OpenSMTPd needs donations...

Contributed by dwc on 2009-01-20 from the postage dept.

Mayuresh Kathe writes to let us know:

Gilles Chehade needs funds to purchase a new desktop machine for 900 euros.

Please donate via paypal: gilles@poolp.org

2009-01-21 UPDATE: Gilles has received 928 euros, enough to purchase the computer, and he thanks all the people who donated!

From Gilles' page:

important:
		I *need* around 900 euros to get myself a decent desktop computer
		for hacking on OpenBSD/OpenSMTPD code. paypal: gilles@poolp.org

		As of the 20th of January 2009,
		I received 146,35 euros from 2 donators, Thanks !

(Comments are closed)

Comments

By Chris (142.132.71.138) on 2009-01-20 23:18

Choosing the , as decimal indicator and using spaces to separate groups of three digits in numbers instead of , was a horrible mistake on the part of the SI people.
Comments
1. By Anonymous Coward (87.139.34.156) on 2009-01-21 09:07
  
  > Choosing the , as decimal indicator and using spaces to separate
  > groups of three digits in numbers instead of , was a horrible mistake
  > on the part of the SI people.
  
  I don't know about SI, isn't it more a choice of locale?
  
  The swiss are said to use `.' for monetary, `,' for everything else...
  
  I myself prefer 1'234.56 as it's the least confusing. Using commas
  as thousands separator is helluva confusing and can lead to errors
  e.g. with lists. The apostrophe is also less intrusing, optically.
  Comments
  1. By Chris (142.132.30.135) on 2009-01-21 16:44
    
    > > Choosing the , as decimal indicator and using spaces to separate
    > > groups of three digits in numbers instead of , was a horrible mistake
    > > on the part of the SI people.
    >
    > I don't know about SI, isn't it more a choice of locale?
    >
    > The swiss are said to use `.' for monetary, `,' for everything else...
    >
    > I myself prefer 1'234.56 as it's the least confusing. Using commas
    > as thousands separator is helluva confusing and can lead to errors
    > e.g. with lists. The apostrophe is also less intrusing, optically.
    
    It is an SI thing, but various countries choose to ignore some portions of the standards. Using spaces to separate groups of three is just as or more ambiguous than using commas (at least in examples I can think of off the top of my head).
    
    I've only seen ' used for time, eg. 1'45"55.555 . Using it as a three-group separator seems extra non-standard.
    
    Comments
    
    By Anonymous Coward (216.21.44.66) on 2009-01-21 16:52
    
    > It is an SI thing, but various countries choose to ignore some portions of the standards. Using spaces to separate groups of three is just as or more ambiguous than using commas (at least in examples I can think of off the top of my head).
    >
    > I've only seen ' used for time, eg. 1'45"55.555 . Using it as a three-group separator seems extra non-standard.
    
    Using spaces appears to be part of the SI writing style, in addition to using comma and/or periods as a thousands separator.
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI
    
    By Ed Ahlsen-Girard (204.49.40.232) girarde@alum.rpi.edu on 2009-01-21 17:20
    
    > > > Choosing the , as decimal indicator and using spaces to separate
    > > > groups of three digits in numbers instead of , was a horrible mistake
    > > > on the part of the SI people.
    > >
    > > I don't know about SI, isn't it more a choice of locale?
    > >
    > > The swiss are said to use `.' for monetary, `,' for everything else...
    > >
    > > I myself prefer 1'234.56 as it's the least confusing. Using commas
    > > as thousands separator is helluva confusing and can lead to errors
    > > e.g. with lists. The apostrophe is also less intrusing, optically.
    >
    > It is an SI thing, but various countries choose to ignore some portions of the standards. Using spaces to separate groups of three is just as or more ambiguous than using commas (at least in examples I can think of off the top of my head).
    >
    > I've only seen ' used for time, eg. 1'45"55.555 . Using it as a three-group separator seems extra non-standard.
    
    It is also used for position, where it indicates minutes of latitude or longitude.
    
    Comments
    
    By Anonymous Coward (87.139.34.156) on 2009-01-22 08:54
    
    > > > > Choosing the , as decimal indicator and using spaces to separate
    > > > > groups of three digits in numbers instead of , was a horrible mistake
    > > > > on the part of the SI people.
    > > >
    > > > I don't know about SI, isn't it more a choice of locale?
    > > >
    > > > The swiss are said to use `.' for monetary, `,' for everything else...
    > > >
    > > > I myself prefer 1'234.56 as it's the least confusing. Using commas
    > > > as thousands separator is helluva confusing and can lead to errors
    > > > e.g. with lists. The apostrophe is also less intrusing, optically.
    > >
    > > It is an SI thing, but various countries choose to ignore some portions of the standards. Using spaces to separate groups of three is just as or more ambiguous than using commas (at least in examples I can think of off the top of my head).
    > >
    > > I've only seen ' used for time, eg. 1'45"55.555 . Using it as a three-group separator seems extra non-standard.
    >
    > It is also used for position, where it indicates minutes of latitude or longitude.
    >
    That's actually a prime, but I can't type in the Unicode character
    here because undeadly, like OpenBSD, doesn't do Unicode.
    
    Comments
    
    By Ed Ahlsen-Girard (204.49.40.232) girarde@alum.rpi.edu on 2009-01-22 16:11
    
    > That's actually a prime, but I can't type in the Unicode character
    > here because undeadly, like OpenBSD, doesn't do Unicode.
    
    Well, when I was the navigator of a cargo ship, that was a distinction I overlooked. :-)
2. By Marc Espie (163.5.254.20) espie@openbsd.org on 2009-01-30 12:24
  
  > Choosing the , as decimal indicator and using spaces to separate groups of three digits in numbers instead of , was a horrible mistake on the part of the SI people.
  
  That's called putting your foot in your mouth big-time.
  There's nothing about SI or anything there. Gilles is french, and in France, you use the comma as decimal separator.
By Anonymous Coward (70.81.15.127) on 2009-01-21 01:40

Will this be in 4.5? And if so, will OpenSMTPd in 4.5 be enabled in place of sendmail (but still have sendmail in stock system, turned off in rc.conf) for those with special needs. =)

I'm excited to see this and get rid of the crusty old sendmail. Postfix is nice too, but something stock like this is so much better!

What was your reason(s) for starting this?

