[dijit]

I like openbsd. I like their attitude (even if many don’t) I like what they’ve given to the UNIX-likes, and what they strip away due to complexity (removal of Bluetooth) or lack of decent UX (wpa_supplicant), or just potential issues (removal of Hyperthreading)

I know it’s probably controversial to mention it; but I’m also glad they didn’t buy into the code of conduct saga that waved over FreeBSD and eventually Linux.

I’ve used the OS as a daily driver, it certainly was nice, albeit slow. I would go back if I could avoid some of the Linux/MacOS stuff I really need. I still use it on personal servers and I still really love it.

I send them €50/mo but I don’t feel like it’s enough. I wish they had more resources to bring things like AC Wi-Fi to the fold. Truly impressive work to all involved.

[wrycoder]

I don't think there are many who send €50/mo, kudos to you! Few of their corporate users give much back at all.

I used OpenBSD as my workstation a decade ago and also ran it on a firewall box. However, upgrading the system every six months is tedious: basically, you manually download the files, overwrite the kernel and userland core, and then do a three way merge of /etc. Plus there's a bit of manual work required to deleted unused files and account for moved files:

https://www.openbsd.org/faq/upgrade65.html

After that, you still have to upgrade the ports tree (which has gotten easier).

Note that skipping upgrades is not supported.

Security updates between the six month upgrades are handled by monitoring the security list and downloading and applying patches as instructed.

If you are running a bunch of identical servers professionally, it's not much of a burden, but it is if you are upgrading one workstation and a firewall box. I got tight on time and went back to Debian/apt.

Does anyone here know how to do this more efficiently?

(It is a really nice system, and the man pages are superb.)

[yjftsjthsd-h]

Somewhat like sibling comment, I'd be really tempted to put /home on its own filesystem, control/configure everything else with Ansible (or Chef or Puppet or [...]), and just do a fresh install every 6 months. For bonus points, automate the install part with an autoinstall file. Keep in mind, there's setup cost here; it's easy for me to say because I'm already controlling my system with Ansible, but if you're just getting started it's harder.

[gbmor]

Upgrades and errata have gotten much easier.

For example, running syspatch(8) automagically downloads and applies the errata patches.

To upgrade, just curl the new bsd.rd from a mirror, place it in /, reboot, and type `boot bsd.rd` at the boot prompt. Then follow the prompts. I do this on several VPSes via a VNC console. It doesn't take long at all.

Granted, for personal use, I've moved back to Debian as well.

[sirn]

In -current there’s sysupgrade(8) that handles the “download bsd.rd, boot bsd.rd, upgrade, sysmerge” steps automatically in an unattended manner.

[asveikau]

sysmerge has made the upgrade process a lot easier in the last several years. It was a lot more painful in the past.

[jammygit]

Is it easier or harder to just do a full reinstall and reconfigure it with a script (chef or something custom), while preserving your data directory?

[hackermailman]

Most OpenBSD developers know each other and meet on a regular basis so likely why no CoC is needed when there isn't dozens or hundreds of contributors that don't meet.

I miss OpenBSD for the certainty of what my system is doing, these other systems I have to use for work some intelligent process comes a long and rewrites my configs or something else annoying.

[umvi]

> but I’m also glad they didn’t buy into the code of conduct saga that waved over FreeBSD and eventually Linux.

I'm a bit out of the loop, but I thought it started with Linux because Linus swore/ranted/"abused" contributors or something? Or am I thinking of something else?

[dijit]

It’s fair to be out of the loop. I wish I was, because dissenting for any reason is seen as being a villain or a troll.

For a little context though the freebsd code of conduct was instantiated in 14th February 2018 - the Linux one was altered to be the current one on September 21st of the same year (which is when the Linux CoC controversy began).

[calcifer]

He was quite abusive actually, not "abusive".

[derefr]

You seem to be interpreting the parent as using scare-quotes to disagree with the idea that Linus's behavior was "abusive."

But the parent comment was, as far as I can tell, intending to use regular quotation marks, in the way a journalist does (and as I just did)—to mention what someone else said, without endorsing or denying that opinion as their own, in order to avoid an argument.

(Personally, I think more things people describe should be put in quotation marks. A lot of Internet arguments are started by people trying to argue others out of beliefs they don't actually personally have.)

[aaronbrethorst]

Quotes only work with attribution

[adrianratnapala]

Does OpenBSD have an alternative to wpa_supplicant?

I've been using wpa_supplicant under the hood for ages, but only recently learned anything about it... and it's actually very good, except that it's CLI interface is so low-level and difficult to use.

