Talk:OpenBSD/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Screenshots

I have added screenshots earlier and they have been removed; I don't disagree with the removal, as a screenshot doesn't really show anything intrinsic to the operating system. Perhaps we can get a final consensus here and now? Dysprosia 08:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that screenshots rarely show anything unique to the OS, but I have no objection to them being used - in moderation - to add a bit of colour to the page. Three or four reasonably interesting or relevent screenshots are fine, ten would be too many and a heap of Yay-This-Is-My-Desktop screenshots would be pointless. NicM 12:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

In this case nothing brazenly important can be shown, but requests were made to include a few screenshots of OpenBSD in action within the Peer Review and thus a couple have been made and put up for display. I will be putting up a login prompt and a booting screenshot as well, at which point I will remove Screenshots from the Desktop subsection of Uses and just let it be it's own section. While I don't have any particular interest in screenshots being shown - I had not put one up prior to the request - I don't mind adding them since mundane users of other operating systems that do not understand what most of this article describes will at least have the ability to see how differently OpenBSD can look as a contrast to say, Windows 98 or Mac OS X. Because of this mundane concern I am currently looking for a way to properly expand the Desktop section so that it better explains the seperation of X and underlying operating system. Janizary 15:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, those boot images are very illustrative. I've removed the JWM example since it's a bit "non-default", I hope you don't mind. Dysprosia 22:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I am going to be adding another couple screenshots in the near future to illustrate a couple different, non-GNOME and non-KDE environments, so it'd be better to keep that up if this turns out alright. Janizary 00:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't really know what use showing those environments would be other than to illustrate those environments (and not the operating system itself), since presumably those environments would look the same with a different underlying operating system. Such is the case with X. Dysprosia 03:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, that is exactly what I am hoping to show with these - that the operating system isn't dependent on a particular GUI. I will be expanding that Desktop part to try and use the two together to make sure any random person would understand that it is just another thing you can run on OpenBSD, not OpenBSD itself, and that you can make it look however the hell you please. Janizary 05:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

But that seems like a weak use for the pictures. Compared to the boot images which powerfully show what OpenBSD is like, one could potentially grab an image from some other window manager article and put it on the page and the reader would be none the wiser. I suppose I'm trying to say it seems like overkill for me, in the sense of just because Windows XP for example can be skinned and themed may not warrant images of a lot of these skins and themes. Dysprosia 06:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The JWM one has a neat custom backdrop. A couple of vanity pictures can't be any problem, just so long as it doesn't get excessive and the images are interesting. As far as Janizary's aims go, I question whether this article is the place to educate people in the facts of life (if it is, where are we going to stop? what about those who think FreeBSD is the same as OpenBSD? or that Gentoo portage came before *BSD ports? or that the standard shell is bash? are we going to spoonfeed this kind of stuff for everyone?). In any case, if it must be done, I think it may be best with a paragraph and two seperate screenshots (eg, KDE running on OpenBSD, KDE running on Linux) under the desktop section without mixing the point up with the existing screenshots. NicM 07:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC).

Licensing

"In addition, OpenBSD has a history of fighting for more liberally licenced releases of code. In the past, this stance has led to several conflicts. Some have resulted in developers completely replacing tools from the ground up. Others in the reshaping of an existing tool which is appropriately licenced but lacks functionality. Less frequently, although whenever possible, code has been relicenced by the copyright holders so as to fulfill the needs of the project."

I feel the above needs rewording. Originally the last line said "Less frequently, code has been relicenced by the copyright holders so as to fulfill the needs of the project." I've changed it because unless I'm mistaken the OpenBSD teams usually makes an attempt to have code relicensed but it often doesn't succeed. The original line IMHO appears to suggest the developers have frequently snubbed that route. However I still feel the wording is not accurate since IMHO it still doesn't accurately reflect the picture which as said, AFAIK is that the developers always do their best to relicense code but they are frequently unable to because the license holders refuse. Perhaps something like:

"In addition, OpenBSD has a history of fighting for more liberally licenced releases of code. In the past, this stance has led to several conflicts. Whenever possible, code has been relicenced by the copyright holders so as to fulfill the needs of the project. However this path has had limited success. In these instances, developers have completely replaced tools from the ground up or reshaped an existing tool which is appropriately licenced but lacks functionality."

