4 ms·

He's talking specifically about OpenBSD base. Unless you can point to a rust binary in OpenBSD that Theo forgot about, he's not wrong. i386 is relevant because

by _jal 9y ago

He's talking specifically about OpenBSD base. Unless you can point to a rust binary in OpenBSD that Theo forgot about, he's not wrong. i386 is relevant because OpenBSD supports i386.

HelloNurse 9y ago
And if the end user is unable to compile everything, i386 would be only half-supported (or maybe, for the austere OpenBSD maintainers, not supported at all).
masklinn 9y ago
> He's talking specifically about OpenBSD base. No, he is very explicitly saying that > There has been no attempt […] provide replacements for base POSIX utilities. Which once again is categorically false, a github repository purporting to do exactly that has been provided. > i386 is relevant because OpenBSD supports i386. i386 is supported, the issue is compiling the compiler on i386.
- cat199 9y ago
  > i386 is supported, the issue is compiling the compiler on i386. which is required for the system to be self hosting seriously - what is being said is this: " oh hey lets throw away the functional and perfectly good entire base set of utilities for this 1/2 complete project on github using a language that doesn't even natively build on all of our supported platforms and wouldn't even remove the need for a C compliler in base, and further complicate the base toolchain, not to mention breaking all kinds of other builds which use shell utilities expecting certain behavior, etc ,etc, etc, because somone thought it would be 'neat' to do this. And whyyyy aren't you taking me serously??? " every few days (hours?) some noobish person desides to ask some fantasy question about whatever topic of interest they are noobing about on openbsd (and other OS) discussion lists, and then gets whiny when they are being called out for being 'green' about life itself. this is another of those cases, and I have no idea why it got crossposted here or upvoted.
  - _jal 9y ago
    Thank you for saving me the trouble of writing that.
  - rrix2 9y ago
    > every few days (hours?) some noobish person desides to ask some fantasy question about whatever topic of interest they are noobing about on openbsd (and other OS) discussion lists, and then gets whiny when they are being called out for being 'green' about life itself. this is another of those cases, and I have no idea why it got crossposted here or upvoted. this sort of attitude is astoundingly hostile and toxic for an open source community to hold.
    - kelnos 9y ago
      I agree, but understand how tiresome it can get when people who -- understandably -- don't know any better do a drive-by of your project and suggest things, things which have often already been discussed to death, or don't even need to be discussed because anyone knowledgeable about the project would immediately see there's no need for discussion. Now, that doesn't mean that a hostile rebuff is required or good policy, but random people who actually do not know what they are talking about, and haven't taken the time to learn enough to know what they're talking about, don't really deserve a long, in-depth, drawn out rebuttal or discussion.
- axlprose 9y ago
  > There has been no attempt to move the smallest parts of the ECOSYSTEM to provide replacements for base POSIX utilities. You deliberately cut out the part which states he's talking about the ecosystem of OpenBSD, in an OpenBSD mailing list. That is an extremely disingenuous and uncharitable cherry-picked interpretation. He was categorically talking about efforts to port OpenBSD utilities to such a language and merge them into the project (i.e. the OpenBSD ecosystem). What you're suggesting he said is just plain FUD.

by _jal 9y ago

He's talking specifically about OpenBSD base. Unless you can point to a rust binary in OpenBSD that Theo forgot about, he's not wrong. i386 is relevant because OpenBSD supports i386.

HelloNurse 9y ago

And if the end user is unable to compile everything, i386 would be only half-supported (or maybe, for the austere OpenBSD maintainers, not supported at all).

masklinn 9y ago

> He's talking specifically about OpenBSD base. No, he is very explicitly saying that > There has been no attempt […] provide replacements for base POSIX utilities. Which once again is categorically false, a github repository purporting to do exactly that has been provided. > i386 is relevant because OpenBSD supports i386. i386 is supported, the issue is compiling the compiler on i386.

cat199 9y ago
> i386 is supported, the issue is compiling the compiler on i386. which is required for the system to be self hosting seriously - what is being said is this: " oh hey lets throw away the functional and perfectly good entire base set of utilities for this 1/2 complete project on github using a language that doesn't even natively build on all of our supported platforms and wouldn't even remove the need for a C compliler in base, and further complicate the base toolchain, not to mention breaking all kinds of other builds which use shell utilities expecting certain behavior, etc ,etc, etc, because somone thought it would be 'neat' to do this. And whyyyy aren't you taking me serously??? " every few days (hours?) some noobish person desides to ask some fantasy question about whatever topic of interest they are noobing about on openbsd (and other OS) discussion lists, and then gets whiny when they are being called out for being 'green' about life itself. this is another of those cases, and I have no idea why it got crossposted here or upvoted.
- _jal 9y ago
  Thank you for saving me the trouble of writing that.
- rrix2 9y ago
  > every few days (hours?) some noobish person desides to ask some fantasy question about whatever topic of interest they are noobing about on openbsd (and other OS) discussion lists, and then gets whiny when they are being called out for being 'green' about life itself. this is another of those cases, and I have no idea why it got crossposted here or upvoted. this sort of attitude is astoundingly hostile and toxic for an open source community to hold.
  - kelnos 9y ago
    I agree, but understand how tiresome it can get when people who -- understandably -- don't know any better do a drive-by of your project and suggest things, things which have often already been discussed to death, or don't even need to be discussed because anyone knowledgeable about the project would immediately see there's no need for discussion. Now, that doesn't mean that a hostile rebuff is required or good policy, but random people who actually do not know what they are talking about, and haven't taken the time to learn enough to know what they're talking about, don't really deserve a long, in-depth, drawn out rebuttal or discussion.
axlprose 9y ago
> There has been no attempt to move the smallest parts of the ECOSYSTEM to provide replacements for base POSIX utilities. You deliberately cut out the part which states he's talking about the ecosystem of OpenBSD, in an OpenBSD mailing list. That is an extremely disingenuous and uncharitable cherry-picked interpretation. He was categorically talking about efforts to port OpenBSD utilities to such a language and merge them into the project (i.e. the OpenBSD ecosystem). What you're suggesting he said is just plain FUD.