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

Bitrig 1.0 Released – OpenBSD fork

article.gmane.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 37 posts

Re: Bitrig 1.0 Released – OpenBSD fork

#11

Post by JJAP »

hhw wrote: post #9

There was a discussion about this on the OpenBSD misc mailing archives back in 2012: http://marc.info/?t=133961305400003&r=1&w=2 Theo's initial response to the thread, which may help illuminate the situation, was: "Except for the fact that it is bullshit. They started the fork because they got kicked out because one developer (Marco) hired 5 other developers for his startup company, and attempted to hire around 10 ot…

I don't know what's worse: Theo taking a curse-laden, insult dump on everyone who opposes him, or the faithful who spread it around.

Re: Bitrig 1.0 Released – OpenBSD fork

#12

Post by ausjke »

adamnemecek wrote: post #3
debacle wrote: post #2

Why did they decide to fork OpenBSD?

"With the goal of bringing more experimental development to the OpenBSD code base, a few developers have announced a fork named Bitrig. According to their FAQ, Bitrig aims to build a small system targeting only modern hardware and "be a very commercially friendly code base by using non-viral licenses where possible." Their first step toward that goal was removing GCC in favor of LLVM/Clang. The project roadmap shows…

I thought this is where NetBSD shines, why not just enhance NetBSD? or why pulling OpenBSD into embedded space?

Re: Bitrig 1.0 Released – OpenBSD fork

#14

Post by protomyth »

hhw wrote: post #9

There was a discussion about this on the OpenBSD misc mailing archives back in 2012: http://marc.info/?t=133961305400003&r=1&w=2 Theo's initial response to the thread, which may help illuminate the situation, was: "Except for the fact that it is bullshit. They started the fork because they got kicked out because one developer (Marco) hired 5 other developers for his startup company, and attempted to hire around 10 ot…

Read past that message to get to where the thread turns into a how to learn C discussion with a side helping of perl.

Re: Bitrig 1.0 Released – OpenBSD fork

#15

Post by imanaccount247 »

JJAP wrote: post #11
hhw wrote: post #9

There was a discussion about this on the OpenBSD misc mailing archives back in 2012: http://marc.info/?t=133961305400003&r=1&w=2 Theo's initial response to the thread, which may help illuminate the situation, was: "Except for the fact that it is bullshit. They started the fork because they got kicked out because one developer (Marco) hired 5 other developers for his startup company, and attempted to hire around 10 ot…

I don't know what's worse: Theo taking a curse-laden, insult dump on everyone who opposes him, or the faithful who spread it around.

>Theo taking a curse-laden, insult dump on everyone who opposes him

Could you point me to the part where that happened? I thought I read the whole thing but I can't seem to find anything like that.

Re: Bitrig 1.0 Released – OpenBSD fork

#16

Post by RexRollman »

JJAP wrote: post #11
hhw wrote: post #9

There was a discussion about this on the OpenBSD misc mailing archives back in 2012: http://marc.info/?t=133961305400003&r=1&w=2 Theo's initial response to the thread, which may help illuminate the situation, was: "Except for the fact that it is bullshit. They started the fork because they got kicked out because one developer (Marco) hired 5 other developers for his startup company, and attempted to hire around 10 ot…

I don't know what's worse: Theo taking a curse-laden, insult dump on everyone who opposes him, or the faithful who spread it around.

Theo's thoughts do pass through a dick-filter, there is no denying that, but he is almost always right in what he is saying.

As far as Bitrig is concerned, I don't see the point in it. The FAQ doesn't say anything that makes me want to try it and, although they say they want to support only modern systems, it seems to me that what they are really doing is limiting themselves to what LLVM supports.

Re: Bitrig 1.0 Released – OpenBSD fork

#18

Post by sigzero »

JJAP wrote: post #11
hhw wrote: post #9

There was a discussion about this on the OpenBSD misc mailing archives back in 2012: http://marc.info/?t=133961305400003&r=1&w=2 Theo's initial response to the thread, which may help illuminate the situation, was: "Except for the fact that it is bullshit. They started the fork because they got kicked out because one developer (Marco) hired 5 other developers for his startup company, and attempted to hire around 10 ot…

I don't know what's worse: Theo taking a curse-laden, insult dump on everyone who opposes him, or the faithful who spread it around.

You mean like Linus?

Re: Bitrig 1.0 Released – OpenBSD fork

#19

Post by sigzero »

danudey wrote: post #7
adamnemecek wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"With the goal of bringing more experimental development to the OpenBSD code base, a few developers have announced a fork named Bitrig. According to their FAQ, Bitrig aims to build a small system targeting only modern hardware and "be a very commercially friendly code base by using non-viral licenses where possible." Their first step toward that goal was removing GCC in favor of LLVM/Clang. The project roadmap shows…

Portability and modernity instead of a security focus? I'm not sure why I would use a fork of OpenBSD instead of just FreeBSD though. I've always seen the primary benefits of OpenBSD as deriving from their obsessive focus on security, but if this fork isn't focussed on that I'm not sure what I gain vs. other BSDs that already have these goals and objectives in place/completed.

Exactly. OpenBSD is very specific in what it is. That description is more a description for a fork of FreeBSD or NetBSD.

Re: Bitrig 1.0 Released – OpenBSD fork

#20

Post by Danieru »

ausjke wrote: post #12
adamnemecek wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"With the goal of bringing more experimental development to the OpenBSD code base, a few developers have announced a fork named Bitrig. According to their FAQ, Bitrig aims to build a small system targeting only modern hardware and "be a very commercially friendly code base by using non-viral licenses where possible." Their first step toward that goal was removing GCC in favor of LLVM/Clang. The project roadmap shows…

I thought this is where NetBSD shines, why not just enhance NetBSD? or why pulling OpenBSD into embedded space?

Forking is the way of the BSDs. The BSD style is to develop the userland along with the kernel. Thus where Linux has multiple distro families BSD has full userland and kernel forks.
Post reply on HN