What do you all think? It might still need a bit of work since it doesn't flow as nicely as I would like but AFAIK it more accurately reflects the situation Nil Einne 17:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

That is better. I say go for it, although I would soften it a little, eg "However, this path has sometimes had limited success." Also, you can't have instances without specifying of what, so perhaps "In instances where code was not able to be relicensed, ..." although this might sound a bit clumsy, perhaps "In some instances, ..." is best. NicM 19:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC).

On second thoughts, I would change it to:

"In addition, OpenBSD has a history of fighting for more liberally licenced releases of code. In the past, this stance has led to several conflicts. To allow code with an unsuitable licence to be used by the project, OpenBSD developers usually attempt to have it relicenced by the copyright holders. However, this path has sometimes had limited success. As an alternative, developers have completely replaced tools from the ground up or reshaped an existing tool which is appropriately licenced but lacks functionality."

NicM 19:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC).

GPL -- Why Not

After reading the article I got the impression that there is something wrong with code released under the GPL and that the licence is not liberal enough. They are saying that they do not want to use tools and code released under the GPL, so much so that they will go and rewrite tools yet they still use GCC compiler does someone want to clear that section up under what is wrong with code under the GPL (as currently to me it seems like a load of fanatics want every bit of code in their project to go into the public domain where no one has ownership and copyright of it and are willing to go to the extremes of re-writing free open-source software to do it).

Not the public domain, the BSD Licence. And yes, that is what they want. If they had the resources to replace things like the gcc, like say the plan9cc, they would replace all the remaining tools which are licenced in a manner that is less free then their standard. Unfortunately, it's a lot of work to make a C compiler suite, so without either a big wad of cash, a devoted team of developers or a good codebase to start from, I don't think the gcc will be replaced for a while. The remaining bits of code with restricting licences within the system are being slowly filtered out, but some things would be a massive undertaking to rewrite - those are the ones that will be last to go. Janizary 10:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that anyone has any issue with the quality of the GPL code out there. But if one wants to release code under a more liberal license than the GPL, then you either convince the authors of the GPL code to dual license or you replace the code. Dysprosia 02:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, OpenBSD developers do complain about the terrible quality of the GNU programmes. The quality of their code is also used as an example of what not to do. Joseph Mallett of xMach also disliked the GPL code, so much so that it was all removed from xMach back in 2001, becase it was on average more bloated and less usable than the alternatives in FreeBSD or OpenBSD's codebase. Janizary 10:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, there you go then :) Dysprosia 03:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Licen[cs]ing?

This is a ridiculous edit war. I'm a stupid American so I'm more accustomed to the spelling with an "s", but it's no great burden on me to read words spelled the British way. As I understand it, OpenBSD is primarily a Canadian product, so it seems to make a lot of sense to spell the British way (assuming that's how they do it there). Let's stop this. Take a vote or something. Fsiler 06:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The majority of the article is British English and it has been that way for some time. I'd vote for it to stay that way but am willing to accept a change after a sensible discussion. Unfortunately, one persistent, ignorant person is making it a problem - they aren't even bothering to change it throughout the article! I think that if they were willing to discuss it, they would have brought it here themselves but I hope that sooner or later they get bored or consider the possibility they may be wrong and discuss it sensibly. NicM 13:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC).

I've left a message for the user. Note that OpenBSD is produced by contributors globally, including many Americans; the article uses Canadian spellings because OpenBSD is based in Canada. Yes, I'm nit-picking :-) Mindmatrix 16:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe the article uses British/Canadian spelling because the primary contributors to the article have been British and Canadian. On the whole, the OpenBSD project itself uses American spelling (colorls, package FLAVORs, license etc). I don't think this is a compelling reason to change, however. NicM 17:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC).

