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

Openrsync: An implementation of rsync, by the OpenBSD team

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 193 posts

Re: Openrsync: An implementation of rsync, by the OpenBSD team

#71

Post by txru »

1over137 wrote: post #64
ranger_danger wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel bad for people with the real name Claude.

Yeah, especially since most Americans don't know how to properly pronounce Claude.

Hmm, Claude Shannon was an American (the model is ostensibly named after him), so maybe how he pronounced it would be the correct pronunciation.

That said, every language on earth will adapt foreign words into its phonology. The alternative would be to adopt the phonology of every language that loaned a word into your language.

Re: Openrsync: An implementation of rsync, by the OpenBSD team

#72

Post by saidnooneever »

Bender wrote: post #18

The actual work of porting is matching the security features provided by OpenBSD's pledge(2) and unveil(2). These are critical elements to the functionality of the system. Without them, your system accepts arbitrary data from the public network. https://justine.lol/pledge/ I am not seeing pledge on Alpine Linux in edge. Have people been testing Pledge on Linux? Did I perhaps misunderstand the risk of using Openrsync…

Linux has no such features as pledge or unveil, nor capsicum. it has cgroups, namespaces and a mess ofnother things u need to combine to try and do similar things. (it was built iteratively as many systems interacting and being combined to form 'sandboxing' or isolation/limiting of capabilities rather than specific isolation as an entire concept with specific system calls and kernel paths to enable it).

there might be newer stuff in linux land now i see comments about landlock but i assume those will build on the linux primitives rather than whole new ones. - total assumption there but it would seem logical to reuse rather than make new.

part of likely what they mean by 'mess' is that its all over the place. many different ways to try and lock things down. hard to pick what is best etc. without thoroughly diving into the different subsystems entirely. (as opposed to just have 1 or 2 relatively simple system calls)

Re: Openrsync: An implementation of rsync, by the OpenBSD team

#73

Post by Panino »

I've been using openrsync here and there since it was announced and it's definitely improved over time. I'm looking forward to when I can use it exclusively.

The one place in my usage where it doesn't match Samba rsync is with the following:

openrsync --rsync-path=openrsync -av -e ssh /etc/services example.com:/tmp/services

I would expect openrsync to create a remote file /tmp/services, but instead it creates /tmp/services/services.

Normal directory mirroring as in -av -e ssh /path/to/src/ example.com:/path/to/dst/ works as it does with Samba rsync.

Re: Openrsync: An implementation of rsync, by the OpenBSD team

#74

Post by bentley »

hamdingers wrote: post #69
kstrauser wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The name only means it’s made by the OpenBSD team, nothing more. If they made their own Python port, it’d be called OpenPython, even though the original is FOSS.

So is OpenSUSE made by the BSD team? OpenOffice? OpenShift? OpenCV? OpenAI? It is not reasonable to claim this prefix unambiguously refers to the OpenBSD team. I do not understand why so many in this thread are pretending this isn't a confusing choice.

Nobody ever claimed that “Open” is a prefix used unambiguously by only one group of people ever.

In fact, your insistence that “Open” can only be used by projects that are replacing proprietary software is itself very odd.

OpenBSD itself has had its name for thirty years, and is not named for being an “open source” implementation of a proprietary OS.

Re: Openrsync: An implementation of rsync, by the OpenBSD team

#75

Post by qalmakka »

chasil wrote: post #70

There is also a (stub) web page: https://www.openrsync.org/ The problem with this fragmentation of rsync is that Apple and Android will prefer it, but the Linux and greater GPL world will adhere to the original implantation due to inertia. Power users will just have to know the quirks of each version. The only way to stop this is for the original author(s) to release this under a BSD license. Edit: For those assuming…

Basically like GNU Tar/CPIO and BSD Tar/CPIO. I've largely standardised towards using the bsd variant everywhere (especially since now even Windows ships it and it handles lots of other archive formats using the `tar` command) but it's always a pain to install it everywhere