Great job!
Comments
1. By Anonymous Coward (68.22.71.222) on 2009-01-21 03:22
  
  > Will this be in 4.5? And if so, will OpenSMTPd in 4.5 be enabled in place of sendmail (but still have sendmail in stock system, turned off in rc.conf) for those with special needs. =)
  >
  > I'm excited to see this and get rid of the crusty old sendmail. Postfix is nice too, but something stock like this is so much better!
  >
  > What was your reason(s) for starting this?
  
  Questions like yours were addressed in a previous thread:
  http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20081112084647
2. By Dan Farrell (danstermeister) on 2009-01-21 05:56 dannosbeerblog@blogspot.com
  
  > Will this be in 4.5? And if so, will OpenSMTPd in 4.5 be enabled in place of sendmail (but still have sendmail in stock system, turned off in rc.conf) for those with special needs. =)
  >
  > I'm excited to see this and get rid of the crusty old sendmail. Postfix is nice too, but something stock like this is so much better!
  >
  > What was your reason(s) for starting this?
  >
  > Great job!
  >
  >
  
  http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20081112084647
By Anonymous (59.167.42.191) on 2009-01-21 03:02

Will it support SMTPS?

Shit, I'd actually need to get a Paypal account now!!
Comments
1. By Gilles Chehade (gilles) on 2009-01-21 07:23 http://www.poolp.org/~gilles/
  
  > Will it support SMTPS?
  >
  > Shit, I'd actually need to get a Paypal account now!!
  >
  
  It already supports SSMTP, the trickiest part in setting it up being to generate the certificate and put it in the right place ;-)
By Anonymous Coward (2001:4978:f:27d::2) on 2009-01-21 04:26

Do we really need another smptd? And further, do we need people begging for donations to write it?
Comments
1. By Anonymous Coward (150.101.245.181) on 2009-01-21 05:24
  
  As someone who's never successfully run an smtpd, I can say that yes I think this is needed.
  
  Once upon a time I did try to set up a mail server for my home network. I looked at sendmail, postfix and qmail. I sunk more time into it than I wanted, got frustrated getting it set up to do what I wanted and disillusioned at the idea of maintaining it. Long story short, I decided not to bother.
  
  If this is in base and all I need to do is set an MX record, enable it in rc.conf and read the smptd.conf man page then that's fucking awesome.
  Comments
  1. By Anonymous Coward (70.81.15.127) on 2009-01-21 06:32
    
    > As someone who's never successfully run an smtpd, I can say that yes I think this is needed.
    >
    > Once upon a time I did try to set up a mail server for my home network. I looked at sendmail, postfix and qmail. I sunk more time into it than I wanted, got frustrated getting it set up to do what I wanted and disillusioned at the idea of maintaining it. Long story short, I decided not to bother.
    >
    > If this is in base and all I need to do is set an MX record, enable it in rc.conf and read the smptd.conf man page then that's fucking awesome.
    
    Amen!
2. By jkm (194.237.142.7) on 2009-01-21 06:43
  
  > Do we really need another smptd? And further, do we need people begging for donations to write it?
  
  Definitely! SMTPd is the best thing since sliced bread. Having a small and simple mail system as part of the base is really great. I'll donate.
  
  /J
3. By Gilles Chehade (gilles) on 2009-01-21 07:50 http://www.poolp.org/~gilles/
  
  > Do we really need another smptd? And further, do we need people begging for donations to write it?
  
  I need a smtpd and others seem to need it as well, but maybe you can just use whatever you want and let us write and use what we want ?
4. By Anonymous Coward (59.167.252.29) on 2009-01-21 12:46
  
  > Do we really need another smptd? And further, do we need people begging for donations to write it?
  
  Someone has an itch and others are willing to help with some scratching. If you're not interested, then just move on.
  
  The project has shown that it does KISS really nicely and lots of people are excited by this. Some people asked if we really need another packet filter and now look at what we have with pf!
  
  I can't wait for OpenSMTPd!
5. By Anonymous Coward (94.75.65.58) on 2009-01-21 15:07
  
  Do we need people trolling for fun to write it?
6. By Anonymous Coward (208.152.231.254) on 2009-01-21 20:09
  
  > Do we really need another smptd? And further, do we need people begging for donations to write it?
  
  We do need a better SMTPD. The current selection is fairly awful, a bunch of hacked together servers which barely support IPv6 and are almost impossible to properly audit and maintain at the same time.
  
  I'd be happy to donate money to a project to create a good one. But it has to be from responsible, honest, developers.
  Comments
  1. By Anonymous Coward (129.174.112.141) on 2009-01-23 14:34
    
    > But it has to be from responsible, honest, developers.
    
    Have you seen the parties these guys have?
    
    Comments
    
    By Anonymous Coward (2a01:348:108:100:230:18ff:fea0:6af6) on 2009-01-23 20:29
    
    > > But it has to be from responsible, honest, developers.
    >
    > Have you seen the parties these guys have?
    How about the parties broadcom had?
    o;>
By Anonymous Coward (195.237.145.107) on 2009-01-21 06:59

Why do you need 900 euro machine for developing simple c-code?

I believe that virtually *any* desktop computer able to run openbsd built in the last say... 19 years should be enough?
Comments
1. By Anonymous Coward (99.231.50.3) on 2009-01-21 07:16
  
  > Why do you need 900 euro machine for developing simple c-code?
  >
  > I believe that virtually *any* desktop computer able to run openbsd built in the last say... 19 years should be enough?
  
  Don't be ridiculous. A development machine needs to best fast in order to minimize build time.
  
  Why do you show resistance to an honest request from a volunteer open source developer? 900 euros is far from an extravagant request.
  Comments
  1. By Anonymous Coward (207.30.25.33) on 2009-01-21 11:12
    
    > > Why do you need 900 euro machine for developing simple c-code?
    > >
    > > I believe that virtually *any* desktop computer able to run openbsd built in the last say... 19 years should be enough?
    >
    > Don't be ridiculous. A development machine needs to best fast in order to minimize build time.
    
    Stop using GCC....
    
    > Why do you show resistance to an honest request from a volunteer open source developer? 900 euros is far from an extravagant request.
    
