Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 02:04, 15 October 2024

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

	OpenBSD is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 10, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 21, 2005 Peer review Reviewed December 17, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 21, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted May 29, 2010 Featured article review Kept September 3, 2016 Featured article review Demoted April 12, 2020 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Former featured article

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software. This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as High-importance). Computer Security: Computing High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as High-importance). Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with: Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information... Review importance and quality of existing articles Identify categories related to Computer Security Tag related articles Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests) Identify articles for improvement Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc. Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here. Spoken Misplaced Pages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

Merger discussion

@Lyanbox782: you should probably put the details of your proposal here at the beginning of the section, including the rationale for the merger, and an indication of which direction the merge should be done - OpenBSD Foundation into OpenBSD, or OpenBSD into OpenBSD Foundation - or an indication that you're leaving that as part of the discussion. didn't indicate into which direction the merger should be done; you should probably do that, or indicate that you're leaving that as part of the discussion. If you have a direction in mind, you should replace the {{Merge}} template in with a {{Merge from}} template, and replace the {{Merge}} template I put into OpenBSD Foundation (to let people reading that article know that a merger was proposed) with a {{Merge to}} template. Guy Harris (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

See WP:MERGEPROP for the process of proposing a merger. Guy Harris (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

oppose since the OpenBSD Foundation is parent of other projects, its own entity, and OpenBSD is well notable on its own, it makes little sense to me to shoehorn this established article into that stub.(updated 2 Aug 2021 to reflect Foundation->OpenBSD merge) that the foundation be mentioned here in brief passing, but the OpenBSD Foundation article itself remain separate, of course depending on notability outcome Strangerpete (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Just close this. The user has opened numerous bad merge discussions in their short editing career and they are indefinite blocked for CIR, refusal to communicate, and continuing to make disruptive edits following several previous blocks. -- ferret (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

While you're not wrong, not every edit they made was disruptive; I get the feeling that its a kid with good intentions who just wasn't getting it (either way, irrelevant)...and even though I'm not exactly on board with with merger proposal, I'm having vague second thoughts on whether or not the Foundation should in fact be merged here, and as Guy Harris pointed out that may have been their original intention (my prior oppose being based on the openbsd->foundation move specifically.) I think it would be just fine to let this discussion take the normal course. Strangerpete (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say every edit they made was disruptive. I still oppose this on the simple grounds of OpenBSD and the foundation being different topics. -- ferret (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean to imply that you said that, I only wanted to balance your (correct) statement for others who may read this, as not to gain the impression that this was only a malicious editor...in that case I'd have agreed totally to revert the whole proposal Strangerpete (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support Does not meet WP:GNG on its own for a standalone article. Merge into OpenBSD. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per @Strangerpete:'s reasons Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 17:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I think the question about whether OpenBSD Foundation should be merged into this article really boils down to whether the OpenBSD Foundation is sufficiently notable like the FreeBSD Foundation to warrant its own article, or whether its notability as a standalone subject is dubious enough to warrant it being subsumed into the corresponding OS article as is the case for the NetBSD Foundation.  —PowerPCG5 (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Placing the foundation within the OpenBSD article is not appropriate imho; notability is another issue. The foundation is the parent of multiple projects, with OpenSSH arguably more popular than OpenBSD itself...so why would we put the foundation under one of it's random projects? Strangerpete (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

IMHO the OpenBSD operating system is a little more substantial than just another “one of its random projects”; while I personally don’t have a strong opinion either way, if a consensus emerge that the OpenBSD Foundation doesn’t meet Misplaced Pages’s notability guidelines to warrant having its own article, I personally would prefer that it at least be covered in its own subsection under the OpenBSD article than not be mentioned at all on Misplaced Pages  —PowerPCG5 (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Strangerpete: (1)

"this merge is already under discussion in talk, with a majority oppose currently."