Without being adversarial, I don't understand your logic. WIkipedia is largely an American project, at least in origin, and OpenBSD uses American spellings, so we should use British ones here? Personally, given that information I would come to the conclusion that the American spelling is probably the way to go. Fsiler 21:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought the policy was to stick with the existing style unless there is a compelling reason to change. I don't really think this is a compelling reason. If anyone wants to go through and change the entire article to American spelling & style, I don't mind, so long as it is consistent. Others might complain, though. NicM 23:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC).

To clarify: the article was British English when I started editing it so I have stuck with that. In the end, I think the style is fairly irrelevent - just as long as it is consistent, ie, if you use license, you also use specialized. I certainly don't think people should be allowed to change it willy-nilly, in an incomplete manner and without discussion. I don't think the project's style, or the origins of Wikipedia, are really that important - people contribute to both from around the world. The only thing that leans me slightly towards American style is the fact that some of the border text uses American spelling. Personally, I prefer British so I am happy to leave it, but if someone else wants to do the work, changing it is fine. NicM 23:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC).

You have also changed the article willy-nilly and without discussion, and labelled those changing to American spelling "ignorant" in your change comments without merit. Tell me, how are they ignorant exactly? Either spelling is valid. User:Yath not only made similar edits to yours, but also outright deleted this thread the first time I created it, and without so much as an explanation in the change log. I consider that a hostile action. Personally I don't see exactly what's so "British" about the article, and I think you and Yath have been unnecessarily pushy about the issue.

It appears that you were involved with the peer review of this article. Looks like it didn't go very well. Did you consider that maybe if you'd work on the article, rather than worrying so much about your "British presentation", you might get to FA status? Fsiler 00:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, use of licence and specialized is consistent in Canadian english. Wikipedia could save us all many headaches if it adopted an XML-style language handling technique, so that we could have things like:

<word>

<lang:en_US>license</lang:en_US>

<lang:en_CA>licence</lang:en_CA>

<lang:en_UK>licence</lang:en_UK>

</word>

This would require user agents (eg: browsers) to pick up such tags, though. Content negotiation should be built in to most agents, but is woefully underused. Mindmatrix 00:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any wikipedia policies governing spelling, which is probably a good thing, since British articles should probably use British conventions and so forth. However, this is an article about OpenBSD, a project which essentially uses American conventions. From the OpenBSD 3.7 afterboot man page:

    There is also other third-party software that is available in source form
    only, either because it has not been ported to OpenBSD yet, or because
    licensing restrictions make binary redistribution impossible.  Sometimes
    checking the mailing lists for past problems that people have encountered
    will result in a fix posted.

Note, in particular, the spelling of "license", not "licence". I think we should use the OpenBSD conventions here. Fsiler 00:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe that's because one of the American developers wrote that man page. Who knows? Does OpenBSD actually have a policy about spelling? :-) Anyway, I don't care what English variant is used, though I'd like to emphasize my point above that content negotiation would be useful, since it could deliver articles to individuals in their choice of english, irrespective of the subject matter or any other user's preferences, excepting of course that proper names are always spelled , uh, properly. There are far too many articles that go through edit wars to fix "errors" that don't truly exist... Mindmatrix 01:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe they don't have an explicit policy, but:

fms@screw /usr/local/man$ grep -Ri licence *|wc -l
      0 
fms@screw /usr/local/man$ grep -Ri license *|wc -l
     43

So there are many instances of the word "license" but none of "licence" in /usr/local/man on OpenBSD 3.7Fsiler 02:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The edits I referred to as ignorant added the text "The correct spelling of license", together with a link to a dictionary. As you say, both spellings are correct. So, asserting one is correct over the other is ignorance. You'll note that this was not the first time this person had made this change and been reverted by me and others. He also changed the spelling in only part of the article, removed wikification and changed the spelling of a word to be incorrect. I can't really speak for what other users have done, but you seem to be the only person here actively pushing for one style over the other. Would you like to make the change properly, or are you just trying to extend this discussion? I have said quite clearly I prefer British style and spelling but am quite happy to accept a change, so long as it is agreed upon and done consistently. This entire thing is irrelevent, it doesn't matter what style the article uses, so long as it is the same throughout. NicM 10:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC).

