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

OpenBSD will shut down if we do not have the funding to keep the lights on

marc.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 415 posts

Re: OpenBSD will shut down if we do not have the funding to keep the lights on

#31

Post by simias »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #27
jdludlow wrote: post #23

> The OpenBSD project uses a lot of electricity for running the > development and build machines. A number of logistical reasons > prevents us from moving the machines to another location which might > offer space/power for free, so let's not allow the conversation to go > that way. I don't understand this comment. If the choice came down to moving versus shutting down entirely, why is moving an unacceptable answer?

Seriously? What's not to understand? He said they had reasons that prevent them from moving and didn't want to discuss it further. Why push it? Isn't he in a better position to decide what's unacceptable than you are?

Probably, but then again if he wants my money he better explain why he needs it and how he's going to spend it, doesn't he?

That being said since OpenBSD is all about security maybe that's the reason they don't want to move the servers to some place where they won't be able to monitor physical access to the machines. That's pure speculation though.

Re: OpenBSD will shut down if we do not have the funding to keep the lights on

#33

Post by gtaylor »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #27
jdludlow wrote: post #23

> The OpenBSD project uses a lot of electricity for running the > development and build machines. A number of logistical reasons > prevents us from moving the machines to another location which might > offer space/power for free, so let's not allow the conversation to go > that way. I don't understand this comment. If the choice came down to moving versus shutting down entirely, why is moving an unacceptable answer?

Seriously? What's not to understand? He said they had reasons that prevent them from moving and didn't want to discuss it further. Why push it? Isn't he in a better position to decide what's unacceptable than you are?

If he's asking for money from me, I would like to know why it's not an option. The root of the issue being raised is power/space, so I'd definitely want to know why I'm forking up for something the project could potentially get for free.

It's not a big deal, and I don't expect him to go into detail. He just won't get a cent from me without elaborating, and that's OK. I'm not mad, and I understand he has mis-givings. I just don't think that answer is acceptable enough for me to donate, but that's my subjective opinion (and not everyone else's).

Re: OpenBSD will shut down if we do not have the funding to keep the lights on

#34

Post by microtonal »

simias wrote: post #14

As a long time FreeBSD user I wish the BSDs would find a way to "unite" in a way, try to put redundant infrastructures in common. Right now I feel like linux is slowly eating all the market share, if it continues that way the BSDs will regress back to the lines of Hurd and Plan9. Competition is always a good thing, even in the OSS world.

Competition is always a good thing, even in the OSS world.

Linux is just a kernel. The problem is that outside the kernel there is perhaps already too much competition. E.g. there is glibc, eglibc, bionic, dietlibc, etc. There is SysV init, systemd, Upstart, OpenRC, etc. Then we have GNOME, KDE, Unity, Xfce, Cinnamon, and MATE.

For practically any component in a Linux system, except the kernel itself, there is already a lot of competition. The BSDs add four more, albeit incompatible (with Linux and each other), user lands.

I think the FLOSS world would profit from less fragmentation and more focus on making the good projects better. Of course, polishing existing work is not as much fun as writing your own ;).

Re: OpenBSD will shut down if we do not have the funding to keep the lights on

#35

Post by orbitur »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #27
jdludlow wrote: post #23

> The OpenBSD project uses a lot of electricity for running the > development and build machines. A number of logistical reasons > prevents us from moving the machines to another location which might > offer space/power for free, so let's not allow the conversation to go > that way. I don't understand this comment. If the choice came down to moving versus shutting down entirely, why is moving an unacceptable answer?

Seriously? What's not to understand? He said they had reasons that prevent them from moving and didn't want to discuss it further. Why push it? Isn't he in a better position to decide what's unacceptable than you are?

If I'm donating I would like to know exactly where the money is going, and what options have already been explored. OpenBSD should have referenced, full documentation about these things if they want to maximize donations.

Apparently, there isn't very much documentation/open accounting, and they aren't willing to discuss options to reduce the bill. That doesn't inspire confidence.

Re: OpenBSD will shut down if we do not have the funding to keep the lights on

#36

Post by calpaterson »

jdludlow wrote: post #23

> The OpenBSD project uses a lot of electricity for running the > development and build machines. A number of logistical reasons > prevents us from moving the machines to another location which might > offer space/power for free, so let's not allow the conversation to go > that way. I don't understand this comment. If the choice came down to moving versus shutting down entirely, why is moving an unacceptable answer?

> why is moving an unacceptable answer

It seems likely that they don't trust anyone else to have physical access to the machines for security reasons. Their threat model probably includes national governments.

Re: OpenBSD will shut down if we do not have the funding to keep the lights on

#37

Post by protomyth »

xradionut wrote: post #25

They could probably kill support and power for some of the "dead silicon" platforms they support. If the CPU hasn't been manufactured in the last decade or two, why support it?

Because people still use it and it helps the project find errors in modern architectures.

Re: OpenBSD will shut down if we do not have the funding to keep the lights on

#38

Post by rsync »

xradionut wrote: post #25

They could probably kill support and power for some of the "dead silicon" platforms they support. If the CPU hasn't been manufactured in the last decade or two, why support it?

I am happy to see continued support for "dead silicon" as it provides a (possibly) non-compromised platform. It's also nice to have obscure attack surface available if one required it.

Did you see any leaked powerpoint slides discussing MIPS r12k vulns, created in conjunction with SGI ? I didn't ...

Re: OpenBSD will shut down if we do not have the funding to keep the lights on

#39

Post by orbitur »

xradionut wrote: post #25

They could probably kill support and power for some of the "dead silicon" platforms they support. If the CPU hasn't been manufactured in the last decade or two, why support it?

They should probably try to define some sort of support schedule. The current setup of "let's support everything under the sun from the last 10 years" is unsustainable, but they seem to want to continue with that.

Re: OpenBSD will shut down if we do not have the funding to keep the lights on

#40

Post by microtonal »

cpprototypes wrote: post #18

A little bit off topic, but this reminds me again of how much the web needs an easy payment system (as easy as in-app purchases in mobile). EFF, wikipedia, I often see notices or news of things they're doing and think to myself that I should donate. But I'm usually in the middle of something and stopping everything to take out my wallet, get the CC, fill out a form, etc. is just too disruptive. So I try to remind mys…

Flattr was intended to provide easy microdonations:

http://flattr.com/

Unfortunately, when I was using it, there weren't many interesting FLOSS projects to contribute to. Perhaps things have gotten better.

Post reply on HN