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

151–160 of 193 posts

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

#151

Post by dcrazy »

wtetzner wrote: post #111
Panino wrote: post #73

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/se…

> 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 This appears to match "normal" `rsync` behavior as well. I think you need a trailing slash after `services` to sync only the contents. EDIT: actually my "normal" rsync is openrsync on macOS...

Nonetheless, this matches vanilla rsync.

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

#152

Post by em-bee »

kbenson wrote: post #149
kbenson wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't, since we're not implementing a UI from scratch, we're matching something else. Of the two possible worlds where in one this reimplementation matches what some see as annoyances in the interface or in another they mostly match the interface except for a few cases where the purposefully diverge (for no good technical reason), IMO the latter is far worse and causes more enexpected behavior. At most, add a spec…

To be absolutely clear, since on reading this later it may come across as me masquerading as part of the OpenBSD project, I am not affiliated with them. My "We don't" was in response to "If we have a chance to change rsync defaults" which we, as the general public and users (and very likely also any reimplementors) don't have that chance, because rsync has a solid UI that people and tools have integrated for over a d…

you responded to a comment that states "we should", your comment is a clear response to that. at least i understood it as intended.

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

#153

Post by throwaway27448 »

somat wrote: post #118
throwaway27448 wrote: post #101

I'm confused. Isn't rsync already free software? What are we doing here. Why are we trying to cuck ourselves for capital. I like open bsd but this just seems like burning cash

My understanding is that much of the point of openrsync is to create a second implementation of a protocol so the standards bodies don't balk at including it in their standards. Or to put it more concretely, people working on the rpki standard(who happened to also be openbsd devs) wanted to use rsync to transfer bulk data. The standards body was hesitant, while rsync is ostensibly a documented protocol, there was onl…

Why would we explicitly develop code legally available to capital?

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

#154

Post by port11 »

trollbridge wrote: post #137

Given the sudden spike in vibe-coded commits to the rsync codebase, and regressions that’s introduced, this is very good news.

I was prepared to dismiss your comment because rsync has always been rock solid, but indeed upgrading broke my backup script. The latest issue on GitHub documents plenty of bugs introduced in the last 2 patches, including a monstrous ~9k LOC commit that was probably pointless.

LLMs make writing code faster/easier, but the thinking was always the important bit. I’ve no idea why you’d muck up such a long-standing, reliable piece of software.

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

#155

Post by sudoshred »

krelas wrote: post #136
wtetzner wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 This appears to match "normal" `rsync` behavior as well. I think you need a trailing slash after `services` to sync only the contents. EDIT: actually my "normal" rsync is openrsync on macOS...

This switch happened in macOS 15.4, it was pretty easy to miss.

sounds like a compliment to the implementation

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

#156

Post by BoingBoomTschak »

Since I switched my VPS to OpenBSD (base only), I've been "forced" to handle openrsync and it has been mostly a drop-in. Except a problem where I couldn't mix `--exclude glob` and `--delete` on the client, no problem to report.

Thanks for the various vibecoding posts, I wasn't aware of the extent of it. Some prior HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48334021

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

#157

Post by [deleted] »

skeledrew wrote: post #114
einpoklum wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about the attempt to avoid things that use AI promiscuously and start exhibiting bugs? :-(

Push for better guardrails and QA structures. Avoidance helps nobody in the long run, and isn't possible anyway without going completely cold turkey. Like literally in a few months every project worth using will directly or indirectly involve AI.

[deleted]

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

#159

Post by mike_hock »

> If the source or destination is on a remote server, the client then fork(2)s and starts the server openrsync on the remote host over ssh(1). The client and the server subsequently communicate over socketpair(2) pipes.

How is that supposed to work? I guess they mean something like, the forked child forwards the connection to the parent using a socket pair, or just connects its stdout/stdin to the socketpair "pipe" (socket) and execs ssh.

But that's like saying you're going to Australia by car when you mean you're driving to the airport.

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

#160

Post by reverius42 »

throwaway27448 wrote: post #153
somat wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that much of the point of openrsync is to create a second implementation of a protocol so the standards bodies don't balk at including it in their standards. Or to put it more concretely, people working on the rpki standard(who happened to also be openbsd devs) wanted to use rsync to transfer bulk data. The standards body was hesitant, while rsync is ostensibly a documented protocol, there was onl…

Why would we explicitly develop code legally available to capital?

Are you new to the concept of open source? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

There's some discussion here that might help answer your question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source#Economics

Post reply on HN