As everyone has probably noticed, I changed to American spelling. I looked for instances of other words spelled other ways but didn't see any; also removed a couple of the links which looked like [[BSD license|BSD licence]]. I also didn't remove any wikification, so hopefully this won't be considered vandalism this time :).Fsiler 12:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

This is fine by me. I've changed a couple of other words to American spelling too, but there isn't much. Punctuation was already American/Canadian style. Hopefully now we won't have the opposite problem with all the ignorant Britishers spending their time changing it back to licence every few weeks ;-) NicM 12:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC).

Since I was the guy that spelled things Canadian when making the licencing section of the article, I do disagree with it. Since there was no reason to change from one to the other it should not have been done. Wikipedia policy is to leave it as it lies, though keeping it all in one type. The policy is not to go changing to other spellings arbitrarily, and that is what you have done. It's not a typo, it's not incorrect, it's not wrong at all, so it should not have been changed. It doesn't actually matter if the project itself spells things the American way, the article was made the Canadian way. Janizary 14:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

As I've said, I don't care which form is chosen, though I prefer Canadian spelling. However, a discussion shouldn't be assumed complete after only a few hours - editors should be given a chance to respond before the changes are made. I'd also like to point out that we are changing because of an anon troll, and making the changes that the user wanted in the first place. (If you think my use of the word troll is inappropriate, read the messages at the bottom of my talk page.) Mindmatrix 00:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You are, of course, correct about how a few days of delay would have been desirable. I also agree he is a troll although I think him sparking off the discussion wasn't a bad thing. The article is not so big we could not change back if the discussion turns that way, having given people a chance to take a look and see how American spelling would appear. Should we have a clear vote or something over a couple of days? NicM 08:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC).

Ok, we've had time to run over this now. Can we go back to how it was before? Janizary 18:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

This is an OpenBSD article, not an article about Canada or the UK. I believe it has been firmly established that OpenBSD uses American spellings, so why on earth should we change the article back? I fear it will only invite more troll reverts. Fsiler 21:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Because the change shouldn't have been made in the first place. I thought that had been iterated before. Changing from English to American should not have been done, so it should be put back. There was no consensus to actually go American, even after you made the change. Janizary 02:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The only reasonable argument for sticking with "licence" is that wikipedia policy says something to the effect of "leave it be unless you have a reason to change." Well, there was an edit war. Regardless of how you may not like the parties involved, that's a reason to change it. For better or worse, it's changed. Now, can we just leave it be and actually fix something meaningful? Fsiler 10:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

A troll is not a reason to change something - ever. Trolls aren't users, they aren't contributors and they aren't to be paid heed. That the random schmuck was threatening to use a bot means he gets banned. Edit wars are settled after a conclusion is reached in the talk page, not after someone changes it to the other way. That you agreed with the troll's assertion that American is somehow the only right way to spell things in this article does not make it time to change to that alternative spelling. We have you and a troll on the American side, NicM and Mindmatrix kinda apathetic to the situation and myself on the English side. Since the guy that wrote the core of this article spelled it one way it should have stuck that way in the first place - though if there had been some kind of a consensus in this talk to converting to American it would have at least been acceptable. If you can get more people to support your opinion in this discussion then it won't be a problem, but as it stands you are the only person that has a say saying it should have been changed and you did it prematurely and without proper consultation of the other contributors. Janizary 13:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverted: Since noone joined in to argue for changing to American spellings, I am reverting it to how it was before, spelling in English. Janizary 18:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Security

I found this site but do not consider myself familiar enough with the topic to make any changes. Anyone to review and incorporate this opposite POV? ~~helix84 00:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a site done up by some stupid kids from phrack, much like GOBBLES and Richard Stallman on the OpenBSD mailing list, it's something people ignore. They don't substantiate anything nor do they actually say anything, it's rhetoric and nonsense with no body to it. It's like the usual fanatical Linux fan's reaction to any mention of anything that isn't their favourite distribution - not worth paying attention to. Though I suppose it might be flattering for some developers to know these wingnuts are watching their every action with such devotion, even if it's because of their psychological insecurities. Janizary 03:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I mostly agree about this particular site (its a troll, nothing more) but ISTR some coherent criticism from the likes of the PAX guys, in among a lot of complaining about which came first (maybe this part should be mentioned too). Anybody want to see if they can find anything sane? NicM 08:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC).

