3 ms·
I like openbsd for what it is, but they do have a tendency to imply or outright say that the thing they just did is something they invented. Like when they lau
by knorker 3y ago
I like openbsd for what it is, but they do have a tendency to imply or outright say that the thing they just did is something they invented.
Like when they launched W^X (which isn't even an accurate term, because that implies that read-only non-execute pages don't exist), they basically claimed to have invented it. And they said that it was "impossible" to do on 32bit x86. Which was a surprise for those of us who had been running that on 32bit x86 for years, using grsec patches.
They defended themselves for this mis-statement by saying that they don't look at what other OSs, like Linux, do. Fair enough, but don't say you're the first to do it, then.
OpenBSD was late to the game of multiprocessing, deliberately ignoring multi-CPU machines. They only had to change their minds when suddenly consumer CPUs started being multi-core/multi-threaded. And since they have fewer developers (and not a focus on performance), they've understandably been lagging behind in this space.
- daneel_w 3y ago> "OpenBSD was late to the game of multiprocessing, deliberately ignoring multi-CPU machines. They only had to change their minds when suddenly consumer CPUs started being multi-core/multi-threaded." Which seems like an entirely reasonable choice if they felt there were bigger priorities. OpenBSD received SMP support in November 2004, right at the same time as the first mainstream dual-core CPU arrived on the market. I get what you mean by "late to the game", but I also feel that it's not really a fitting statement.
- knorker 3y agoYes, I said they focus on other things. It's not criticism. But it is true that they dismissed SMP, and did not see dual-core coming. They were late because they were reacting to dual core launching. > I also feel that it's not really a fitting statement. In what way? Linux got it almost a decade before that. Windows NT got it more than a decade before OpenBSD. SunOS approaching 15 years before OpenBSD. ChatGPT claims Mac OS X got it in 1999 with Mac OS X Server, but I could not immediately confirm that one. Again, this is not criticism. But I don't see how it would be inaccurate to say they were late, when I think they were literally last.
- daneel_w 3y ago> "In what way?" They were last, but not late. SMP in the x86 world was miniscule in terms of multi-CPU setups. It didn't "happen" until the multi-core era, and OpenBSD was well in time for that.
- knorker 3y agoI think you're nitpicking semantics, and don't know what your point is. Anyway, this is not a productive semantics debate. Have a nice weekend.
- daneel_w 3y agoIf you were the last person to get to the train station but the train still hadn't left, then you really were not late for the train.