Re: Openrsync: An implementation of rsync, by the OpenBSD team

#76

Post by Bender »

justinsaccount wrote: post #62
Bender wrote: post #18

The actual work of porting is matching the security features provided by OpenBSD's pledge(2) and unveil(2). These are critical elements to the functionality of the system. Without them, your system accepts arbitrary data from the public network. https://justine.lol/pledge/ I am not seeing pledge on Alpine Linux in edge. Have people been testing Pledge on Linux? Did I perhaps misunderstand the risk of using Openrsync…

that quote seems to be a bit of an oversimplification to the point of being completely wrong. > Without them, your system accepts arbitrary data from the public network. Neither of these features change if you are accepting arbitrary data from the public network. They limit what an exploited process can do. It's explained properly in the 'Security' section, so I'm not sure where this came from.

that quote seems to be a bit of an oversimplification to the point of being completely wrong.

Under Portability [1] I don't have access to update that repo. I deleted my accounts when Microsoft took over.

[1] - https://github.com/kristapsdz/openrsync

Re: Openrsync: An implementation of rsync, by the OpenBSD team

#77

Post by mrdomino- »

thefilmore wrote: post #53

This is the version used in macOS since 15.0.

Was it 15.0? I seem to recall it coming in one of the minor point releases in the 15.x line - and I remember it breaking some scripts mysteriously.

EDIT: ah, fun: they did include it in 15.0, but they decided to save the breaking change that removed backwards compatibility for 15.4. https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/479297

Re: Openrsync: An implementation of rsync, by the OpenBSD team

#78

Post by thomashabets2 »

saidnooneever wrote: post #72
Bender wrote: post #18

The actual work of porting is matching the security features provided by OpenBSD's pledge(2) and unveil(2). These are critical elements to the functionality of the system. Without them, your system accepts arbitrary data from the public network. https://justine.lol/pledge/ I am not seeing pledge on Alpine Linux in edge. Have people been testing Pledge on Linux? Did I perhaps misunderstand the risk of using Openrsync…

Linux has no such features as pledge or unveil, nor capsicum. it has cgroups, namespaces and a mess ofnother things u need to combine to try and do similar things. (it was built iteratively as many systems interacting and being combined to form 'sandboxing' or isolation/limiting of capabilities rather than specific isolation as an entire concept with specific system calls and kernel paths to enable it). there might b…

No, landlock is a separate thing. It's the first of its kind on Linux that doesn't completely suck, like seccomp does (https://blog.habets.se/2022/03/seccomp-unsafe-at-any-speed.h...).

Re: Openrsync: An implementation of rsync, by the OpenBSD team

#79

Post by hamdingers »

bentley wrote: post #74
hamdingers wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is OpenSUSE made by the BSD team? OpenOffice? OpenShift? OpenCV? OpenAI? It is not reasonable to claim this prefix unambiguously refers to the OpenBSD team. I do not understand why so many in this thread are pretending this isn't a confusing choice.

Nobody ever claimed that “Open” is a prefix used unambiguously by only one group of people ever. In fact, your insistence that “Open” can only be used by projects that are replacing proprietary software is itself very odd. OpenBSD itself has had its name for thirty years, and is not named for being an “open source” implementation of a proprietary OS.

The person I replied to said the "open" prefix means it's made by the OpenBSD team and I am responding to that.

Do not invent arguments that I did not make. I have only said that naming it openrsync when rsync already exists and is "open" in the general sense is confusing.

I find the negative reactions to this observation very confusing, especially yours, but I see that you're an OpenBSD developer so that explains your bias.

Edit: and now these same people are backtracking to agree with me that "open" is ambiguous, this place never ceases to amaze

Re: Openrsync: An implementation of rsync, by the OpenBSD team

#80

Post by spauldo »

chasil wrote: post #70

There is also a (stub) web page: https://www.openrsync.org/ The problem with this fragmentation of rsync is that Apple and Android will prefer it, but the Linux and greater GPL world will adhere to the original implantation due to inertia. Power users will just have to know the quirks of each version. The only way to stop this is for the original author(s) to release this under a BSD license. Edit: For those assuming…

It's really no different than every other BSD utility (and SysV utility, if you're running one of those) being different than the GNU ones. We've coped with it for fifty years at this point.
Post reply on HN