    Well I personaly odn't but your first argument just sucks. :-)
    
    Comments
    
    By Anonymous Coward (212.77.163.106) on 2009-01-21 13:07
    
    > > > Why do you need 900 euro machine for developing simple c-code?
    > > >
    > > > I believe that virtually *any* desktop computer able to run openbsd built in the last say... 19 years should be enough?
    > >
    > > Don't be ridiculous. A development machine needs to best fast in order to minimize build time.
    >
    > Stop using GCC....
    >
    > > Why do you show resistance to an honest request from a volunteer open source developer? 900 euros is far from an extravagant request.
    >
    > Well I personaly odn't but your first argument just sucks. :-)
    
    Dude, just make one test like I do often: get a P2@233MHz and start the kernel compile. Then do this on a 1.4GHz cpu and count both times. Then I guess you are smart enough to do a simple side by side comparison. Then you can see maybe what or who really sucks ...
    
    Comments
    
    By Gilles Chehade (gilles) on 2009-01-21 13:38 http://www.poolp.org/~gilles/
    
    > > > > Why do you need 900 euro machine for developing simple c-code?
    > > > >
    > > > > I believe that virtually *any* desktop computer able to run openbsd built in the last say... 19 years should be enough?
    > > >
    > > > Don't be ridiculous. A development machine needs to best fast in order to minimize build time.
    > >
    > > Stop using GCC....
    > >
    > > > Why do you show resistance to an honest request from a volunteer open source developer? 900 euros is far from an extravagant request.
    > >
    > > Well I personaly odn't but your first argument just sucks. :-)
    >
    > Dude, just make one test like I do often: get a P2@233MHz and start the kernel compile. Then do this on a 1.4GHz cpu and count both times. Then I guess you are smart enough to do a simple side by side comparison. Then you can see maybe what or who really sucks ...
    
    Well, that put aside, let's make it even simpler:
    
    When I start getting diffs from Anonymous Coward, he gets to tell me what he thinks *I* need and don't need to help me be more productive.
    
    Considering I have not even received a test report from Anonymous Coward, I guess we can agree that his opinion on my code and how I code is pretty worthless and clueless.
    
    Gilles
    
    By tedu (udet) on 2009-01-21 14:35
    
    > > Don't be ridiculous. A development machine needs to best fast in order to minimize build time.
    >
    > Stop using GCC....
    
    Yeah, smtpd development will go so much faster if he stops to finish pcc first.
    
    Comments
    
    By Frank DENIS (193.93.127.141) on 2009-01-26 12:08 http://00f.net
    
    > Yeah, smtpd development will go so much faster if he stops to finish pcc first.
    
    Write smtpd with PHP!
    
    (just kidding, hey)
    
    Comments
    
    By Anonymous Coward (2a01:e35:2f1f:8f10:4859:6752:b89d:9a4c) on 2009-01-27 07:21
    
    > (just kidding, hey)
    
    Really ?!
2. By Gilles Chehade (gilles) on 2009-01-21 07:40 http://www.poolp.org/~gilles/
  
  > Why do you need 900 euro machine for developing simple c-code?
  >
  > I believe that virtually *any* desktop computer able to run openbsd built in the last say... 19 years should be enough?
  
  What I need is not a computer able to run OpenBSD. What I need is a computer that doesn't take ages to build the project(s) I work on and which doesn't frustrate me when I stay hours working on it.
  
  Not having it doesn't prevent me from hacking, it just makes it less enjoyable and less productive.
  
  Gilles
3. By Anonymous Coward (212.20.215.132) on 2009-01-21 08:13
  
  > I believe that virtually *any* desktop computer able to run openbsd
  > built in the last say... 19 years should be enough?
  
  Yes, and the build will take at least say ... 19 years to complete.
  Comments
  1. By Anonymous Coward (208.152.231.254) on 2009-01-21 15:41
    
    > > I believe that virtually *any* desktop computer able to run openbsd
    > > built in the last say... 19 years should be enough?
    >
    > Yes, and the build will take at least say ... 19 years to complete.
    >
    
    How frickin' complex is this SMTP daemon, and how large are the individual source files? Even the over-engineered sendmail doesn't take that long to compile. This isn't OpenOffice.org, a kernel, or some convoluted GUIfied app, it's a stub program that receives a file on port 25, interprets some headers and envelope, and takes one of a limited set of actions - retransmitting it to another site, queuing it, piping it to another app - depending on what it finds.
    
    This is normally the kind of development that a Pentium P133 would be acceptable for. What's being added that necessitates a $900 machine?
    
    Comments
    
    By han (212.198.62.141) on 2009-01-21 16:05
    
    > This is normally the kind of development that a Pentium P133 would be acceptable for. What's being added that necessitates a $900 machine?
    
    euros != dollars
    at the moment of writing, 900 EUR = 1160 USD
    
    By Gilles Chehade (gilles) on 2009-01-21 17:28 http://www.poolp.org/~gilles/
    
    > How frickin' complex is this SMTP daemon, and how large are the individual source files? Even the over-engineered sendmail doesn't take that long to compile. This isn't OpenOffice.org, a kernel, or some convoluted GUIfied app, it's a stub program that receives a file on port 25, interprets some headers and envelope, and takes one of a limited set of actions - retransmitting it to another site, queuing it, piping it to another app - depending on what it finds.
    >
    
    > This is normally the kind of development that a Pentium P133 would be acceptable for. What's being added that necessitates a $900 machine?
    
    Thanks for your insight, it shows you know a lot about what we have already implemented and where we're heading to. Actually, I am a bit amazed that you did not care to help us with this trivial stuff since you seem to have a great knowledge of it. No diff, not even testing...
    
    For the record:
    - build time matters when you build and rebuild several times an hour.
    - development environment (such as being able to use dual head and an X that doesn't lag) matters when you plan to work for hours.
    - two bugs were fixed recently that would not trigger on my slow laptop and which could be fixed because someone, who provided feedback unlike you, sent me a proper description of the issue.
    - i'm not getting a desktop for smtpd work solely.
    
    So yes, I could probably work on a P133, but I prefer not to and you will have to live with it. You helped in no way, not by donating, not by testing, not by contributing code, what makes you think you have a call on what is ok or not ok for me to use ?
    
    As a side note, I find it amazing the number of Anonymous Cowards that wake up whenever a post contains smtpd in it :-)
    
    Gilles
    
    Comments
    
    By Anonymous Coward (208.152.231.254) on 2009-01-21 17:43
    
    > Thanks for your insight, it shows you know a lot about what we have already implemented and where we're heading to. Actually, I am a bit amazed that you did not care to help us with this trivial stuff since you seem to have a great knowledge of it. No diff, not even testing...
    
    Wow. Touchy. I did, however, cite at least one example of an SMTP application, and I've played with the source of, and customized, it and smail. So I am aware of roughly what kind of resources are needed for the development of an SMTP daemon.
    
