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

John Carmack is reading and contributing to OpenBSD source code

marc.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 267 posts

Re: John Carmack is reading and contributing to OpenBSD source code

#241

Post by pwdisswordfish2 »

yuribro wrote: post #240
pwdisswordfish2 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent comment seems to suggest its author is not a frequent reader of NetBSD/OpenBSD mailing lists. This message is not at all atypical of what one would routinely see on these lists from regular contributors. Perhaps John Carmack spent some time reading the OpenBSD mailing lists before posting. It just shows that in more popular projects, or whatever the projects the comment's author is accustomed to, the expec…

I am actually subscribed to -tech, and an OpenBSD user for around 15 years. Usually when mailing list messages or PR comments are posted to HN, they are about something very negative, either the attitude of the author (random examples - mails by Linus, mails by Poettering, and sometimes also mails by Theo) or the content of the request it replies to. And in the openbsd community does has some negative reputation abou…

Very true. Apologies for the (incorrect) assumption.

Re: John Carmack is reading and contributing to OpenBSD source code

#242

Post by smabie »

unfunco wrote: post #228
wolrah wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a difference between using BSD to build an appliance and running BSD as a day-to-day system. pfSense is a wonderful firewall appliance. FreeNAS is a wonderful storage appliance. If you need pf or native ZFS, a BSD is probably your best way to get it. If you want to run a random headless server to mess around with, you are probably going to have a harder time with any of the BSDs than you would with ev…

> If you want to run a graphical desktop with 3D acceleration and HD video you will almost certainly have a harder time than any Linux user. With the exception of MacOS? Darwin is BSD.

Just because OSX has a very outdated BSD-derived userland does not make it a BSD. The OSX kernel a mach microkernel and shares no code from the BSD projects. This is a farcry from the *BSDs which can directly trace all of their code and history all the way back to 4.4BSD

Re: John Carmack is reading and contributing to OpenBSD source code

#243

Post by zbuf »

lemoncucumber wrote: post #63
sigzero wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So? Counting cards is not illegal if that is what you are trying to insinuate.

No, but casinos are private businesses with the right to refuse service to anyone, and they tend to exercise that right against people they believe to be counting cards. Card counters are not a protected class.

As we're here, can someone explain the difference between counting cards vs being actually good at the game of Blackjack?

I've always assumed that the two are really the same thing. If you get good at the game then that implies you're using an intuition for the probabilities of certain events based on the history of the cards.

I suppose the casinos don't have to justify this, or have any moral quandaries about it.

Re: John Carmack is reading and contributing to OpenBSD source code

#245

Post by traviscj »

asveikau wrote: post #225
deckard1 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yep, was going to say that this is probably the real source behind the mystery. Early OS X is basically NeXT when Jobs came back to Apple. Doom was developed on NeXT, so id Software and Carmack already had a history of using BSD. They also released Quake for Linux around 1996, which may have used X11 (I cannot recall, maybe it just depended on 3dfx/nvidia without X11 at the time... it's been so long)

There are writings floating around from Carmack that he was playing around with the OS X prototypes back when it was called Rhapsody in the late 90s. I also thought I read somewhere that Carmack persuaded Apple to bet big on OpenGL for OS X. (Ironic now that it's deprecated.)

Doesn't seem like a _bad_ bet considering it lasted 20 years and like 14 versions, though...

Re: John Carmack is reading and contributing to OpenBSD source code

#246

Post by thisrod »

hedora wrote: post #200
thisrod wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> maybe in a VM? But that's the thing. The real benefits from OpenBSD come when it's the only system you need. Who cares how simple and elegant the guest system is, if you need to maintain a linux installation to host it? A project on the scale of OpenBSD can't possibly support all the hardware that's out there. And the system is under active development, so there are constant regressions in hardware support. That's…

> box in a closet https://github.com/elad/openbsd-apu2 Mine is 4(?) years old, and has never crashed. I use it every day. If you want something newer, or have 10x the power budget: https://flak.tedunangst.com/post/ryzen-build-for-openbsd

Thanks. I might try building one of those.

But the problem remains: eventually, the next upgrade will crash every time you boot it, and what will you do then?

Re: John Carmack is reading and contributing to OpenBSD source code

#247

Post by ksec »

toyg wrote: post #238
b0rsuk wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With Linux, you get fewer officially supported games than Mac, but at least it's on people's radar. Few computer users know BSD is a thing, but most have heard of someone using Linux. It's strictly a techie/advanced hobbyist system.

That’s a very consumer-oriented statement. OpenBSD powers a significant amount of internet infrastructure.

Any example? I know FreeBSD is behind majority of Internet "bandwidth". Never heard much on the usage of OpenBSD.

Re: John Carmack is reading and contributing to OpenBSD source code

#248

Post by clarry »

wolrah wrote: post #167
mouldysammich wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems a little dismissive of BSD systems given how widely deployed the are in comparison to plan9 or zx spectrums. As far as I understand Netflix uses freebsd fairly extensively, and there are powerful tools like pfSense built on BSDs too, which are also used fairly extensively as far as i know. I would describe that as having practical use.

I think there's a difference between using BSD to build an appliance and running BSD as a day-to-day system. pfSense is a wonderful firewall appliance. FreeNAS is a wonderful storage appliance. If you need pf or native ZFS, a BSD is probably your best way to get it. If you want to run a random headless server to mess around with, you are probably going to have a harder time with any of the BSDs than you would with ev…

> If you want to run a random headless server to mess around with, you are probably going to have a harder time with any of the BSDs than you would with even bleeding-edge Linux distros

Actually, I became a BSD user after just trying OpenBSD out of curiosity on my headless server after years of running Linux. The experience was so damn good.

> There are, of course, people who are happily using BSD-based desktops right now and I am certainly not denying them anything, but even they'd have to admit they would have been able to get most of the same experience with a lot less effort on a modern Linux.

It's the opposite for me. Modern Linux distros are a pain; I can't find one I really like. Whenever I ask people to recommend a distro that feels like OpenBSD, I get recommendations from people who obviously haven't used OpenBSD in two decades. Maybe they tried FreeBSD two decades ago, and then figured that some old Linux distro was kinda similar..

Frankly I don't think the Linux way of "ducktape a bunch of third party packages together" will ever produce a distro that comes close to being as pleasant as OpenBSD. At least they'd have to heavily patch things and diverge from upstream.

Re: John Carmack is reading and contributing to OpenBSD source code

#249

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

loeg wrote: post #213
LargoLasskhyfv wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means you have a module from some vendor, or something similar to the NVIDIA installer for linux, which technically is nothing else than a batch compiled makefile, spitting out a kernel-module made for version 1.2.3 while you are running 2.4.5. It worked. I don't know why it shouldn't now. Edit: I'm not having any FreeBSD systems in use right now, so i don't know if they changed the defaults. What i remember is at…

That's not how the nvidia binary blob works in FreeBSD. Instead, there is some compiled-from-source-code OS portability glue, which is compiled against the target version of the FreeBSD kernel. Then the binary blob links the portability glue. I believe something similar is done in Linux. The difference in experience may come from FreeBSD maintaining a stable KBI over a release version (e.g., stable/12), while Linux a…

Sigh. Been typing too fast as usual. I know thats not the way the Nvidia-thing works, instead doing the glue-thing which interfaces to the binary blob like you mentioned. But it could (instead of that)! That's what i meant to say.
Post reply on HN