Hosting Provided By

Re: FOI rights, rejecting Debian (was ...general-purpose workstation

From: Craig Carey <research(at)ijs.co.nz>
Date: Sun Apr 27 2003 - 05:46:28 EDT

At 03\04\26 22:10 -0400 Saturday, William Yodlowsky wrote:
>On 27 April 2003 at 2:23, Craig Carey <research@ijs.co.nz> wrote:

I was guessing that manuals are not that important since their software is aging. I just came from FreeBSD.

Now I shall assume that your comment is just about right.

For me a question is this: how to set the hardness of the findings when in a dispute with OpenBSD.

> The documentation has always gotten attention,

At 03\04\27 13:03 -0400 Sunday, David Nicely <david@zhaps.com> wrote:
>Craig Carey wrote:
>> At 2003\04\24 11:32 +0100 Thursday, Lane Myer wrote:
...
>>
>
>what?

"What?." or "What ?."

Do you need help?

>
>
>

That's quite unsatisfactory.

Here I write a trashy document of my own

One Mr J Hubbard quit FreeBSD commenenting on the excessive communications while figuratively Poland would be being invaded.

That can happen in mathematics mailing lists too. Whether readers can't identify every topic and can't answer every question correctly, or whether they can get wrong in a stream of messges, or drift into error, or whatever, certainly a passing expert could be very efficient provided that axiomatic-ness or whatever allows that.

Now FOI rights are strict as required. Maybe "as the doctor ordered". With Linux groups, the discussions strips off the very best leaving malfunction mailing lists that a leader could devise a therapy for, but it won't be swallowed. So maximising the capacity to run a strike against leaders results in no such thing presumably but readily may result in something easier to steer. At FreeBSD they can steer the software. It is too late for OpenBSD which is second best or further down the ranking (under carefully chosen constraints to get that statement true).

Security seems plausible, but perhaps the expansive realms of principle were locked up. E.g. like how the latent intelligence of Linux users is locked up and not always online.

- - - -

Does anybody know when the giant lock problem is being fixed?.

Do you need more help?

Rather than fixing it, what developing a culture, providing real rights to members so that FreeBSD and Darwin of Hubbard and so on, would want to copy, and then porting the community and patches that FreeBSD did not take, over FreeBSD, and calling OpenBSD a type of subcommunity that is not integrating and that abandonded its own kernel code?.

Here is some temporary idea on refusing to stay up to date:

At 2003\02\09 18:45 +0100 Sunday, Marc Espie wrote:

Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 18:45:22 +0100
From: Marc Espie <espie@quatramaran.ens.fr> Message-Id: <200302091745.h19HjMv32683@quatramaran.ens.fr>

To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: GCC 3.3 compile speed regression - THE GRAPH
>In article <20030207221424.GC17153@daikokuya.co.uk> you write:
>>Ziemowit Laski wrote:-
>
>>> I've already spoken with Geoff regarding his fateful PCH merge. He did
>>> not think
>>> that doing a binary search on the pch-branch would be particularly
>>> productive,
>>> but instead suggested I look closely at his spew.c mods, which I shall
>>> do now.
>
>>spew.c is dead in 3.4, so this would only be useful for 3.3. I suggest
>>you spend your time on something else.
>
>>Neil.
>
>You're going to say I'm always beating the same dead horse, but I believe
>this is THE stem of all of gcc's performance problems:
>
>the next version is always going to be better.
>
>I've heard this at least ten times since 2.95 came out (between the gc for
>stability -> flush speed out the window.. now it's pch, which is going to
>be only in 3.4), and in reality, the current stable release always is pretty
>bad, speed-wise, but who cares ?
>
>the next release is going to be better...
>
>
>After a few releases, it gets really hard to believe how the next release
>is going to be better, since reality seems to prove otherwise.
>
>And there you have the conundrum for distribution builders: each new release
>of gcc has marked improvemtns in some areas, and marked losses in some others,
>so it is fairly difficult to choose. Especially when you're not building
>for mainstream environment...
>
>The latest `improvement' in the release process seems to me of the
>`sweep issues under the carpet' nature: mark as regression stuff that is
>a regression over the last immediate release, and more or less ignore less
>recent problems that did not exist in, say, gcc 2.95.3.
>
>In the end, because there is no definite win in upgrading, various people
>stay with various versions of gcc (for instance, OpenBSD will stay stuck
>with 2.95.x until the compiler's speed markedly improves), thus dispersing
>forces, handling lots more bug-reports than could happen otherwise...
>
>And yes, the speed issue can be solved by cross-compiling. Unfortunately,
>this is also the last nail in the coffin for old, slow architectures. Think
>about it: if you start cross-compiling everything, you are getting rid of a
>very good stress test (compiling the whole system), and thus help some bugs
>not getting noticed...
>

Comments on "coffins" too.

So OpenBSD people may eventually discard old hardware. That is simple.

But what about OpenBSD being discarded or rejected too for alcking a culture of justice respectful of the enduring power of civilisations.

---

If FreeBSD kernel code is to be ported over, then perhaps some superior
theory of rights might attract some of their programmers too. I do not
want to presume that anyone would come over after with the consideration
on 2005-2009 and afterwards. If the relative size of OpenBSD keeps
shrinking then perhaps the quality of the reasoning of people avoiding
OpenBSD keeps falling or something. No that can't be quite right.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a URL of some interest; the OMBUDSMEN in CANADA are listed here:
  
http://www.ombudsman.bc.ca/links/index.htm

Quite different is my last project's
    (Unfilled) Post of the Public Relations [[or human rights]] Person:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/contributors/staff-who.html

Enough of that. I presume I could complain about that for 5 months at
the FreeBSD advocacy mailing list only to find that some unnamed person
still wants a PR person.

If NetBSD had of had FOI rights then perhaps Mr Theo de Raadt need not
have been started up OpenBSD, but providing that there was some interest
in being satisfied (rather than it all being over security defences).

My main is not to suggest externally imposed reforms upon NetBSD, but
to let persons seeking the sort of rights that the Ombudsman of
Canada would provide, figure out which BSD has it in a fullest
measure. It might end up as a single paragraph or something.

---
I ask the man who wrote "what?" to state his purpose if it is not
to be abandoned.

Craig Carey

Received on Sun Apr 27 05:49:42 2003

Can we help you?

Contemporary messages sorted: [ By Date ] [ By Thread ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ] [ By messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 23 2006 - 13:29:29 EDT