    Now, you're saying that sendmail, at the very least, is not a relevant comparison. Or at least, you're implying it with your snide dismissal above, but you will not say why.
    
    > So yes, I could probably work on a P133, but I prefer not to and you will have to live with it. You helped in no way, not by donating, not by testing, not by contributing code, what makes you think you have a call on what is ok or not ok for me to use ?
    
    You're asking me for money. I'm asking you to justify me giving you money. You started this conversation. You've said you're going to need a EUR900 computer system (in an environment in which a nifty 32-bit Core Duo, which can compile and link the whole of sendmail (an over-engineered PoC with enormous amounts of legacy code, whose build process includes more than just compilation and linking) from a fresh install in less than fifty seconds - I just did it, costs under $200)
    
    I'm not "thinking" I have a call on what is ok or not ok to use. I'm thinking you're being arrogant in assuming people should just accept it that you need a EUR900 machine to develop a relatively simple, legacy code free, network daemon, and should just give you money.
    
    I want a justification before I start giving you my money. Of course, right now, after that response, and after thinking about how bloated an SMTP daemon would need to be to justify the resources your demanding for development, I doubt there's a justification in the world that'd convince me to donate.
    
    Comments
    
    By Anonymous Coward (85.19.213.88) on 2009-01-21 18:36
    
    [...]
    > I want a justification before I start giving you my money.
    
    Just donate or shut up. Nobody is forcing you to give away shit. If you think Gilles is doing a good job and you want him to continue, a donation would be very helpful. "I will donate �25 if you promise to only use it for beer and send me a scanned copy of the receipt and pictures of the party, otherwise I shall demand a refund". Cheap bastard. Asking for �900 is nothing, considering the work he has done and continues to do.
    
    Comments
    
    By Anonymous Coward (208.152.231.254) on 2009-01-21 20:06
    
    > [...]
    > > I want a justification before I start giving you my money.
    >
    > Just donate or shut up. Nobody is forcing you to give away shit. If you think Gilles is doing a good job and you want him to continue, a donation would be very helpful.
    
    1. I have no plans to shut up, thank you very much. What is it about supporters of this project that makes them resort to verbal abuse when anyone raises a question about it.
    
    2. If you want people to donate, you need to justify it. Nobody's going to get money by saying "Just give me money or shut up". Nobody's going to persuade people to give money to someone else's project by saying "Just give me money or shut up."
    
    What's happened here is ridiculous. If Gilles had said "Look, I'm having to devote a lot of time to this, can't get a job, and would like some money to help me get by", that'd have been one thing. But his argument, essentially, is that he "needs" a fairly expensive development rig, and anyone who questions that is EVIL because we didn't give him money.
    
    Well, you know what, I'm not donating. Not because I can't afford it. Not because I don't want people working on a decent replacement for, say, sendmail (God, we need it.) But because the developers here don't have any honesty, and because they and their supporters resort to abuse when basic questions are asked.
    
    It took me 50 seconds to compile sendmail on a 1.8GHz Core Duo. 50 seconds. That's from scratch - as in, open the tar ball, cd into the directory, and type "time make". If I type "touch obj.*/sendmail/main.c", and type "time make" again, it takes 3.415 seconds. That's not CPU time, that's elapsed time.
    
    Why are you expecting me to donate money to this project?
    
    I'm not asking much, I'm just asking why? You're either not honest, or the code is the most god-awful bloated crap in the world, so bloated - indeed - that it's larger and more unwieldy than sendmail.
    
    I'm not going to donate anything without justification. Insulting me or telling me to "shut up" isn't going to make the donations flow. And I'm pretty sure that taking this attitude is alienating more than just me.
    
    Comments
    
    By Anonymous Coward (85.19.213.88) on 2009-01-21 20:12
    
    > > [...]
    > > > I want a justification before I start giving you my money.
    > >
    > > Just donate or shut up. Nobody is forcing you to give away shit.
    >
    > 1. I have no plans to shut up, thank you very much.
    
    (-6/6), (-3/3), (-7/7), (-8/8), (-4/4), ... That's the mod
    points from your previous posts. People just love you.
    
    Comments
    
    By Anonymous Coward (208.152.231.254) on 2009-01-21 20:29
    
    > > > [...]
    > > > > I want a justification before I start giving you my money.
    > > >
    > > > Just donate or shut up. Nobody is forcing you to give away shit.
    > >
    > > 1. I have no plans to shut up, thank you very much.
    >
    > (-6/6), (-3/3), (-7/7), (-8/8), (-4/4), ... That's the mod
    > points from your previous posts. People just love you.
    >
    
    Thanks Troll ;-)
    
    (0/900)
    
    That's how many Euros I intend to contribute to a project where the developers abuse anyone who questions any aspect of their work.
    
    You know, assuming "OpenSMTPd" isn't a bloated mess that's worse than sendmail, Gilles already has enough money for a decent rig if he's willing to actually look at what people have told him. I would suggest that he downloads the source to sendmail and compares a quick "make" to the current time taken to compile OpenSMTPd. If it's shorter, then a complete recompile of his project on a Core Duo (about the cheapest system you can buy right now) should take less than 50 seconds, with a simple "recompile one file and link" taking less than 3.
    
    If it takes longer, well, efficiency: ur doin it wrong.
    
    Spending $200 on a cheap Core Duo means not having to wait for the rest of the money, which'll take rather a long time if all he and his supporters are going to do when questioned is insult people.
    
    I don't expect he'll take much notice though. Geez. What is it about the OpenBSD community? You can't even ask for money without alienating everyone.
    
    Comments
    
    By Anonymous Coward (85.19.213.88) on 2009-01-21 20:43
    
    > (0/900)
    >
    > That's how many Euros I intend to contribute ...
    
    That's fine.
    
    > ... to a project where the developers abuse anyone who
    > questions any aspect of their work.
    
    Not anyone. Just you.
    
    > You know, assuming "OpenSMTPd" isn't a bloated mess that's worse
    > than sendmail
    
    Rather than assuming, which seems to be a consistent theme for you,
    subscribe to source-changes and a few other lists, grab the source
    code and get yourself educated.
    
    > What is it about the OpenBSD community?
    
    It's about things you'll never understand, apparently.
    
    By Matthias Kilian (91.3.34.110) kili@openbsd.org on 2009-01-21 22:12
    
    > ..., Gilles already has enough money for a decent rig if he's willing to actually look at what people have told him.
    