[octotoad]

Its standard ifconfig handles all the equivalent functionality.

[dTal]

I don't use OpenBSD for various functionality-related reasons, but experiencing that was an eye-opener. It makes me mad that Linux doesn't use such a clearly superior system, and leads one to wonder what other needlessly complex interfaces we put up with unquestioningly.

[microcolonel]

There are things other than wpa_supplicant, but wpa_supplicant is just sorta "good enough", everything generally works. It's a different approach.

For me, my OpenBSD moment was when I used the backlight brightness keys on a laptop in a vt, and it Just Worked™.

[adrianratnapala]

I would put it the other way around. wpa_supplicant is actually very good at doing what it does. But rolling it's functionality into ifconfig is probably "good enough".

wpa_supplicant is an application of the "do one thing" philosophy. The kernel provides a some basic hardware-abstracted plumbing which lets a specialist tool do all the complicated handshaking and what-not for wireless.

This saves the basic tools (ifconfig, ip) from having to build in all that wireless complexity. But it does introduce an extra moving part that has to be configured. For this reason, just bloating it into the basic tool is likely to be good enough, and also provider a superior UX (for nerds like us).

[throwaway2048]

This isn't quite accurate, you need wpa_supplicant for 802.1X authentication aka "WPA Enterprise" (typically only really seen in schools or very corporate environments).

But on OpenBSD thats the only thing it handles, its not an otherwise generic WiFi manager like on linux.

[elagost]

wpa_gui does come with wpa_supplicant in many distributions and is easy enough to configure. This helped me configure it: https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-953484-start-0.html

[somacert]

Openbsd has a code of conduct. It's been there a while.

https://www.openbsd.org/mail.html

only half joking

[yjftsjthsd-h]

I can support a CoC that opens with, "Plain text, 72 characters per line". Standards™!

[microcolonel]

> Intelligent people may look at the same set of facts and come to very different conclusions. Repeating the same points that didn't convince someone previously rarely changes their mind, and irritates all the other readers.

This one is crucial. I see so little respect for tolerance around various projects these days.

[cpach]

What is it that you don’t like regarding CoC?

[dijit]

I wrote a blog post about it but it was used against me by an interviewer at riot games. So I unpublished it.

Essentially it boils down to outlawing vague arrays of behaviour that can apply to essentially anyone and thus must be selectively enforced. I used examples from history surrounding vague laws and the implications that came from that (usually it’s the precursor to huge atrocities or totalitarian regimes. Although I’m certainly not saying they always are).

The wording for the freebsd code of conduct was the most troubling, if you take it at its letter then you basically shouldn’t (or can’t) have non-work discussions because any comment on appearance, lifestyle, diet or even sending “hug” without prior consent is verboten.

It’s also a list of things that are not allowed. Not a way of actually presenting yourself.

Some of the hacker news guidelines are a good example of the inverse: “assume good faith”

The thing is. It comes from a very US-centric political source (geekfeminism) and was barely given any time to be disseminated or discussed, so people were a bit sour- and the handling of criticism only made people more sour

Anyway. This thread doesn’t need us to digress into this topic, and we already have.

I shouldn’t have included that snippet in my comment. I know it’s controversial.

[orbifold]

Regarding commenting on other people’s appearance: this is something I find personally super tedious. When I am at work I really don’t want people to start commenting on my appearance, both negatively or positively.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

Yeah; without commenting on any specific CoC, I'm broadly quite in favor of officially discouraging using official project channels to discuss or say anything that's not explicitly about the project. It's not just a question of making people uncomfortable, it's just... irrelevant. You think there's an issue with a proposed refactoring? Great, let's hear it. You like someone else's new haircut? That's nice, but it is at best spam in project-specific channels.

[dijit]

CoC's apply to Conferences and out of band discussions in off-topic channels and PM's.

[tick_tock_tick]

Almost all of the CoCs being discussed here explicit make no distinction between project communication channels and general communication channels. In other words a comment you made on a generic social media account will see you removed from a project.

[dijit]

Do you not want it enough that it should be forbidden for anyone?

Maybe I come from a different culture (British) but it’s fairly common for people to find something they like about someone else and then comment on it. That can be appearance or other things.

For instance I was at google next last year and I told someone that they had a really nice t-shirt and enquired about where it was purchased. Did I make them uncomfortable?

If I didn’t, is it forbidden?

Does it matter at all to the progress of a project?

[aflag]

You must not work as a model.

[alexanderdmitri]

Or a view. Most likely a controller.

