What is our ultimate goal??

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
147 messages Options
1234 ... 8
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

What is our ultimate goal??

Mayuresh Kathe
Hi,

NOTE: No intention to behave like a troll.

I've been following the "multi-threaded ssh/scp" thread and read Ted's
comment that he's stopped working on the kernel threads code because
he doesn't have the time for it nor does he need it any more.
Also that multi-threaded ssh/scp would weaken security features within the OS.

It just led me to ponder, what is OpenBSD's ultimate goal?
Is it just to become the worlds most secure OS with as few remote
holes in the default install?
Shouldn't it also be our goal to be the best UNIX-like operating
system which is in tune with the current needs of users?

It would have been great to have a threaded kernel, there are
developer's I'm gathering around who wanted to change the TCP/IP stack
to make it higher performance, more like "Project FireEngine" under
Solaris 10.

OpenBSD is an OS with amazing security and stability, but it has too
few modern features.

It would be great if developers also start working on improving the
features currently offered by OpenBSD.
Else, we would end up becoming the world's most secure OS which is
used by just a handful of us faithful users.

You might ask what right do I have for this rant, what am I doing for OpenBSD?
Well I can't donate code directly as I'm a Java programmer and my C is
quite rusty (haven't coded in it in over 7 years).
But, yes, I do donate my time and money, indirectly, by recruiting
good C developers to the cause as well as buying stuff for core
developers off their wish lists.

Hope newer features get added, not that I'm unhappy with the OS (it
does almost everything I need an OS to do for me), but it would be
great if we had *more* smart developers and a wider base of good users
who get attracted to the OS for its robustness as well as feature-set.

Best,

~Mayuresh

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is our ultimate goal??

Stuart Henderson
On 2008/02/17 17:33, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> It would be great if developers also start working on improving the
> features currently offered by OpenBSD.

eh?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is our ultimate goal??

Tony Aberenthy
In reply to this post by Mayuresh Kathe
Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
>
> OpenBSD is an OS with amazing security and stability, but it has too
> few modern features.
>
Hmmmm ....  related?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is our ultimate goal??

Mayuresh Kathe
On Feb 17, 2008 5:50 PM, Tony Abernethy <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> >
> > OpenBSD is an OS with amazing security and stability, but it has too
> > few modern features.
> >
> Hmmmm ....  related?

thats exactly my point, our mindset has become that security and
stability aren't related with modern features.

Would it be nice to have a generally usable 64/128 bit file-system?
Wouldn't it be nice to have CMW (compartmented mode workstation)
extensions to the OS?
Wouldn't it be nice to have a high performance networking stack?

~Mayuresh

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is our ultimate goal??

openbsd misc
In reply to this post by Tony Aberenthy
> -----Urspr|ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Im Auftrag von Tony Abernethy
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 17. Februar 2008 13:20
> An: 'Mayuresh Kathe'; 'OpenBSD-Misc'
> Betreff: Re: What is our ultimate goal??
>
> Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> >
> > OpenBSD is an OS with amazing security and stability, but it has too
> > few modern features.
> >
> Hmmmm ....  related?
>
>

E.g. wpa[2] is one of the features I miss because I want to use OpenBSD as
Firewall / Access Point (SOHO customers)... VPN is not an option, because
windowsclients need network at startup.

From my POV there are not many features missing, but I don't use OpenBSD as
desktop-system.


Regards
  Hagen Volpers

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is our ultimate goal??

Mayuresh Kathe
In reply to this post by Stuart Henderson
On Feb 17, 2008 5:44 PM, Stuart Henderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 2008/02/17 17:33, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> > It would be great if developers also start working on improving the
> > features currently offered by OpenBSD.
>
> eh?

think soft-updates with background fsck,
think a generally usable 64/128 bit file system,
think a FireEngine style networking stack,
think ability to mount FreeBSD partitions off somebody else's hdd
attached to my OBSD system.

~Mayuresh

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is our ultimate goal??

Stuart Henderson
On 2008/02/17 18:06, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2008 5:44 PM, Stuart Henderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 2008/02/17 17:33, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> > > It would be great if developers also start working on improving the
> > > features currently offered by OpenBSD.
> >
> > eh?

By this, I mean, developers *are* working on improving the features
currently offered by OpenBSD. In general people work on things which
they will find the most useful first. Sometimes this matches up with
what you want, other times it doesn't.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is our ultimate goal??