    According to some previous post from Gilles, he's currently working on a slow laptop. So he wants a decent desktop system. Fine. In my world, a decent desktop system is fast, reliable and *quiet*. And it shouldn't blow up the monthly electricity bills. [the last sentence is for sure my bad english, sorry]
    
    > Spending $200 on a cheap Core Duo
    
    Not here in germany (don't know about pricing in france). A decent development system requires a good, reliable and quiet power supply, a good and quiet case, a good and reliable motherboard, etc.
    
    For $200 (about 155 EUR) I get a case, a power supply, and a little bit of RAM.
    
    But wait -- you seem to expect Gilles to buy some really cheap crap that is "enough" for compling smtpd, and that will die in a year or two (or, even worse, puts Gilles' place on fire because the crappy power supply).
    
    That's the true spirit of open source... someone is writing a fine piece of software, giving it away for free, and now asks for some donations for buying a better development box. And all he gets are rants from anonymous assholes talking about $200 crap. Whow!
    
    Comments
    
    By Lennie (2001:610:612:0:230:1bff:fe46:a618) on 2009-01-21 22:45
    
    > That's the true spirit of open source... someone is writing a fine piece of software, giving it away for free, and now asks for some donations for buying a better development box. And all he gets are rants from anonymous assholes talking about $200 crap. Whow!
    
    I agree it's sad. Personally I couldn't care less about which assholes write this code, as long as the code gets written. ;-) And I support the project financially in the hope it contributes, as I've not found much time to code the same code myself.
    
    By jkm (83.227.239.156) on 2009-01-21 20:23
    
    If he feels he needs a new machine for doing smtpd, thats ok. If the work is more productive or more fun on a new machine than its worth it. I dont even care if he buys a computer, pizza or a beer for the money as long as he has the ambition to finish smtpd.
    
    I just sent in my donation.
    
    By Anonymous Coward (59.167.252.29) on 2009-01-22 00:30
    
    > 1. I have no plans to shut up, thank you very much. What is it about supporters of this project that makes them resort to verbal abuse when anyone raises a question about it.
    
    A group of people with common interests want to do something with THEIR time and THEIR money and then someone like you comes along and complains about it.
    
    If you disagree, then simply refrain from donation. There is no more powerful way to vote. If your opinion is realistic, then others will refrain from donating and the goal won't be met.
    
    Being argumentative with those cooperative people because you disagree with their opinion on how they choose to spend their time, effort and money, is in no way helpful to them or yourself.
    
    You are just an impediment.
    
    > 2. If you want people to donate, you need to justify it. Nobody's going to get money by saying "Just give me money or shut up". Nobody's going to persuade people to give money to someone else's project by saying "Just give me money or shut up."
    
    And yet the donation goal has been met and exceeded. No reasonable person was told to shut up.
    
    Consider the hourly rate of a top notch developer and how many hours they spend on making this brilliant software. A 900 Euro PC is a pittance.
    
    By Owain G. Ainsworth (oga) on 2009-01-22 00:47
    
    >
    > It took me 50 seconds to compile sendmail on a 1.8GHz Core Duo. 50 seconds. That's from scratch - as in, open the tar ball, cd into the directory, and type "time make". If I type "touch obj.*/sendmail/main.c", and type "time make" again, it takes 3.415 seconds. That's not CPU time, that's elapsed time.
    
    bloated overengineered piece of crap, eh?
    
    #dmesg |grep cpu | head -2 |tail -1
    cpu0: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU L7500 @ 1.60GHz, 1596.25 MHz
    #cd /usr/src/usr.sbin/smtpd && make obj && time make
    <OUTPUT_HERE>
    0m15.69s real 0m10.98s user 0m2.03s system
    
    I'll say that's a no.
    
    Couldn't resist...
    -0-
    
    Comments
    
    By Anonymous Coward (132.170.49.18) on 2009-01-22 14:19
    
    > #dmesg |grep cpu | head -2 |tail -1
    > cpu0: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU L7500 @ 1.60GHz, 1596.25 MHz
    
    > <>
    > Couldn't resist...
    
    sysctl hw.model
    
    Couldn't resist ;)
    
    By Janne Johansson (jj) jj@inet6.se on 2009-01-22 08:43 .
    
    > > [...]
    > > > I want a justification before I start giving you my money.
    > It took me 50 seconds to compile sendmail on a 1.8GHz Core Duo. 50 seconds. That's from scratch - as in, open the tar ball, cd into the directory, and type "time make". If I type "touch obj.*/sendmail/main.c", and type "time make" again, it takes 3.415 seconds. That's not CPU time, that's elapsed time.
    
    Then again, during development of the SSL parts of smtp, Damien Miller might post a large diff that moves OpenSSL to 0.9.8j and ask everyone that really cares for SSL to test it, and then you get to make a full build in order to try it out, and that wont be 3.415 seconds of wall time. Or to get the fix in for bind, given that he might just have bind going on the machines which tests smtpd for him. Or just to keep -current so as not to make smtpd a patch against OpenBSD 4.3. There are lots of reasons why a developer needs to be able to compile the system as fast as possible, and strangely enough why OpenBSD developers tend to like projects like PCC or efforts like when Espie made "make" lots faster.
    
    Development requires devs to build stuff often, not just "touch *c ; make" in a single directory.
    
    Comments
    
    By Gilles Chehade (gilles) on 2009-01-22 09:32 http://www.poolp.org/~gilles/
    
    > > > [...]
    > > > > I want a justification before I start giving you my money.
    > > It took me 50 seconds to compile sendmail on a 1.8GHz Core Duo. 50 seconds. That's from scratch - as in, open the tar ball, cd into the directory, and type "time make". If I type "touch obj.*/sendmail/main.c", and type "time make" again, it takes 3.415 seconds. That's not CPU time, that's elapsed time.
    >
    > Then again, during development of the SSL parts of smtp, Damien Miller might post a large diff that moves OpenSSL to 0.9.8j and ask everyone that really cares for SSL to test it, and then you get to make a full build in order to try it out, and that wont be 3.415 seconds of wall time. Or to get the fix in for bind, given that he might just have bind going on the machines which tests smtpd for him. Or just to keep -current so as not to make smtpd a patch against OpenBSD 4.3. There are lots of reasons why a developer needs to be able to compile the system as fast as possible, and strangely enough why OpenBSD developers tend to like projects like PCC or efforts like when Espie made "make" lots faster.
    >
    > Development requires devs to build stuff often, not just "touch *c ; make" in a single directory.
    >
    
    ... or issue a stress test that actually stresses things, work on *large* queues and get an environment that looks like a real server if we keep smtpd in mind ...
    
