OpenBSD

In the previous attempt to feature this article, only three opinions were ever given - during that time the complaints were taken back and one even converted to a support, however this was not enough to get the article a passing grade. So here it is again for another attempt, here s the old peer review and previous FAC attempt. Janizary 08:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* No apologies needed, being critical is the core of these reviews - it's how we separate the wheat from the chaff. I can't deal with your points just now, but I will be going over them in like 6 hours or so. As far as usability goes, I completely disagree - I went from using Windows 2000 to using OpenBSD with nothing but the man pages and a friend telling me to keep trying and to read the man pages, there is no special technical skill required to use OpenBSD, just the willingness to read the documentation. Performance, yes, we could even mention the lack of a UBC. Janizary 17:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe. I was going to suggest UBC as an example too :-). NicM 17:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments; I think your points are fair, in general. Restructuring the article layout and text so that it flows better has been on my list for a while, although I make no comment on whether it is too bad for a FA, just that there is scope for improvement. Unfortunately, it is quite a big job that needs to be done carefully and I can't seem to find the time. I'm not convinced that the text itself is as bad as you say, but perhaps we have different ideas of style; it may help if you would be good enough to list some of the most egregious examples.
I had also thought about the lack of detail about cryptography and documentation but a) as the article already covers the technical security topics in some length I was reluctant to add more, b) given the current structure, I wasn't sure just where to put them, particularly stuff on documentation, c) to my mind, they are less interesting and important than the unique security features OpenBSD has developed, but I'm not really interested in crypto so I would think that :-) d) as I'm not interested in the topic I don't really know what to say about crypto, so I was hoping someone else would do it :-).
DJB's software is still gone and will probably never reappear; the article doesn't say this, but nor does it say there was a reconciliation and it was put back in—it may indeed be better if it said this explicitly, I'll probably fix that now. The split from NetBSD was perhaps the most important event in OpenBSD's history (and a significant one in NetBSD's) so I don't think four paragraphs is too much. A section about criticism/problems is a good idea, notably, as you say, performance and usability; however, I don't think there is practically that much criticism of OpenBSD in these terms, most people (both users and non-users, and developers) seem to understand that speed and ease of use are not top priority, so I'm not sure how long such a section would be :-)... I did try to gather material for a section on criticism of OpenBSD's security record but I found it impossible to seperate real allegations and evidence from trolling :-/.
The biggest problem at the moment is probably the flow and structure. I think I'll start a discussion on the talk page to try to get a layout sorted out before trying to fix it. NicM 17:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Oh, never mind about pointing out examples in the text, I see what you mean now. NicM 18:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • So you oppose it based on the fact that we cite an archive of e-mails? That archive used to be complete, but someone edited it, back when Theo still ran NetBSD. Hmmm, perhaps we could add the bit about some NetBSD developer cracking Theo de Raadt's webserver and removing some of the mail from that archive, not the nicest bit of history - but it was one of the reasons there is such bad blood between NetBSD and OpenBSD and is part of what got OpenBSD going into security. I don't think it the best thing to go into because that brings a bit more POV than I am able to neutralize. And I'd not say the source is unreliable, that it has been tampered with is a bit closer to the truth. It's a dump of e-mails that someone with a grudge took parts out of and it's hosted by the guy who was on one side of the argument - that there is noone saying another side of the argument more lends to the validity of the mails than anything for me. Anyways, as NicM says, everything done for projects like this is done in e-mail, not press releases unfortunately, so we can only deal with what we have. As it stands there is one source of information regarding it all, and that is the one from Theo - not citing it would probably be worse than not covering the matter. Janizary 18:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When it comes to negative characteriztions, that can harm a person's professional reputation, and be deemed defamatory, email archives, are even less adequate then normal. Now, if a investigative journalist for reliable publication were to examine them, analysis them, and publish a report, supporting what's said here, then that would be an adequate source. But that hasn't happened, and we can't do original research, which is what would be required. I've also put a note on the talk page, as I do now feel, that no only should this not be FAc, but much of it should be removed. --Rob 19:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. POV/comprehensiveness issues - and I'm particularily dissapointed with the history section as I really wanted to see more here. A lot of the conspiracy theories are gone, which is great, but for such a pivotal event it is really kind of bare... also, IIRC the DARPA grant was revoked because Theo was working in Canada and grants were techinically supposed to fund US-only endeavors.
  2. writing issues - i.e. "The reasons for this event have never been fully and publicly explained"
  3. flow problems (esp. in the "Highlights" subsection).

WhiteNight T | @ | C 20:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • History was a lot less bare about the fork but was reduced because of repeating damaging claims with lack of sources. I've made a lot of structural and flow changes, and efforts to reduce the length, at User:NicM/OpenBSD that I'm going to use if nobody objects within the next few days, detailed comments on it would be appreciated if you have time, on my talk page for preference. NicM 21:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • GREAT! The beginning history is a lot better in terms of comprehensiveness but the writing isn't too good though :\. I'll try to change it myself if I have some spare time. WhiteNight T | @ | C 21:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, any improvements are welcome. I do my best with the writing but I know it can end up a bit clunky :-). NicM 21:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
It looks a lot better now... WhiteNight T | @ | C 18:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More