Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

marc.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 344 posts

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#121

Post by mitchty »

sitkack wrote: post #106
asveikau wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then points out that rustc can't compile itself on i386, which is relevant… how? Remember he is speaking as the leader of an operating system project. As in, a basic part of the project functioning normally is compiling the whole thing from scratch. If something needs cross-compilation to even get started it won't end up in OpenBSD base. I seem to recall when it supported more architectures they made a public show…

And thus they lock themselves into the lowest common denominator as they target smaller systems. This is ridiculous. OpenBSD looks like performance art, literal security theater.

> And thus they lock themselves into the lowest common denominator as they target smaller systems. This is ridiculous. OpenBSD looks like performance art, literal security theater.

Those lowest common denominator systems tend to find bugs not present elsewhere.

And stating that openbsd looks like performance art and security theater seems to indicate you haven't looked at what openbsd has done for security.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#122

Post by [deleted] »

SCHiM wrote: post #15

The points made against switching to newer languages are valid. It will cost time, it will cost effort, it will take many years of work to convince stubborn maintainers to switch. But it will not stop _everyone_ from adopting better languages, and their efforts will eventually surpass the older, less secure systems. When there's feature parity, each and every new exploit will be called out: "this wouldn't have happen…

[deleted]

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#123

Post by clort »

raimue wrote: post #66
masklinn wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On a project such as OpenBSD they cannot suddenly drop platforms and only support amd64 as portability They… don't need to? That rustc can't compile itself on i386 doesn't mean you can't ship a rustc for i386, it just means you have to cross-compile it.

I see it as part of portability that you do not need to use any external system for bootstrapping. Imagine as a developer who compiles base from source you had to find another system only to compile rustc and then transfer it to your machine. And you would not have to do this only once, but for every compiler bug fix coupled with the overall rapid evolution of Rust. I think many in the OpenBSD community would oppose…

This is the case IIRC with Android - even though I want to build it for a 32-bit ARM architecture, I can't build it on anything but 64-bit. I guess the vast majority of Android systems cannot even compile Android!

https://source.android.com/setup/requirements

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#124

Post by Santosh83 »

joshklein wrote: post #120
SCHiM wrote: post #15

The points made against switching to newer languages are valid. It will cost time, it will cost effort, it will take many years of work to convince stubborn maintainers to switch. But it will not stop _everyone_ from adopting better languages, and their efforts will eventually surpass the older, less secure systems. When there's feature parity, each and every new exploit will be called out: "this wouldn't have happen…

I think this misunderstands the OpenBSD philosophy. The more likely it is "everyone else" disagrees, the more likely it is Theo is choosing the right course for the project. The system being secure is a secondary benefit to it being comprehendible and coherent to an individual. It's not enough for the output of a magic box to be a better widget, even if the widget is better in every measurable way. The box itself mus…

As regards understandability and minimising "magic boxes", this means it's pretty much just core OpenBSD (kernel & base system). The moment you add the usual desktop environments or a huge monolith like Firefox, you've lost these benefits. Same with drivers. More drivers you have, more the system becomes byzantine. Keeping things minimal and well designed yet useful must be a continuing challenge for OpenBSD!

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#126

Post by rapsey »

reggieband wrote: post #116

I remember I stopped frequenting /r/programming when it became this weird Haskell echo chamber. It was a bubble where a small but vocal faction inside the community seemed to over react to any criticism. They methodically and tirelessly responded to every comment with an endless litany of "facts" showing how Haskell could do anything from os kernels to game programming. They touted every industry mention of Haskell u…

> I sometimes get the feeling people spend more time writing defences of these languages than they spend time writing programs in them.

Programmers love language wars.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#127

Post by HelloNurse »

_jal wrote: post #46
masklinn wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He has a point though… Does he? He "stat[es as] fact" that > There has been no attempt to move the smallest parts of the ecosystem, to provide replacements for base POSIX utilities. which as xwvvvvwx notes is categorically wrong, then points out that rustc can't compile itself on i386, which is relevant… how?

He's talking specifically about OpenBSD base. Unless you can point to a rust binary in OpenBSD that Theo forgot about, he's not wrong. i386 is relevant because OpenBSD supports i386.

And if the end user is unable to compile everything, i386 would be only half-supported (or maybe, for the austere OpenBSD maintainers, not supported at all).

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#128

Post by simias »

reggieband wrote: post #116

I remember I stopped frequenting /r/programming when it became this weird Haskell echo chamber. It was a bubble where a small but vocal faction inside the community seemed to over react to any criticism. They methodically and tirelessly responded to every comment with an endless litany of "facts" showing how Haskell could do anything from os kernels to game programming. They touted every industry mention of Haskell u…

I agree. It makes the community looks childish and inexperienced by association.

I think I recall reading somewhere on Rust's website that telling project maintainers to switch to Rust was frowned upon, however I can't find it right now. Sometimes I feel like it should be written in a 20pt font on the home page. Or maybe written in blinking letters every time you run rustup.

I always feel it's very presumptuous and somewhat disrespectful to second guess the devs of a project, in particular if you're not a big contributor yourself. Pay your dues. These messages are effectively not a whole lot more useful or insightful than saying "Rust rulez, C droolz" or "have you considered indenting with spaces instead of tabs?".

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#129

Post by microtonal »

progman wrote: post #90
fsloth wrote: post #44

A bit incendiary: I fail to see what advantage rewriting existing and proven tools with a new language would bring. Shouldn't the main value new tools bring to be enable writing of new things? Isn't focusing on existing utils more like a lack of imagination and OCD on optimizing a thing beyond any further value?

> I fail to see what advantage rewriting existing and proven tools with a new language would bring I think code safety is not an issue here because the Posix tools (and Unix/Linux as a whole) have already proven their extreme reliability. The only real advantage to rewrite the Posix tools is motivation. A rewrite in a modern language like Rust will likely keep maintainance longer alive than old C code that no one lik…

There is basically no technical reason to replace the X server which works very well to this day.

There is, the architecture is not made with the modern-day world in mind: an X11 application can read all keystrokes, mouse event, and do screen grabs of other windows. An X11 application can emulate your screen locker to grab your credentials. X11 does not support different scaling on different monitors that are connected to your computer.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#130

Post by lifty »

simias wrote: post #53
jackpot51 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is Redox not viable competition?

Come on, I really like Rust but these types of comments are why people like Theo de Raadt don't take the evangelists seriously. You can't take a project like OpenBSD that has existed for more than 20 years, is being used right now to power all kinds of applications around the world on all kinds of architectures and say that Redox, an experimental x86-64 OS, is viable competition. What with the seven applications writ…

I love this. I think both of you are right, but your perspectives are for different time frames, with one side having an ideal view about a future time frame, while the other thinking about the now. This is the kind of situation that leads to innovation and how projects like Linux or neovim started. It's a natural way to progress. I hope jackpot51 gets pissed off and takes redox to the point where it proves the naysayers wrong, which will take time and effort, and doesn't serve the now.
Post reply on HN