    ... but also because what I work on is not necessarily smtpd related and can require lots of space and/or lots of computing power for testing the correctness of results that aren't too fast at computing ...
    
    Simply put, I need a desktop to work in a comfortable environment, I saw one that fits my needs and it costs around EUR900. I will get this one, or one similar, not the one some troll thinks I need because he thinks a P133 is sufficient for my needs. I have stuff that I have to pay for in priority, donations allow me to get the working environment I need as soon as possible and not wait for months that could be used in a more productive way.
    
    Again, thanks to all who donated.
    
    By Daniel Ouellet (66.63.10.88) daniel@presscom.net on 2009-01-22 23:20
    
    > 1. I have no plans to shut up, thank you very much. What is it about supporters of this project that makes them resort to verbal abuse when anyone raises a question about it.
    
    Not when questions are raise about it, just when it make no sense for some of them!
    
    > 2. If you want people to donate, you need to justify it. Nobody's going to get money by saying "Just give me money or shut up". Nobody's going to persuade people to give money to someone else's project by saying "Just give me money or shut up."
    
    You get your justification even 6 months, May and November. No one asked you to justify why you choose to use it, so be as respectful and act in kind as well. Why should anyone give you free stuff and you request justification when requests are sent to help in ways you could!?
    
    > What's happened here is ridiculous. If Gilles had said "Look, I'm having to devote a lot of time to this, can't get a job, and would like some money to help me get by", that'd have been one thing. But his argument, essentially, is that he "needs" a fairly expensive development rig, and anyone who questions that is EVIL because we didn't give him money.
    
    He does give his time period! So, you can always see it as a contribution to his time, but you choose not to. You just want to fell important like a bunch of anal manager that can't get anything done, but take credit of others and in your way try to block his work and make him fell real good about his work by providing such good feedback don't you!?
    
    Nothing is ridiculous here other then your reaction really!
    
    You don't want to give, then don't. As such, you have no say in others time, or even others willingness to give for what thy believe to be a good thing, or do you fell they should justify that to you as well.
    
    One big over controlling and limiting of freedom was kick out of office, should this also have been justify to you before it's done?
    
    He has to freedom to do as he see fit with his time, you can help him or not, your choice, but you really have no say into how he choose to spend his time!
    
    > Well, you know what, I'm not donating. Not because I can't afford it. Not because I don't want people working on a decent replacement for, say, sendmail (God, we need it.) But because the developers here don't have any honesty, and because they and their supporters resort to abuse when basic questions are asked.
    
    WOW!? No honesty!?!?! Abuse, etc. I wonder about your conviction and point of view. But you are sure free to express it as you see fit. Don't expect others to fell compel to agree with it.
    
    > It took me 50 seconds to compile sendmail on a 1.8GHz Core Duo. 50 seconds. That's from scratch - as in, open the tar ball, cd into the directory, and type "time make". If I type "touch obj.*/sendmail/main.c", and type "time make" again, it takes 3.415 seconds. That's not CPU time, that's elapsed time.
    
    Good for you. 50 seconds, great, but hey, didn't you say a 160MHz pentium is good for this? So, why do you have a 1.8GHz Core Duo on top of that!? I guess you fell you needed it didn't you!? Same for Gilles. We didn't asked you to justify why you tested this on your 1.8GHz did we, so don't come and put figure into the mix to show it's OK.
    
    If it took you 50 seconds on that computer, how many minutes would have taken you on your great 166MHz then? Hours? So, it's OK for others to waste their time, but not for you!?
    
    Great point of view!
    
    > Why are you expecting me to donate money to this project?
    
    No one expected you to do so. A request at large was done and you are free to act on it. I wish I could have that choice with my taxes as well and pay taxes on project that actually are useful to people, but wait, I can't!!! And they sure hell don't want to justify it either!!!
    
    So, this is way more democratic then what ever else you want to look at and here you still have a choice!
    
    So, give or not, but you shouldn't make a fuss about it if others are welling to suppose something they see as valuable and you try to put your own view on it.
    
    > I'm not asking much, I'm just asking why? You're either not honest, or the code is the most god-awful bloated crap in the world, so bloated - indeed - that it's larger and more unwieldy than sendmail.
    
    You should look first before writing here. The code is small and it does already so much and it's clean too! You are just continuing to dig a hole under you really as all you say don;'t hold much water really!
    
    > I'm not going to donate anything without justification. Insulting me or telling me to "shut up" isn't going to make the donations flow. And I'm pretty sure that taking this attitude is alienating more than just me.
    
    One of the goal of OpenBSD is do great secure code and if I remember as well just to well, donation are accepted without string attached to them. If you don't agree and you are free not to, then don't.
    
    But let others welling to help in ways they can do so.
    
    Donating with justification is more like lobbying and advocating for something, oppose to give out of good will and freely.
    
    Do as you fell is right for you if you want, but expecting justification on $$$ extended to any project or things is not a donation, but a limitation actions I guess for lack of better words.
    
    You are really out of whack here. Justifying something given freely to you...
    
    WOW!!!
    
    By Chris (142.132.10.137) on 2009-01-23 21:11
    
    >
    > It took me 50 seconds to compile sendmail on a 1.8GHz Core Duo. 50 seconds. That's from scratch - as in, open the tar ball, cd into the directory, and type "time make". If I type "touch obj.*/sendmail/main.c", and type "time make" again, it takes 3.415 seconds. That's not CPU time, that's elapsed time.
    >
    
    Is this the 18.GHz Core Duo you bought 19 years ago?
    
    By Gilles Chehade (gilles) on 2009-01-21 21:00 http://www.poolp.org/~gilles/
    
    I didn't want to lose much time on this but, since you're making a big deal out of it, I'll take some minutes to set things straight:
    
    >
    > [...]
    >
    > Wow. Touchy. I did, however, cite at least one example of an SMTP application, and I've played with the source of, and customized, it and smail. So I am aware of roughly what kind of resources are needed for the development of an SMTP daemon.
    >
    > Now, you're saying that sendmail, at the very least, is not a relevant comparison. Or at least, you're implying it with your snide dismissal above, but you will not say why.
    >
    
    No, I have said nothing about sendmail or any other mta, I did not even compare smtpd to any other mta. YOU wrote a comment explaining what a mta does, showing that you actually had no clue what ours do, and my answer was just pointing out that you're commenting on something that you are not familiar with, because you don't contribute in ANY way, not by code, not by testing, not by feedbacks and not by ideas. Your contribution amounts to 0 on ALL levels, yet you have the guts to come and give your opinion on what you think I need.
    
