack-owned strings to preserve stuff from one page to the next.

Sadly, that need is completely gone with level 2 and configurable
GC behavior. ;-)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD forked

bofh-6
In reply to this post by cognacc
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Mic J <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Who is J.R. Steven?

Wasn't J.R.R. Stevens the one who wrote about trolls on the Internet
Superhighway?


--
http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk
"This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity."
-- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation.
"Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or
internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks
factory where smoking on the job is permitted."  -- Gene Spafford
learn french:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30v_g83VHK4

12345