This PPT has some (partly out-of-date, I think) discussion of W^X vs PaX. NicM 09:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC).

No such thing as a sane discussion between the PaX guys and OpenBSD folk. The paxers generally won't quit acting like children about who does what better and when, for some reason it is impossible for them to just give discussions and instead have to throw insults and troll. For the most part the OpenBSD side is more along the lines of "we didn't even know you existed, now that we do we don't care." grsecurity guy seems to be sane and capable of making points, but is usually just a trolling punk when he actually tries to say things. Hell, the guy attacks the character of other software developers as if he was still in elementary school, he's worse than Mike "der Mouse" Parker of NetBSD for gall. Janizary 10:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Not the same thing at all, der Mouse is just a punk that hates de Raadt because Theo went and did his own thing instead of kow-towing to the NetBSD core and doing all his work for NetBSD. Spender is just a prick, he's got no reason, he's just an arrogant ass, he hates people that he's never even delt with. 170.65.128.6 21:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

footnote numbers?

The footnote numbers are not corresponding to their numbers below. For instance, note number 13 corresponds to reference number 6. And the references only go up to 6. So where 13 came from is beyond me. What is wrong here and how do we fix it? -James Howard (talk/web) 12:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia assigns an additional number to external links without content, for example abc[http://abcdef] would appear as, eg, abc[4]. I've used this form for links to mailing lists and other "conversational"-type references (which are hard to describe, generally quite short and people might want to read immediately), and used real references for papers, articles and suchlike. Personally, I quite like it this way but if you want to go through and make all the references proper ones that link via the bottom, I have no great objection. NicM 13:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC).

Licence vs. License

In the US, the noun is spelled license. In the UK, it is spelled licence. But in both places, the verb is spelled license. So, while some of the changes were Americanizations, others were simply corrections. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-23 00:19

Fixed that, my first revert, that had just been me using sed when I should have used a spellcheck. The second was just a blind revert. I think I got it cleaned up now. Janizary 00:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Some comments

Should secure by default in the infobox be put in quotes, italics, or have some sort of attributation for the sake of NPOV?

The OpenBSD team have a policy of seeking out examples of classic, K&R-style C code and converting it to the more modern ANSI equivalent.

Does this involve a change to the layout only, or does the content change as well?

The link for ISC licence is non-informative. The article is only three paragraphs long, and has nothing on any licence. Given that there isn't much information about the nature of the licencing dispute in this article, it's a bit of a problem. (description now given about ISC licence in article itself)

As an alternative, developers have completely replaced tools from the ground up or reshaped an existing tool which is appropriately licensed but lacks functionality.

Was this sentence redundant with previous sentences in the paragraph?

Comparable to the advertising clause of the original four-clause BSD licence,

Does this need a link, or has it previously been linked?

There seems to be a repeat about information about OpenSSH.

He quickly became very popular, mainly because of the cute image of the fish and his distinction from the beastie used by FreeBSD and the horde of daemons then used by NetBSD.

Cute?

As of late 2005, there have been 10 official hackathons. Most have been in Calgary but appearances have also been made in Sechelt, British Columbia; Cambridge, Massachusetts; Washington, DC; and Venice, Italy.

Presumably not all encryption related, right? (comments crossed out by author of comments)

Thanks, Andjam 14:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've added quotes to "Secure by Default" as NetBSD has them to, but whether they will last, I don't know. I've also added some clarifications and removed some of redundancy you pointed out, thanks. I've left the repetition about OpenSSH since the fact it is widespread is relevent in both sections and since the sentences repeating this are quite far apart, I think it is fairly harmless. BSD licence was linked previously so didn't need to be again. I've swapped appealing for cute which I think is better.