Francesco Vollero
In reply to this post by Tony Aberenthy
Tony Abernethy ha scritto:
> Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
>  
>> OpenBSD is an OS with amazing security and stability, but it has too
>> few modern features.
>>
>>    
> Hmmmm ....  related?
>
>  
Improving the file system to be a little more fast than now... for example.
wpa[2] as Hagen Volpers say...

network stack as Mayuresh say...
And i think exists more proposals...

we want to create a new thread titled: "What OpenBSD need to have to be
competitive?" or: "OpenBSD features you want" ?

Francesco

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is our ultimate goal??

Zbigniew Baniewski
In reply to this post by Stuart Henderson
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 01:07:06PM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote:

> By this, I mean, developers *are* working on improving the features
> currently offered by OpenBSD. In general people work on things which
> they will find the most useful first. Sometimes this matches up with
> what you want, other times it doesn't.

Are they willing to take a suggestions from the users side?
--
                                pozdrawiam / regards

                                                Zbigniew Baniewski

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is our ultimate goal??

Michael Dexter
>> By this, I mean, developers *are* working on improving the features
>> currently offered by OpenBSD. In general people work on things which
>> they will find the most useful first. Sometimes this matches up with
>> what you want, other times it doesn't.
>
>Are they willing to take a suggestions from the users side?

Ask them. However, you will get far further with suggestions backed by a solid understanding of each issue, plus funding. The benefits of a broad yet shallow feature set can be found in most alternative operating systems and you are welcome to use them.

Michael.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is our ultimate goal??

Zbigniew Baniewski
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 03:53:52PM +0200, Michael Dexter wrote:

> >Are they willing to take a suggestions from the users side?
>
> Ask them.

During last 3 weeks I tried to contact 3 (yes, three) devs. None of them
responded even with "get lost".

> However, you will get far further with suggestions backed by a solid
> understanding of each issue, plus funding. The benefits of a broad yet
> shallow feature set can be found in most alternative operating systems and
> you are welcome to use them.

Who said, it must be about new features? There is an issue, about which I
wrote already - OK, once more:

  I noticed, that default path, where software from binary pkg and "ports"
  gets unpacked, is /usr/local hierarchy - unfortunately, it's also the
  "traditional" default of every individual source *.tar.gz package - such
  way the software ported to OpenBSD gets mixed with any other package,
  which I had installed. Wouldn't be reasonable to create new hierarchy,
  especially for the "native" OpenBSD software (from binary packages and
  ports) - I mean: something like /usr/pkg in NetBSD?

It doesn't need any funding to fix this.
--
                                pozdrawiam / regards

                                                Zbigniew Baniewski

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is our ultimate goal??

William Boshuck
In reply to this post by Mayuresh Kathe
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 05:33:12PM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:

> Hi,
>
> NOTE: No intention to behave like a troll.
>
> I've been following the "multi-threaded ssh/scp" thread and read Ted's
> comment that he's stopped working on the kernel threads code because
> he doesn't have the time for it nor does he need it any more.
> Also that multi-threaded ssh/scp would weaken security features within the OS.
>
> It just led me to ponder, what is OpenBSD's ultimate goal?

I think it is to meet the developers' needs, and to provide them
with a highly enjoyable (irrespective of remuneration) vocation.
The rest of us are along for the ride, and we chip in to keep the
ride going, because we like the ride.

I haven't seen a developer come out and say that security,
simplicity or stability are incompatible, in principle, with high
performance, modern features and so on.  I have seen certain
developers make specific criticisms of specific measures, however.
Having noted that projects which adopt certain such measures do
not enjoy the same level of "amazing security and stability" as
does OpenBSD, one may still refrain from drawing too general a
conclusion from this circumstance.  It still means that specific
measures will be weighed one by one by developers against their
own interests and priorities.  (And one may still refrain from
drawing the corresponding too general conclusion about the
desirability of high performance and modern features.)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is our ultimate goal??

William Boshuck
In reply to this post by Zbigniew Baniewski
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 03:10:12PM +0100, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 03:53:52PM +0200, Michael Dexter wrote:
>
> > >Are they willing to take a suggestions from the users side?
> >
> > Ask them.
>
> During last 3 weeks I tried to contact 3 (yes, three) devs. None of them
> responded even with "get lost".
>
> > However, you will get far further with suggestions backed by a solid
> > understanding of each issue, plus funding. The benefits of a broad yet
> > shallow feature set can be found in most alternative operating systems and
> > you are welcome to use them.
>
> Who said, it must be about new features? There is an issue, about which I
> wrote already - OK, once more:
>
>   I noticed, that default path, where software from binary pkg and "ports"
>   gets unpacked, is /usr/local hierarchy - unfortunately, it's also the
>   "traditional" default of every individual source *.tar.gz package - such
>   way the software ported to OpenBSD gets mixed with any other package,
>   which I had installed. Wouldn't be reasonable to create new hierarchy,
>   especially for the "native" OpenBSD software (from binary packages and
>   ports) - I mean: something like /usr/pkg in NetBSD?
>
> It doesn't need any funding to fix this.