[ethbro]

Or in other words, a greater number of laws shifts power to the adjudicator, because eventually everyone is doing something illegal.

And when passes for illegal behavior become the norm for everyday functioning, whoever has the ability to give out passes becomes all-powerful.

Wheaton's law seems to suffice and produce more positive communities. If you find yourself needing to rules-lawyer your contributors -- maybe take a step back and solve some underlying issues instead?

[calcifer]

> I wrote a blog post about it but it was used against me by an interviewer at riot games.

Honestly? That sounds like the system is working as intended. I'm not from the US, never been there, and I wouldn't want the author of such a post on my team either.

[leftyted]

...you say this not having read the post or met the person who wrote it.

In theory I have nothing against codes of conduct. In practice they are too often vague and written by the perennially-offended.

[lone_haxx0r]

I'm not OP, but:

> Harassment includes but is not limited to: Comments that reinforce systemic oppression related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, [...].

-- FreeBSD CoC

Why even bring in the "systemic oppression" part? I can only assume that they'll be more lenient on disparaging comments that don't reinforce "systemic oppression", i.e. they'll apply "positive discrimination", otherwise it makes no sense to include such an expression in the CoC.

I refuse to participate in any project that discriminates people based on their personal traits, that includes "positive discrimination".

[klodolph]

> Why even bring in the "systemic oppression" part?

Because systematic oppression is more of a systemic problem. Individual problems are easier to solve than systemic problems, i.e, you don’t need a code of conduct to solve a problem with one or two people in your association. If you make one disparaging comment to someone, we can hope that they take that one comment in stride and move on. If you make a disparaging comment that reinforces systemic oppression, it’s no longer a single comment, but it’s part of a larger problem. The way these comments harm the group is that e.g. in response to low-level misogynistic comments, women silently leave the group. You might not even notice this happening until it is too late.

One of the core freedoms which is protected by the first amendment is the freedom of association, and a key part of that is the freedom not to associate with people you don’t like. If you don’t make an explicit choice about who you want in your association, the choice will be made for you by the most toxic members. So you are basically given a choice between an open code of conduct which people can discuss or comment on, or a secret/hidden network of people who make the decisions without any clear way to understand why they make these decisions or how to appeal them.

That’s just my take on it.

[scythe]

>you don’t need a code of conduct to solve a problem with one or two people in your association.

You absolutely need a code of conduct (laws) to solve a dispute between two people. That's the whole point of rules.

>If you make one disparaging comment to someone, we can hope that they take that one comment in stride and move on.

This isn't behavior that needs to be tolerated, especially not when the goal of the community is to write software.

[klodolph]

> You absolutely need a code of conduct (laws) to solve a dispute between two people. That's the whole point of rules.

This is so counter to my experiences that I have difficulty responding. Have you really never resolved a conflict without appeal to rules? I find this hard to understand.

Rules exist only because systemic problems motivated their creation. You see a sign that says “no dogs” not because dogs aren’t allowed, but because of some systemic problem with dogs in the past. We shouldn’t invent additional rules to solve problems that may or may not exist. That way lies ridiculous bureaucracy.

For example, some organizations (non-profits, HOAs, etc) adopt parliamentary procedure for their meetings. Some don’t. The fact that an organization adopts parliamentary procedures tells you that the specific organization has had problems with people disrupting meetings in the past, or that people in the organization had that problem in other orgs.

[0815test]

> Why even bring in the "systemic oppression" part?

'There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted, and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.'

[temp_884293]

I think things like this are stealth politics and/or propaganda.

> Harassment includes but is not limited to: Comments that reinforce systemic oppression related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, [...].

I translate this as: > words, words, words, message worded in such a way as to make it easy to accept and/or normalize, words, words, words

Systemic oppression in used in place of a lack of meaningful, quantified, real oppression. When oppression is your cause and you can't find it you image the structures of society itself are composed of it. Never mind that people are literally dying to come to your country to get some of that good systemic, institutional, oppression. When ideology becomes your religion nothing else matters.

[YUMad]

Because 'systemic oppression' is a made up concept, just like 'Jesus'. And just like Jesus, it's a guilt-exploiting profit- and power-seeking concept.

[dang]

We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [e-mail] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[dx87]

Last I saw, the FreeBSD code of conduct is a list of things you can't do, so it's easy to interpret that as "anything that isn't explicitily denied is allowed", and it only disallows negative comments that"reinforce systemic oppression" against certain groups (ignoring that opressed groups can vary across the globe). I don't use FreeBSD, so their CoC has no impact on me, but it's far from neutral.