As far as the licence is concerned, I don't think it is so much a dispute as a preference, although Theo has said some unkind things about other licences in the past so it may be worth mentioning that, I'll take a look.

If you have any further comments they would be most welcome. NicM 11:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

Okay, I've added a bit more on the ISC licence and a couple of references. As far as dispute goes, The article does say "The GPL is considered overly restrictive in comparison with these" and I've added a reference to an article in which Theo mentions it and also a reference to the project's licence policy which explains a bit more. Do you think the article needs to say much more about licence problems? NicM 11:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for the fixes. I didn't know that Theo had said unkind things about other licences, I just interpreted a blanket ban on certain licences for new material as fairly strict. Would Theo's problems with the GPL be consistent with what is mentioned in the second paragraph of GPL? Andjam 12:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I am aware, that's pretty much it. GPL has extra restrictions, so some people see as "less free" than BSD. I think this page gives OpenBSD's position. I can't find any places Theo has complained of the GPL directly, so I must be mistaken about that. He pretty much expressed his view, although not about the GPL, in this commit message. There are more quotes are probably relevent here. NicM 13:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

Article structure

The structure is currently a bit mixed up and this means the article doesn't really flow very well. This has partly come from the lack of an overarching plan and content simply being added in what feels like the right place (I am as guilty of this as anyone! ;-). Changing structure is a big job so I'd like to work up a design here before making changes.

I think there are four types of information we are trying to cover:

• Historical: how OpenBSD started, the various campaigns and audits and arguments, hackathons
• Philisophical: licensing, security philosophy
• Technical: how OpenBSD works, security additions (W^X, malloc, crypto), UIs, ports tree etc etc
• Opinion: criticism of OpenBSD, the user community

Unfortunately, there is such a mix I'm not really sure where to start... Perhaps it may be better just to split the article based on those sections, like so:

• History of OpenBSD
  • The fork from NetBSD
  • The POSSE project
  • Hackathons
  • The present day
• OpenBSD's philosophy and goals
  • The BSD license, NDAs, openness, etc
  • Security philosophy and focus
• OpenBSD's features
  • Security features
    • Memory protection
    • API changes
    • The network stack
    • Cryptography
  • pf, spamd, privsep, other unique/interesting daemons
  • Xorg, and OpenBSD on the desktop
  • Documentation
  • The ports tree
  • Image and marketing
• Criticism of OpenBSD
  • Performance and usability criticisms
  • Theo
  • Security criticism, if we can find any non-trolling stuff

I'm not suggesting each of these should be a section heading, simply that they should be covered in the same area. Some of the subjects cover several areas: pf has licensing, history and technical aspects. I think it is best to pick which is most important and discuss the topic in one place.

I think if done carefully, something similar to the above would build the article up quite well: the reader learns about where OpenBSD comes from, what the project stands for and its goals, then what they have done towards these goals/this philosophy. Then we round it off with discussion of some of the downsides... Comments, suggestions, anyone? NicM 18:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

Negative comments

I brought this up on the FAC page. And will put here, since I wish input before making changes.

This will be unpopular to say, but I feel this article is essentially defamatory against a person, without adequate sources. I think it's entirely unacceptable to bring up criticisms of a person, without sufficient published sources, that allows us to make a verifiable NPOV description of the situation. I think WP:V makes perfectly clear that personal web sites are not acceptable sources.

Some offending text is:

The only available records of these events are an incomplete set of emails, published by Theo de Raadt on his personal site[1]. From these, it appears that the then NetBSD core team of Charles Hannum, Adam Glass, Paul Kranenburg, J.T. Conklin and Chris Demetriou considered some of Theo's behaviour to have been insulting to other users of and contributors to NetBSD. They also stated that they had received a considerable number of complaints. However, an email from another participant asserts that these complaints were the result of a disagreement between Theo and a single user. During the months that followed his expulsion, Theo attempted to continue work on NetBSD and to recover his access to the CVS repository. However, after finding the limits of his new status overly frustrating, he decided to create a new project, forked from NetBSD 1.0 in October 1995.

