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

201–210 of 267 posts

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

#201

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

magic_quotes wrote: post #198
LargoLasskhyfv wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on your use-case, i guess. If my intent would be using FreeBSD as my daily-driver "desktop/laptop-OS" i'd avoid NVIDIA like the plague, becaue without CUDA their unique selling point does not exist, but the hassle of some "switcheroo-black-magic" possibly persists. Which i wouldn't have with an intel-gpu, also less power draw. Even AMD is often supported in a better way, be it opensourced, or relying on th…

> Even AMD is often supported in a better way, be it opensourced, or relying on their binary blob. AMD binary blob? You mean that amdgpu-pro thing? That doesn't exist on FreeBSD.

Maybe not the latest and greatest "Pro", but otherwise?

https://wiki.freebsd.org/Graphics/AMD-GPU-Matrix

edit: maybe should have added https://www.x.org/wiki/RadeonFeature/#index5h2 too

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

#202

Post by hedora »

int_19h wrote: post #176
greggyb wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that the parent is saying that "trying OpenBSD" is a "one evening project". The installation should be complete within just a couple minutes.

I don't see how one could try OpenBSD, and derive any conclusions other than, "oh great, yet another Unix", in a single evening.

To get it working at all, you have to find the manual.

Once you find the manual, you’ll realize it’s well-documented and simple, and that simply using it has great educational value.

If those things don’t appeal to you, it’s probably not the OS for you. It takes about an evening to figure this out, in my experience.

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

#203

Post by hedora »

dijit wrote: post #98
type0 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BSDs are mundane and also stable, not like some rolling linux distros

The bsds are actually less stable than Linux. Stable meaning changes, in this context, right? freeBSD changes ABI compatibility with every version. If you mean that they have old software (and old==stable if you think Debian) then that’s because of BSD licensing vs GPL. GPL can take from BSD but the other way around is not possible. Stability of uptime? Yeah, they’re rock solid.

How about stability of user interface?

More of what I learned using Linux 0.99 applies to present-day OpenBSD than present-day Linux, and I can’t think of any breaking changes specific to the Linux side that weren’t clear regressions (except apt and dpkg. Those rock.)

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

#204

Post by philosopher1234 »

yfiapo wrote: post #30
mikorym wrote: post #23

Is there any more context to OP's post? I guess someone just noticed in the mailing list, but it's not clear whether maybe John Carmark does this with all code everywhere in the universe. And then probably still has some interesting coffee break conversations... On a different note. I am something of a Ubuntu fan and try to be more involved there. But then again the xBSDs where x = {Free, Open, Net, ...} are one of t…

I don't see any additional context but this does appear to be a new thing. Two commits credited to Carmack in the OpenBSD source and they are dated 5/16/2020 and 5/17/2020.

where are those commits? I didn't see anything credited to carmack on those dates. Must've missed them. Would be curious to see!

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

#205

Post by tachyonbeam »

jlengrand wrote: post #43
yuribro wrote: post #32

This is such a positive and wholesome example - both the mail itself (getting to know the preferences of the project), the proposed fixes (naming functions in a better way, adding explanatory comments), and on the higher level - the humility in which it was done, and the time being invested by him for a project he isn't part of.

My thoughts as well. Gentle suggestion, looking into other's suggestions first. Everything is there.

An interesting contrast from the Torvalds approach. I seriously think this is a huge part of why John Carmack is so popular. He's always kind to people, and very keen on sharing useful information.

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

#206

Post by hackmiester »

hedora wrote: post #202
int_19h wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how one could try OpenBSD, and derive any conclusions other than, "oh great, yet another Unix", in a single evening.

To get it working at all, you have to find the manual. Once you find the manual, you’ll realize it’s well-documented and simple, and that simply using it has great educational value. If those things don’t appeal to you, it’s probably not the OS for you. It takes about an evening to figure this out, in my experience.

But those things apply to Linux distributions too, e.g., Debian.

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

#207

Post by ender341341 »

thisrod wrote: post #186
yuribro wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would suggest to just install OpenBSD and try it (maybe in a VM?), one of the selling points is the simplicity of the setup process. It can be a one evening project.

> 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…

> 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?

I don't think he's suggesting that as the long term way to use it but as an introduction to the system.

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

#208

Post by hedora »

sgt101 wrote: post #52

Also he's had a look at the Imperial COVID19 model that has attracted so much bile in the last week: https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/1254872368763277313... I share his opinion on the code (though not his expertise!)

> I can’t vouch for the actual algorithms, but the software engineering seems fine.

I also looked at the code a bit, and it seemed like typical bad natural sciences / electrical engineering grad student code that could have as easily been done the same way in matlab or python (or, as Carmak suggested, fortran).

I guess I’m in good company in thinking it was ok-ish, so now I’ll ask.

Why are people so upset with this code base / the choice of C++?

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

#209

Post by catblast »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #183
larrydag wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OSX roots are in BSD https://www.wired.com/2013/08/jordan-hubbard/

Yeah, but the "normal" BSDs just ship an X server out of the box; no need to port anything. (It remains curious to me that Apple bothered writing Quartz from the ground up, actually; seems like it would've been easier to build on top of X.)

Building on X gets you very little other than compatibility with the X ecosystem - something that had little to no value to Apple - they certainly didn't want to promote OSX as some kind of Xserver in place of writing quality Mac apps.

Note that with current X, HiDPI and multi-monitor and tear-free experience still have problems and they are handled via a morass of legacy extensions of varying design quality (this is aside from the drivers issue)-- when OS X was started, none of these existed except maybe DBE and a nascent RANDR (there was no COMPOSITE, no RENDER, RANDR vs very primitive), I think there was the Xinerama crap that no one uses anymore because it is terrible.

So they would have had to develop that, for what benefit? What does X get you out of the box? A drawing model that was outdated even by 1995 standards. And network transparency? Everytime these discussions come up, somebody brings this up, and I wonder what drugs they are on. The love by some for the X network model has always baffled me, because it is terrible - it has virtually no practical usability for modern drawing models and compositing, and the worst is it isn't robust - lose your TCP connection, goodbye session! X hits #1 and #2 of the "Fallacies of distributed computing" pretty hard.

RDP, VNC, SPICE are what we use today, for very good reasons.

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

#210

Post by wilsonthewhale »

hackmiester wrote: post #206
hedora wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To get it working at all, you have to find the manual. Once you find the manual, you’ll realize it’s well-documented and simple, and that simply using it has great educational value. If those things don’t appeal to you, it’s probably not the OS for you. It takes about an evening to figure this out, in my experience.

But those things apply to Linux distributions too, e.g., Debian.

Having experienced both operating systems, Debian gets nowhere close. The Debian wiki is full of outdated articles.

OpenBSD's manual pages and online FAQ combined have never failed to answer a question I've had about the base system. It's really that good.

The ArchWiki is close behind in usefulness, but that's maintained by its community and article quality varies.

Post reply on HN