Some would rather nitpick this interview than see the good in it. This is disappointing considering it covers practical and useful topics.
- Ted's progression from first time user to contributor. Start with small diffs in an area you're interested in, and build up if you can.
- Re-factoring programs with a strong emphasis on maintenance and security. Technical debt is real, and you certainly don't want it in an OS.
- Balancing more menial tasks (maintenance to the existing platform) with interesting additions (new security techniques).
The peace of mind from knowing an upgrade won't break or fail, and that security is taken seriously is refreshing. Give OpenBSD a shot, read some of the source or man 9 style (it's more informative than HN arguments).
You both answered my question, thanks. I did a cursory Google search and could not determine why this developer would garner any more interest than others interviewed in this series, for example.
As I said before, OpenBSD prefers to move a little slow. This has saved us a lot of wasted effort chasing the latest fad, only to switch directions a year later. At the same time, in order to stay relevant and not fall too far behind, we have to guess what’s a passing fad and what’s an inevitable change.
"Slow" and "internet" don't go well together in a sentence. Can you imagine taking this "slow" approach as a startup? You'd be left behind in a jiffy! I guess a not-for-profit mentality shields you from obsolescence. That and the NSA has saved OpenBSD big time.
This is a bit disingenuous and you probably know it. Not everything in the world is about startups, and OpenBSD would do just fine without the recent Internet security news.
Can you really blame a project for being ahead of the curve on security? Is that really your point?
Startups aside, how come OpenBSD hasn't made strides in virtualization (not counting QEMU)? Virtualization isn't a fad. Can you imagine OpenBSD as a virtualization host? I'd switch in a heart beat. Can you really justify not being virtualization-ready in 2015/2016?
I use Linux as a VM platform but I've donated to OpenBSD because I've always rooted for them. I'm just disappointed they haven't done much in this area.
You are absolutely deluded, if not stupid, if you think that a worldwide collection of software engineers who can't write operating systems or applications without security holes, can then turn around and suddenly write virtualization layers without security holes. --Theo de Raadt
Slow is not bad. Try to make a revolution doesn't always change things in the long run. However, if you try evolution, things can be improved with small steps, but can achieve impressive results in the long run.
The world is more than Silicon Valley startups.
While everyone is still using OpenSSL, they made LibreSSL that is slowly taking over the world. For examle, Apple imported the project into their version of OpenSSH.
> "Slow" and "internet" don't go well together in a sentence. Can you imagine taking this "slow" approach as a startup? You'd be left behind in a jiffy! I guess a not-for-profit mentality shields you from obsolescence. That and the NSA has saved OpenBSD big time.
Yes, I could imagine it. Your revolutionary idea can be implemented with slow, steady technology. I hear tell that a couple of guys even used an old language like Lisp to implement a startup. Might even be cool to implement boring techniques for storing passwords.
Confusing revolutionary business objectives with revolutionary technology is probably a red flag.
- Ted's progression from first time user to contributor. Start with small diffs in an area you're interested in, and build up if you can.
- Re-factoring programs with a strong emphasis on maintenance and security. Technical debt is real, and you certainly don't want it in an OS.
- Balancing more menial tasks (maintenance to the existing platform) with interesting additions (new security techniques).
The peace of mind from knowing an upgrade won't break or fail, and that security is taken seriously is refreshing. Give OpenBSD a shot, read some of the source or man 9 style (it's more informative than HN arguments).