This is harmful to a person's professional reputation, and if untrue, would be, IMO, libel. We can not verify that any of it is true. It's simply a bunch of rumors of why people shouldn't want to associate with somebody. I don't think we can lower sourcing standards because there aren't good sources. This also sets a dangerous precedent. Somebody can create a personal web site, attack somebody, and then add negative information with citations to their own web site. Although the editors here are acting in good faith, allowing this to stand, will encourage others, who aren't. There is in fact lots of published info about OpenBSD, with ample amounts for a good article. However, much of the politics behind it, is not properly verifiable. So, I suggest sticking to what we know, and leaving out the rest.

So, much of the text will have to go, in line with WP:V:

Articles in Wikipedia should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

--Rob 19:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The article just describes people's comments in the only available source—published by Theo himself. The comments themselves may well be libel, but are you sure that saying, effectively, "from this source it appears that X said Y" is too?

On the other hand, you are correct the source is not strong, so I can't really argue with WP:V, although it is a pity to remove what few explanations there are from this important part of the article. NicM 19:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

I think we're looking pretty much at something like:

In December 1994, Theo de Raadt, a co-founder and member of the NetBSD core team for two years, was asked to resign from the NetBSD Foundation. His access to the NetBSD CVS server was removed, he was instructed to e-mail any further changes to the system as patches, and he was informed that he no longer represented the NetBSD project in any formal manner. The reasons for this event have never been fully explained. In October 1995, a few months after his expulsion, Theo decided to create a new project, a fork from NetBSD 1.0. An initial first release of OpenBSD, release 1.2, appeared in July 1996, followed in October of the same year by OpenBSD 2.0.

Assuming we can find a ref for the actual explusion, which shouldn't be too hard. Does this seem acceptable? NicM 19:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

Hmm. Do you think this counts as a reputable or credible publisher? NicM 19:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

I do think repeating defaming claims, can be defaming, even if attributed, if not done carefully. If something has only been said in non-published sources, and we publish it for the first time, I think there's a risk there. I like your suggested text. I would just tweak it to say "The reasons for this event have never been fully explained publicly. ". Since there are no longer defaming statements, I think source requirements are no longer as high, and the source you gave, seems quite reasonable. --Rob 20:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed it to something similar to the above, but with a note of a possible explanation from Wayner and a reference to him. Since it was just one paragraph I combined the first two sections. Does this seem okay now? NicM 20:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

I think it's a good improvement, and I'll accept it. I think "personality conflict" is mild enough, that even if it's contested, nobody could argue it was defaming. Thanks for making the change. --Rob 21:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it's from a public mailing list, and you're quoting from it (and attributed), then I don't see it as a problem. -- KTC 22:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC) Noting it's been changed already anyway, and noting he's not a lawyer.

I dunno, can we really trust the publisher of The O'Reilly Factor for Kids? Janizary 19:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Crimes against common sense and decency notwithstanding, I think it probably is reputable :-). Failing any other objections, I'll plan to rewrite the section to be sourced from Peter Wayner's book tomorrow. NicM 20:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

Restructured article

I've restructured the article a lot here, based on the FAC comments of and feedback from Taxman. Please comment here. If there are no major objections, I'll change the real article in a couple of days. NicM 18:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

I am pretty much satisfied with what you've done with this - the parts of Hackathon and POSSE project I will move to their articles, though that will then require some tempering against OpenBSD bias I think I can manage that. I will also be doing a bit on the OpenBSD developers and perhaps try and make a complementing article of OpenBSD history, one that has a release-by-release run through and contraversy details that don't really fit into the main OpenBSD article. A bit much for an encyclopedia, but I guess I am just an inclusionist at heart. Janizary 23:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I said a couple of days and everyone seems happy, so I've updated the article. Let the complaints begin. NicM 23:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC).

