Live data from Hacker News

Theo de Raadt: "You've been smoking something mind altering" (2007)

marc.info

51–60 of 99 posts

Re: Theo de Raadt: "You've been smoking something mind altering" (2007)

#51
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for sharing the forbes link. From the link: "De Raadt says BSD could have become the world's most popular open source operating system, except that a lawsuit over BSD scared away developers, who went off to work on Linux and stayed there even after BSD was deemed legal." There is some truth to that. And who knows where BSDs might have been if the lawsuit never happened. However, I think Linux has always has an…

Ha! That’s some rose-colored-glasses view of BSD history. The lawsuit didn’t help. But the BSD developers shot themselves in the foot when they refused to support x86, referring to it as a “toy”. It wasn't until Linux came along and started eating up all of BSD's user base that they freaked out and decided x86 support might be a good idea. But by then it was too late.

> But the BSD developers shot themselves in the foot when they refused to support x86, referring to it as a “toy”.

When was that? Presumably wwaaaaaaaay before 386BSD was a thing right?

Re: Theo de Raadt: "You've been smoking something mind altering" (2007)

#52
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I mean, he was wrong, and I assume he knows he's wrong, and wouldn't say the same thing today. He's not dumb. Just this take is.

I’ll take someone who’s dumb over someone who is smart but rudely and confidently incorrect any day. Modesty, thoughtfulness, and kindness are too-undervalued virtues in our business.

I agree with everybody else who's wondered why this got posted today.

Re: Theo de Raadt: "You've been smoking something mind altering" (2007)

#53
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ll take someone who’s dumb over someone who is smart but rudely and confidently incorrect any day. Modesty, thoughtfulness, and kindness are too-undervalued virtues in our business.

I agree with everybody else who's wondered why this got posted today.

I too wonder why as it’s not news.

That said, I don’t know whether Theo has since “eaten crow” or has otherwise personally evolved.

Re: Theo de Raadt: "You've been smoking something mind altering" (2007)

#55
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha! That’s some rose-colored-glasses view of BSD history. The lawsuit didn’t help. But the BSD developers shot themselves in the foot when they refused to support x86, referring to it as a “toy”. It wasn't until Linux came along and started eating up all of BSD's user base that they freaked out and decided x86 support might be a good idea. But by then it was too late.

> But the BSD developers shot themselves in the foot when they refused to support x86, referring to it as a “toy”. When was that? Presumably wwaaaaaaaay before 386BSD was a thing right?

386BSD came out about the right time, but as noted, development was slow, and the original author abandoned it pretty quickly while at the same time Linux was actively gaining traction and growing rapidly.

Quotes below:

  "No one else saw the 386 as interesting. Berkeley had a myopic attitude toward PCs. They were just toys. No one would support Intel." ­— Jordan Hubbard [1]


  ---

   Jolitz's project, of course, found many people on the Net who didn't think it was just a toy. Once he put the source code on the Net, a bloom of enthusiasm spread through the universities and waystations of the world. People wanted to experiment with a high-grade OS and most could only afford relatively cheap hardware like the 386. Sure, places like Berkeley could get the government grant money and the big corporate donations, but 2,000-plus other schools were stuck waiting. Jolitz's version of 386BSD struck a chord.

  While news traveled quickly to some corners, it didn't reach Finland. Network Release 2 came in June 1991, right around the same time that Linus Torvalds was poking around looking for a high-grade OS to use in experiments. Jolitz's 386BSD came out about six months later as Torvalds began to dig into creating the OS he would later call Linux. Soon afterward, Jolitz lost interest in the project and let it lie, but others came along. In fact, two groups called NetBSD and FreeBSD sprang up to carry the torch.

  --- [2]
[1] https://www.doc-reform.org/spine/en/html/free_for_all.peter_...

[2] https://www.sisudoc.org/spine/en/html/free_for_all.peter_way...

Re: Theo de Raadt: "You've been smoking something mind altering" (2007)

#56
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for sharing the forbes link. From the link: "De Raadt says BSD could have become the world's most popular open source operating system, except that a lawsuit over BSD scared away developers, who went off to work on Linux and stayed there even after BSD was deemed legal." There is some truth to that. And who knows where BSDs might have been if the lawsuit never happened. However, I think Linux has always has an…

Ha! That’s some rose-colored-glasses view of BSD history. The lawsuit didn’t help. But the BSD developers shot themselves in the foot when they refused to support x86, referring to it as a “toy”. It wasn't until Linux came along and started eating up all of BSD's user base that they freaked out and decided x86 support might be a good idea. But by then it was too late.

I don't recall them refusing to support x86, but BSD development was mostly done by academics rewriting and improving AT&T UNIX, which was mostly on big iron systems of the time. They were focused on academic computer science work. The lawsuits stopped a lot of BSD work as the universities were sorting it all out. William and Lynne Jolitz start porting 4.3BSD to the Intel 80386 at Berkeley in 1989 (but the code wasn't released for years due to said lawsuit) before Linux existed. That is the first BSD-on-x86 work; by December 1990 they had contributed a working port to UCB. Most of the code didn't see the light of day until ~1992.