    Anyway, as we'll see later in this post, this is not the only occurence of you talking out of your ass.
    
    >
    > [...]
    >
    > You're asking me for money. I'm asking you to justify me giving you money. You started this conversation. You've said you're going to need a EUR900 computer system (in an environment in which a nifty 32-bit Core Duo, which can compile and link the whole of sendmail (an over-engineered PoC with enormous amounts of legacy code, whose build process includes more than just compilation and linking) from a fresh install in less than fifty seconds - I just did it, costs under $200)
    >
    
    I have not asked YOU for money.
    
    What I did was to put a message on my *personnal* page which says that I need a desktop which costs around 900E and that I will *mostly* use it for OpenBSD/OpenSMTPD development. I also added one entry to the list of things OpenBSD hackers want.
    
    This was not a message to YOU but a message to whoever ran into these and wanted to help me. It had been there for over a week without you even knowing about it, and it turns out someone ran into the message on my site and sent it to misc@ which was picked up by undeadly. See ? In this whole schema, YOU fit ... nowhere.
    
    As to your benchmark, again you talk out of your ass since my use of a computer is not to build sendmail, nor to do anything that relates to building sendmail or similar. YOUR use of "customizing and playing with source" has nothing to do with MY use. But, we'll come to that later...
    
    > I'm not "thinking" I have a call on what is ok or not ok to use. I'm thinking you're being arrogant in assuming people should just accept it that you need a EUR900 machine to develop a relatively simple, legacy code free, network daemon, and should just give you money.
    >
    
    YOU assume that you know what I need for smtpd, which is already laughable considering you don't even know what smtpd does as your earlier description shows, but YOU also assume that I will only use that computer to work on smtpd.
    
    Let us not even look at long-term projects and focus on the use I have today: can you tell me what's in my home dir right now, besides smtpd and porn ?
    
    Or are you talking out of your ass again, not knowing what I am working on and what are my precise needs, current and future ?
    
    The fact that you don't contribute anything but trolling does not mean others do not work on more than a single project.
    
    > I want a justification before I start giving you my money. Of course, right now, after that response, and after thinking about how bloated an SMTP daemon would need to be to justify the resources your demanding for development, I doubt there's a justification in the world that'd convince me to donate.
    
    Fortunately, I don't want you to start giving me money, I will not try to convince you to donate and I don't care what YOU think of smtpd. So I guess none of us will have trouble sleeping tonight ;-)
    
    Comments
    
    By squiggleslash (2002:4295:3a08:1:213:2ff:fe24:e4d9) squiggleslash@yahoo.com on 2009-01-21 23:28
    
    I really am surprised you managed to get 900 euros given what you've posted here and your responses to people. The questions you've been asked were direct, but certainly not snide or impolite. You made a claim that you "had" to have a 900 euro PC in order to continue development, but when a simple "Well, it's not just for SMTPD, I need a new computer anyway, and I want to run Unreal Tournament from time to time too" would have sufficed, you responded as you did above. The way you've reacted is borderline abusive.
    
    I wouldn't donate money given that pitch. I'm just saying, and I'd love a decent SMTP daemon.
    
    You guys are asking for money. You may not have done so here, and may be furious at Undeadly.org for repeating your request, but at the end of the day, you said that you wanted people to give you money. What you've displayed today is an unbelievably misplaced and obnoxious act of entitlement that does the OpenBSD community no favors. Please, next time, a little politeness and friendliness would go a long, long, way.
    
    Comments
    
    By Anonymous Coward (98.127.110.254) on 2009-01-22 01:44
    
    Actually, the snideness was in response to someone who had clearly not taken the time to understand what gilles@ has already done. Doing work like that and having someone basically tell you you're doing something that nc(1) and a shell script could do is really kind of insulting.
    
    If anything, I think gilles@ went too light on AC in the first response.
    
    Christ, why do we have to go through this every time we ask for something?
    
    dev: "I could really use X."
    cluelesss douchebag: "You don't need X, because I clearly understand the work you're doing better than you do."
    
    Comments
    
    By Anonymous Coward (209.206.234.62) on 2009-01-23 20:18
    
    > Christ, why do we have to go through this every time we ask for something?
    
    JGGIDT
    
    By Anonymous Coward (82.161.172.147) on 2009-01-21 21:35
    
    > This is normally the kind of development that a Pentium P133 would be acceptable for. What's being added that necessitates a $900 machine?
    
    Elitist code needs elitist hardware. And buying anything with less than a 24" nowadays is just silly.
    
    Comments
    
    By Anonymous Coward (98.127.110.254) on 2009-01-22 01:52
    
    > > This is normally the kind of development that a Pentium P133 would be acceptable for. What's being added that necessitates a $900 machine?
    >
    > Elitist code needs elitist hardware. And buying anything with less than a 24" nowadays is just silly.
    
    Or, y'know, running code on hardware comparable to production systems before it's actually run on production systems to suss out bugs before they eat your boss's email. I'm sure that's pretty important too. Because I'm pretty sure you like getting a paycheck.
By Anonymous Coward (70.173.173.121) on 2009-01-21 10:28

Speaking of requests:
kevlo@ is ready to port the Attansic L1E driver with a donation of the hardware:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=123251304906419&w=2
By Anonymous Coward (85.19.213.88) on 2009-01-21 21:25

Donation on the way, next month (as I'm sort of broke right now).

Whatever I manage to donate, make sure you take some of it and buy yourself a cold beer or two.
By Gilles Chehade (gilles) gilles@openbsd.org on 2009-01-21 21:36 http://www.poolp.org/~gilles/

Thanks to all who donated, I will mail you by this week end !