In essence, this is suggesting to move third party software
installed by the project's third party software management
tools out of /usr/local, so that it is out of the way for
users who want to install software on their system without
using the project's third party software management tools.

I can imagine one response:  Port whatever it is, or else
change where it will be installed if you don't want to port
it.  I can also imagine no response (e.g., because the first
response should occur, sooner or later, to the person making
the suggestion).

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is our ultimate goal??

David Higgs
In reply to this post by Zbigniew Baniewski
On Feb 17, 2008 9:10 AM, Zbigniew Baniewski <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Who said, it must be about new features? There is an issue, about which I
> wrote already - OK, once more:
>
>   I noticed, that default path, where software from binary pkg and "ports"
>   gets unpacked, is /usr/local hierarchy - unfortunately, it's also the
>   "traditional" default of every individual source *.tar.gz package - such
>   way the software ported to OpenBSD gets mixed with any other package,
>   which I had installed. Wouldn't be reasonable to create new hierarchy,
>   especially for the "native" OpenBSD software (from binary packages and
>   ports) - I mean: something like /usr/pkg in NetBSD?

Does the -B option to pkg_add do exactly this?  Or YOU could do the
equivalent and tell ./configure to install to a different base
directory.  This doesn't need any funding either.

--david

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is our ultimate goal??

Zbigniew Baniewski
In reply to this post by William Boshuck
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 09:50:21AM -0500, William Boshuck wrote:

> In essence, this is suggesting to move third party software
> installed by the project's third party software management
> tools out of /usr/local, so that it is out of the way for
               ^^^^^^^^^
> users who want to install software on their system without
> using the project's third party software management tools.

Yes, indeed; why not, if you know, that such approach can be a problem for
the user?

> I can imagine one response:  Port whatever it is, or else

That cannot be a valid response, when given to the _user_.

> change where it will be installed if you don't want to port
> it.

Yes, that's exactly the problem: it'll be installed (that "non-ported"
software) where all "ported" software is installed already - into
/usr/local. It's default for all source packages since years. So, why not
to install all the ported software into something like /usr/pkg, or
/usr/ported, for example?

It does work in NetBSD - it could work exactly as good in OpenBSD.
--
                                pozdrawiam / regards

                                                Zbigniew Baniewski

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is our ultimate goal??

Zbigniew Baniewski
In reply to this post by David Higgs
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 10:12:09AM -0500, David Higgs wrote:

> Does the -B option to pkg_add do exactly this?  Or YOU could do the
> equivalent and tell ./configure to install to a different base
> directory.  This doesn't need any funding either.

And did I ask for any funding? When?

Of course, that I can - and thousands of other users are able to either -
play with "./configure" switches before compilation of every "non-ported"
package. I just would to point attention, that _one single change_ can save
the time of that thousands people. Instead of playing with "./configure"
switches - they could be busy... porting software to OpenBSD, for example.
--
                                pozdrawiam / regards

                                                Zbigniew Baniewski

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is our ultimate goal??

David Higgs
In reply to this post by Zbigniew Baniewski
On Feb 17, 2008 10:18 AM, Zbigniew Baniewski <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 09:50:21AM -0500, William Boshuck wrote:
>
> > In essence, this is suggesting to move third party software
> > installed by the project's third party software management
> > tools out of /usr/local, so that it is out of the way for
>                ^^^^^^^^^
> > users who want to install software on their system without
> > using the project's third party software management tools.
>
> Yes, indeed; why not, if you know, that such approach can be a problem for
> the user?
>
> > I can imagine one response:  Port whatever it is, or else
>
> That cannot be a valid response, when given to the _user_.

Sure it is.  If you have permission to install to /usr/local, you are
not a user, you are an admin.  You can therefore fix the broken
scripts to install wherever you need them to.

If an admin refuses to install their software, users can install it
themselves it to their home directory.

--david

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is our ultimate goal??

