Readit NewsNot sure if you are asking these as "Gotcha questions", if not, sorry, reading tone, etc. over the Internet is hard. If you are though, you are missing the point of what OpenBSD is and asking those questions is akin to walking into a Burger King and asking for sushi or how Linux interoperates with proprietary Windows drivers.
OpenBSD is the answer to what happens when a bunch of programmers get together around a shared history (BSD), goals (security, sane defaults, etc.), and very limited resources (Linux may be on the order of magnitude of a million times more users and funds). For example, based on reading tech@ for a few years, I am certain that the OpenBSD developers would love to have a new file system (people on Hacker News love to complain about FFS2), but the problem is that they are acutely aware of their own limitations. Ignoring the licensing issues with say ZFS, they do not have the funds and manpower to bring it into base (and maintain it as well, which everyone conveniently seem to forget is a cost) given how complex and large of a piece of code it is. So, an OpenBSD solution to what a new file system will look like will always be different from what we see out of Windows, Linux, etc. This, to me, is a good thing, because I like software diversity and history has shown that out of the OpenBSD community comes amazing pieces of software that makes its way into the rest of the ecosystem: OpenSSH, OpenSMTPD, tmux, LibreSSL, etc.
As a user, it forces you to rethink the cost of what you run and to some degree change your habits. I, for example, thought I "needed" a media server, but instead I have a directory serving videos over HTTP via httpd(8) and I just use the default directory listing and copy a URL into VLC to watch. Now, you may cry "That is not the same as a media server!" and I am not claiming it is, but I am getting along with no dependencies and fewer lines of code and am happily watching my videos regardless of any objections. Plus, I bet my "media server" upgrades come with a lot less drama.
Is it even valid to have additional restriction on top of Apache 2.0?
You can legally do whatever you want, the question is whether you will then for your own benefit be appropriating a term like open source (like Facebook) if you add restrictions not in line with how the term is traditionally used or if you are actually be honest about it and call it something like "weights available".
In the case of OpenAI here, I am not a lawyer, and I am also not sure if the gpt-oss usage policy runs afoul of open source as a term. They did not bother linking the policy from the announcement, which was odd, but here it is:
https://huggingface.co/openai/gpt-oss-120b/blob/main/USAGE_P...
Compared to the wall of text that Facebook throws at you, let me post it here as it is rather short: "We aim for our tools to be used safely, responsibly, and democratically, while maximizing your control over how you use them. By using OpenAI gpt-oss-120b, you agree to comply with all applicable law."
I suspect this sentence still is too much to add and may invalidate the Open Source Initiative (OSI) definition, but at this point I would want to ask a lawyer and preferably one from OSI. Regardless, credit to OpenAI for moving the status quo in the right direction as the only further step we really can take is to remove the usage policy entirely (as is the standard for open source software anyway).
Same guy is behind these both.
Also, DRM-free music and streaming for KEYGEN CHURCH on Bandcamp:
It’s hardcoded. For IPv4 it doesn’t need to be dynamic because NAT allows you to hardcode private address ranges. But that whole concept of networking doesn’t translate (no pun intended) to IPv6
This is the problem I’m running into with deploying IPv6. I don’t know what address ranges to allocate because the dhcp server doesn’t perform any handshakes with the ISP. And I’m a bit reluctant to rearchitect the network topology for IPv6 because everything already works really well without IPv6.
So ideally I’d want a way of sliding in IPv6 without having to break what’s already working.
Every solution I’ve explored thus far hasn’t achieved that. But there’s lots of good information shared here today so I’ll have another read and maybe they’ll offer up an insight I’d previously missed.
https://blog.infected.systems/posts/2024-12-07-building-an-i...
This allows me to have a mixture of both protocols and even some boxes that have both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. I still have some issues writing routing rules that does not fail for link-local addresses, but the network has now been fully operational for well over a month.
I realise that the way BSDs do things is very different from Linux, but in BSD land the same people write the kernel, user land, and maintain the ports tree. With this I am not saying it is superior, but it does lead to a very different experience both as a developer and user. Yes, there are some exceptions to this like clang, the AMD GPU driver, etc. But the overall picture is true.