Gilles
Comments
1. By Anonymous Coward (83.171.167.255) on 2009-01-21 21:40
  
  > Thanks to all who donated, I will mail you by this week end !
  >
  > Gilles
  
  Using OpenSMTPD of course? ;-)
  Comments
  1. By Gilles Chehade (gilles) on 2009-01-21 21:47 http://www.poolp.org/~gilles/
    
    > > Thanks to all who donated, I will mail you by this week end !
    > >
    > > Gilles
    >
    > Using OpenSMTPD of course? ;-)
    
    You should check headers of mails I sent in the last few months ;-)
    
    Comments
    
    By Anonymous Coward (83.171.167.255) on 2009-01-21 21:49
    
    > > > Thanks to all who donated, I will mail you by this week end !
    > > >
    > > > Gilles
    > >
    > > Using OpenSMTPD of course? ;-)
    >
    > You should check headers of mails I sent in the last few months ;-)
    
    X-OpenSMTPD: experiment
    
    I see :-)
2. By noname (212.77.163.102) on 2009-01-26 10:55
  
  > Thanks to all who donated, I will mail you by this week end !
  >
  > Gilles
  
  Hello Gilles,
  
  I'm just curious, what is the system you spotted ? I'm not with the trolls who deny your ask, just I want to see what are people using for OpenBSD from the new hardware.
  
  Thanks.
By not that Anonymous Coward (63.227.10.236) on 2009-01-22 03:42

I saw this and didn't move fast enough to help out, but I believe in the principle, so I'll send another donation to OpenBSD, which can use it to however they like. That is the beauty of Open Source, if you like their work, there is often a way to help with some grassroots donations. You don't have to get explanations/justifications, you get to judge yourself.

Quite simple, really. If you don't want to help out, you can keep your money, and if you get offended by someone, you can react according to your own value system, and everyone gets to see the lamers whine.
Comments
1. By Anonymous Coward (78.32.64.213) on 2009-01-22 18:09
  
  > I saw this and didn't move fast enough to help out, but I believe in the principle, so I'll send another donation to OpenBSD, which can use it to however they like. That is the beauty of Open Source, if you like their work, there is often a way to help with some grassroots donations. You don't have to get explanations/justifications, you get to judge yourself.
  >
  > Quite simple, really. If you don't want to help out, you can keep your money, and if you get offended by someone, you can react according to your own value system, and everyone gets to see the lamers whine.
  
  YOU WANT MIRRION DORRAR?! TOO BAD! HERE BOMB! FUCK U!
By me (87.178.157.71) on 2009-01-22 22:34

I totally agree with your reasons for this project. Configuring the alternatives is no fun.

I'm happy you are getting good tools to continue working on it. And having fun doing so certainly is a nice motivator, as is feeling supported by a community.

Good luck, and thanks a lot for scratching my itch as well as your own!
By Matt Stafford (67.173.91.74) on 2009-01-23 18:47

Gilles' name is misspelled with a "d" instead of an "s" in the update. Just wanted to point that out to the editor... ;)
Comments
1. By Owain G. Ainsworth (oga) on 2009-01-24 02:24
  
  > Gilles' name is misspelled with a "d" instead of an "s" in the update. Just wanted to point that out to the editor... ;)
  
  Fixed, thanks!
By Anonymous Coward (195.53.217.164) on 2009-01-30 18:17

Heh, i spent more or less 900� on my last PC *some* months ago (quad core, 4GB RAM, 500GB HD, 22" panoramic screen, etc, etc).

Are you saying that you need such PC in order to develop a friggin' SMTPD?.

W-T-F?.

No ... really. W-T-F?.
Comments
1. By Anonymous Coward (70.173.172.194) on 2009-02-01 08:37
  
  > Heh, i spent more or less 900� on my last PC *some* months ago (quad core, 4GB RAM, 500GB HD, 22" panoramic screen, etc, etc).
  >
  > Are you saying that you need such PC in order to develop a friggin' SMTPD?.
  >
  > W-T-F?.
  >
  > No ... really. W-T-F?.
  
  congratulations, you win a special award.
2. By CODOR (CODOR) on 2009-02-01 20:16
  
  > Heh, i spent more or less 900� on my last PC *some* months ago (quad core, 4GB RAM, 500GB HD, 22" panoramic screen, etc, etc).
  >
  > Are you saying that you need such PC in order to develop a friggin' SMTPD?.
  
  What are you using yours for? Posting to OpenBSD Journal?
By Anonymous Coward (85.127.102.44) on 2009-02-01 17:04

Why not port dma from the DragonFly folks?
http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/cgi/web-man?command=dma
Comments
1. By Pierre Riteau (82.254.87.197) pierre.riteau@gmail.com on 2009-02-01 19:05
  
  > Why not port dma from the DragonFly folks?
  > http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/cgi/web-man?command=dma
  
  Did you even read the manpage you are linking to?
  
  dma is not intended as a replacement for real, big MTAs like sendmail(8)
  or postfix(1). Consequently, dma does not listen on port 25 for incoming
  connections.
  
  OpenSMTPd has different goals than dma(8).
  Comments
  1. By Anonymous Coward (2001:16d8:ff6a:0:21e:68ff:feee:1b75) on 2009-02-02 09:08
    
    > > Why not port dma from the DragonFly folks?
    > > http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/cgi/web-man?command=dma
    >
    > Did you even read the manpage you are linking to?
    >
    > dma is not intended as a replacement for real, big MTAs like sendmail(8)
    > or postfix(1). Consequently, dma does not listen on port 25 for incoming
    > connections.
    >
    > OpenSMTPd has different goals than dma(8).
    
    Then why not use one of the other MTAs?

Latest Articles

Thu, Apr 18
- 05:05 Coming soon to a -current system near you: parallel raw IP input (0)
Wed, Apr 17
- 05:33 In -current, default write format for tar(1) changed to "pax" (10)
Wed, Apr 10
- 18:50 OpenSMTPD 7.5.0p0 Released (2)
Tue, Apr 09
- 04:49 20 years since "and we're just starting": undeadly.org turns 20 (2024-04-09) (13)
Fri, Apr 05
- 06:16 OpenBSD 7.5 released (3)
Thu, Mar 28
- 18:18 LibreSSL 3.8.4 and 3.9.1 released (0)
Tue, Mar 12
- 06:53 OpenSSH 9.7/9.7p1 released! (0)
Mon, Mar 11
- 11:28 Game of Trees 0.97 released (0)
Sun, Mar 10
- 09:06 LibreSSL versions 3.8.3 and 3.9.0 released (0)

Credits

Copyright © 2004-2008 Daniel Hartmeier. All rights reserved. Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors, submission implies license to publish on this web site. Contents of the archive prior to April 2nd 2004 as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original deadly.org with Jose's and Jim's kind permission. This journal runs as CGI with httpd(8) on OpenBSD, the source code is BSD licensed. undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]