Zbigniew Baniewski
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 10:26:48AM -0500, David Higgs wrote:

> Sure it is.  If you have permission to install to /usr/local, you are
> not a user, you are an admin.

Isn't it just semantics?

OK, I understand, you see no gains in proposed change.
--
                                pozdrawiam / regards

                                                Zbigniew Baniewski

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is our ultimate goal??

bofh-6
In reply to this post by William Boshuck
On Feb 17, 2008 9:30 AM, William Boshuck <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 05:33:12PM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > NOTE: No intention to behave like a troll.
> >
> > I've been following the "multi-threaded ssh/scp" thread and read Ted's
> > comment that he's stopped working on the kernel threads code because
> > he doesn't have the time for it nor does he need it any more.
> > Also that multi-threaded ssh/scp would weaken security features within
> the OS.
>
> I think it is to meet the developers' needs, and to provide them
> with a highly enjoyable (irrespective of remuneration) vocation.
> The rest of us are along for the ride, and we chip in to keep the
> ride going, because we like the ride.


I think that's key to the understanding.  There are a limited number of
developers, all with their own interests.  They are working on a number of
things that interest them, for example, henning was working on improvements
in tcpip/pf that resulted in almost doubling of performance.  The OpenBSD
developers have made calls in the past for high performance, 10G equipment.
So, to conclude that OpenBSD *needs* a high performance tcpip stack without
keeping this in mind is... naive.

Then, there's the fact that there's a limited number of developers, all with
their own interests (yes, I'm repeating, but it is important).  This is not
linux, where there're tons of paid developers.  Most folks who work on
OpenBSD are volunteers or paid way less than the market rate.  Obviously
they will work on the pieces that they need and interest them the most.  If
you *need* threaded kernel, *you* can work on it, or you can *fund* someone
to work on it.  Else, wait for it to become interesting for a developer.
Mayuresh started out by saying he is not a C developer.  So?  If something
interests you, pick it up.

One very important thing to keep in mind is that the OpenBSD environment is
the code then release.  Not pre-announce, then look for code.  There's no
"FireEngine" project, because "fireengine" type code is expected.  And if
they're working on improvements, they don't declare it to the world "I'm
going to try to double the tcpip stack's performance!", then spend time
trying to do that.  No, they look at things that can be improved, improve
it, then measure it.  The first we'll hear about it is when the developers
say "hey can you guys help test this out?".

For example - softraid.  ccd and raidframe has been limiting for years, and
raidframe has been bitrotting too.  Softraid showed up in 4.2, mirroring
only.  4.3 appears to have softraid with raid 0.  I'm sure work continues on
softraid.  But they're building it ontop of bioctl and all the other things.

But there was no grand pronouncement of "I'm building a FireHouse" on
"FireStreet" to handle all the "FireTraffic".

This does have one unfortunate side effect - us, mere users, do not know
what some of the new things that are coming, are.  However, it also does not
set up for false or unrealistic expectations.  Maybe softraid with raid5
will not show up in 4.4.  Maybe raid 0 won't even show up in 4.3.  Point is
- the developers work on what they want, and release it when they can.

You may want a FireEngine.  Maybe they want a Lego BrainStorm, and are
working on it?

--
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=j1G-3laJJP0&feature=related

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is our ultimate goal??

David Higgs
In reply to this post by Zbigniew Baniewski
On Feb 17, 2008 10:22 AM, Zbigniew Baniewski <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 10:12:09AM -0500, David Higgs wrote:
>
> > Does the -B option to pkg_add do exactly this?  Or YOU could do the
> > equivalent and tell ./configure to install to a different base
> > directory.  This doesn't need any funding either.
>
> And did I ask for any funding? When?
>
> Of course, that I can - and thousands of other users are able to either -
> play with "./configure" switches before compilation of every "non-ported"
> package. I just would to point attention, that _one single change_ can save
> the time of that thousands people. Instead of playing with "./configure"
> switches - they could be busy... porting software to OpenBSD, for example.

I meant, it doesn't need funding because it's a change that you make
to your own install process.

Be realistic.  Thousands or even hundreds of people will not see this
feature change and suddenly decide to contribute to ports.  Aside from
you, I don't even recall people complaining about it on a regular
basis.

They will be too busy complaining about this change.  They'll have to
figure out how to tell their non-ports ./configure scripts to search
for their pkg_added libraries which NOW live in some non-standard
/usr/pkg directory.

That's just my take, good luck.

--david

1234 ... 8