Also, usable and production ready BSDs were running large websites on x86 long before linux became mainstream and well-supported enough to be used. The BSD TCP/IP stack was the reference implementation for ages and BSD was heavily used in the internet's early days as a lot of early companies spun out of Californian universities. Hotmail ran on FreeBSD. Early SunOS variants were based off of BSD, as were some other commercial unixes.

The bigger killer, I think, is that BSD was (and still has) a bit of closed mindset to newcomers and were and are more conservative to new technology, despite some foundations of techbeing started with them. Docker's origins can be directly traced to FreeBSD jails. Sometimes the conservatism is warranted and a benefit (eg OpenSSH).

Re: Theo de Raadt: "You've been smoking something mind altering" (2007)

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's one of Theo's more famous dismissals/takedowns.

Some people keep classic flames alive to deploy in times of need. Theo's good, but he can't hold a candle to the late Marc Cripsin railing about emacs line-mode-visual. Grr. https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/comments/1tf1iy/imap_inventor... >From: Mark Crispin, To: comp.lang.emacs >What mindless cretin thought that it should be a good idea to make line-move-visual be the default in emacs 23? I just found out about this…

Another classic. About the X11 selection mechanism

https://github.com/porridgewithraisins/x11cp/blob/main/rant

Re: Theo de Raadt: "You've been smoking something mind altering" (2007)

#58
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people keep classic flames alive to deploy in times of need. Theo's good, but he can't hold a candle to the late Marc Cripsin railing about emacs line-mode-visual. Grr. https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/comments/1tf1iy/imap_inventor... >From: Mark Crispin, To: comp.lang.emacs >What mindless cretin thought that it should be a good idea to make line-move-visual be the default in emacs 23? I just found out about this…

i don't know that crispin rant sounds pretty reasonable to me. it's not insulting and the argument is coherent. he has a point.

Theo's rant about what a hypocritical idiot ESR is also sounds pretty reasonable to me: he has a good point.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48883342

ESR's free to make ridiculous laws about eyeballs that aren't true and nobody follows while never actually reviewing any code himself (except for the climate scientists' code which he totally misunderstood and dishonestly misrepresented), but blaming it on Linus was a dick mode.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond#Climategate

>During the Climategate fiasco, Raymond's ability to read other peoples' source code (or at least his honesty about it) was called into question when he was caught quote-mining analysis software written by the CRU researchers, presenting a commented-out section of source code used for analyzing counterfactuals as evidence of deliberate data manipulation. When confronted with the fact that scientists as a general rule are scrupulously honest, Raymond claimed it was a case of an "error cascade," a concept that makes sense in computer science and other places where all data goes through a single potential failure point, but in areas where outside data and multiple lines of evidence are used for verification, doesn't entirely make sense. (He was curiously silent when all the researchers involved were exonerated of scientific misconduct.)

porridgeraisin: Speaking of ICCCM (aka I39L) and X11 selections, have you seen David Rosenthal's glorious rant about the Sun Desktop that somebody leaked to the unix-haters mailing list (who, moi?), which comes straight from the author of the ICCCM and co-developer of Andrew, X10, X11, and NeWS. The Roy Lichtenstein line is classic. What he's touching on by "Why can't they just shut up and do their job efficiently and inconspicuously?" is Mark Weiser's "Ubiquitous/Calm Computing". He's married to Mark's widow Victoria Reich, and they both work on LOCKSS ("Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_S._H._Rosenthal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOCKSS

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44045304

    PS - I notice that someone filed a bug today pointing out
    that even your example of dropping a mail message on CM
    doesn't work if CM is closed.  That's a symptom of the kind
    of arrogance that all the deskset tools seem to show -
    they're so whizzy and important that they deserve acres of
    screen real estate.  Why can't they just shut up and do
    their job efficiently and inconspicuously?  Why do they have
    to shove their bells and whistles in my face all the time?

    They're like 50's American cars - huge and covered with
    fins.  What I want is more like a BMW, small, efficient,
    elegant and understated.  Your focus on the whizzy demos may
    look great at trade shows, but who wants to have their tools
    screaming at them for attention all the time?  It's like
    having a Roy Lichtenstein painting on your bedroom wall.
Check out his blog, recently he's been writing about his introduction to computer graphics, hacking late at night in the basement of the lab on the PDP-7 connected to the Titan at Cambridge University, and how Coprophagia Is Bad For You! He was employee #4 at NVIDIA.

https://blog.dshr.org/

>We managed to get the game to be sort-of playable provided you let the machine win.

Re: Theo de Raadt: "You've been smoking something mind altering" (2007)

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

There are many extremely competent engineers who can’t deal with the idea of exposing themselves to public humiliation. That’s especially true in today’s environment where these kind of bully rants have become a spectacle for outsiders. Just google the name of the person who was the subject to one of Linus’ rants about a year ago. Despite being a very accomplished figure in the RISC-V world, top results for his name…

> It’s perfectly possible to critique without being a bully.

Yep. And it's perfectly possible to accept being called stupid, if you truly did do something boneheaded. It's not a permanent scar that ruins the rest of your life, as you seem to believe.

> What Theo and Linus are doing wrong is scaring away a large pool of potential contributors who don’t want to take that risk.

Good riddance.

Post reply on HN