The security article could do with some beefing up too, if you fancy it. I'll add more stuff on privsep and priv revocation sometime if I have time. NicM 23:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC).

What about Citrus?

What about Citrus added to OpenBSD? It's not mentioned in the article and is very interesting stuff to be mentioned and explained into the article and the relation with OpenBSD. Timofonic 23:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a third-party thing. It certainly isn't part of OpenBSD so I don't see that it needs to be mentioned directly. It looks like vaporware at the moment, but perhaps a see also may be appropriate if it goes anywhere. NicM 23:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC).

Vaporware? You are quite wrong,look OpenBSD CVS. PF can now be considered 3rd party because supported by three members of the BSD family. It's a BSD standard more than a 3rd party stuff Timofonic 23:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying this CITRUS project has been adopted by OpenBSD? NicM 23:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC).

The Citris project, in the same way as the KAME project, is not a BSD project. It's a project done by third party. Some of the FreeBSD developers work on the Citris stuff, but it's not a FreeBSD project. pf is a BSD project, because it's done in a BSD as a part of the operating system, just like OpenSSH. There is nothing standard about Citris, because NetBSD and FreeBSD use some of their code. OpenBSD has not integrated anything that I am aware of from Citris, and much of NetBSD's wchar support was done entirely in NetBSD. It is an unfinished project to add internationalization, but it's not done and has not been integrated into OpenBSD - so I see no reason to mention it. Janizary 23:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolute OpenBSD PDF

This article is not the place for advice on where or how to obtain this book. If the PDF of this book (note the article mentions Absolute OpenBSD not Absolute BSD) is completely free to everyone, a simple link to it in brackets (like this: (PDF), except that this particular PDF is Absolute BSD) would be fine, but it isn't free to everyone. If there is a better site that details the book than http://www.absoluteopenbsd.com, then change the link to point to it. NicM 13:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

Motto

The motto in the article is "Secure by Default", but isn't the current motto "Free, Functional & Secure"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.252.72.127 (talk • contribs) .

• Yes. NicM 13:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC).
  • Well, there's been a few and they are all used from time to time. Secure by Default, Free, Functional and Secure, and Free, Functional, Secure Choose Three, and Functional Secure Free have all been slogans thrown around at events and on shirts, pretty much each release sees a new one. Janizary 19:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It has been "Free, Functional & Secure" at the top of the site at least since 3.0[1], so we should probably stick with that as primary tagline. NicM 19:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC).

Are you guys actually edit waring over the spelling of non-displayed text?

... especially when one of them is a redirect to the other? Have you read WP:LAME? In anyevent avoiding the rediect should be the issue. The name of the actual article is not changable per wikipedia polocy and the display text is not an issue here. Dalf | Talk 23:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

How about that one where the guy keeps adding links to things that don't exist? Janizary 23:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I did see the irony in that actually. Though that is (while lame in a way) at least a content dispute rather than redirect traversal for the purposes of promoting spelling diffrences that wikipedia offically does not care about :). FWIW if someon removes the red link again I will not revert it again, though my heart will fill with sadness. Dalf | Talk 00:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Spelling of GPL

Nate, please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English, which states:

Proper names should retain their original spellings, for example, United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force.

Policy clearly supports the spelling of "General Public License" in this case. --Yath 02:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but by far the most common use is simply the acronym. --maru (talk) contribs 08:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Acronyms should be explained at least once in an article. This is good practice. Dysprosia 08:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far. Acronyms where the meaning may be important or where the text is clearer should be spelled out, but I wouldn't spell out DEC, AMD, SPARC, RAID, the MIT in "MIT License", CVS, K&R, DDOS, ANSI, VPN, KDE, GNOME, POSIX, ATI, NVIDIA, ISO, etc, because either their extension is irrelevent—enough of what they are is explained in the text—or it is unlikely to jog the memory of those who don't know the phrase, any more than the acronym at least does. NicM 10:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC).

You have a point, there. Perhaps let me say some acronyms should be explained at least once in an article ;) Dysprosia 10:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)