when I started to merge them there was no notice template at the articles and the last comment was written on 10 August, so I assumed that the discussion is over (2) I don't see "a majority oppose", the first oppose vote which is yours, can't be counted because per what you have stated "my prior oppose being based on the openbsd->foundation move specifically.", the second oppose vote can't be counted because it is just personal judgment about the merger opener without any comment about the discussion/merge itself, the third oppose vote is "per @Strangerpete:'s reasons" (the first oppose vote, your vote) can't be counted same as the first vote; I see a support vote with a good reason Does not meet WP:GNG on its own for a standalone article., and the last one is a "Comment" by user:PowerPCG5 which has no opposition about the merge; at the end, if you count my actions (merging) as "Support" you will see that the claim "a majority oppose" is invalid. -- FMM-1992 (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

12 hours earlier both articles had the merger banner removed with the summary, Removed "Merge with OpenBSD Foundation template" due to lack of support for the Merge, it had seemed unlikely to me at the time that you wouldn't have noticed that prior to merging. That on top of the discussion below where it was requested that you discuss merges first.

As for the votes, fair enough - my oppose wasn't clear stated since the original proposal wasn't clear, I should have updated my opposition later. The second vote was definitely valid at the time since the user was making random merge requests; but either way this discussion was never closed, though i'm in no rush to - discussion is certainly welcome Strangerpete (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@FMM-1992: on second thought, I'll change to support for the following reasons: most people probably won't understand the difference between Openbsd and the Foundation due to the name, and end up here anyway; while the foundation article has some sources now, you're probably correct that it won't stand as notable - though I don't think it should be here, still it makes more sense than the alternatives. It couldn't hurt you to make some attempt at discussion first though in the future, your edit summary for this merge was unnecessarily confrontational; and a stub is far from harmful to anyone.

@Scaledish:'s vote is still based on my original oppose which was worded for the original OpenBSD->Foundation merge, so they should revisit their position. Sorry for the noise and confusion! Strangerpete (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Strangerpete: thanks for changing your vote, I just want to help the readers and editors, and also improving the article; as I said in the edit summary of the merge:

"One page with just "100 pageviews (30 days)" (according to mw:XTools) for one short paragraph?! NO, it is harmful for editors, readers, and WP -- Also it was not notable, it just had one primary source which was its announcing at the OpenBSD Journal -- same as NetBSD#The NetBSD Foundation"

perhaps using the word "harmful" was wrong, it was better to use the word "unhelpful" and the phrase "time-wasting", in any way, as I said in the following section for OpenBSD version history, WP:Article size says:

Readable prose

Readable prose is the main body of the text, excluding material such as footnotes and reference sections ("see also", "external links", bibliography, etc.), diagrams and images, tables and lists, Wikilinks and external URLs, and formatting and mark-up.

Size guideline

Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages:

Readable prose size --- What to do

> 100 kB --- Almost certainly should be divided

> 60 kB --- Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)

> 50 kB --- May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)

< 40 kB --- Length alone does not justify division

< 1 kB --- If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, the article could be expanded; see Misplaced Pages:Stub.

Please note: These rules of thumb apply only to readable prose and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means), and each kB can be equated to 1,000 characters. Number of characters in an article can be found with the help of Shubinator's DYK tool; or Prosesize.

also Misplaced Pages:Merging#Reasons for merger says:

(2) Overlap: There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept. For example, "flammable" and "non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on flammability.
(3) Short text: If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For example, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity (and can be merged there).

user:Onel5969 has labeled the article as {{notability|1=Companies|date=August 2021}} which says "this article may not meet Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines for companies and organizations", when I read that Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines I found that OpenBSD Foundation fails in all aspects, just see it. I think VideoLAN can be considered as a notable organization, it is very famous and has "291 revisions since 2003-07-07, 217 editors, 75 watchers, 5,165 pageviews (30 days)" (mw:XTools), compare it with OpenBSD Foundation which had "63" pageviews from 1 April 2021 to 1 May 2021 (see Pageviews Analysis) before the merge banners increasing its pageviews.

One important note, OpenBSD Foundation is not the only unnotable, short and stub article that should be merged, The Fedora Project (my main OS) and The openSUSE Project have the same problems and I will merge them into their main articles.

Currently 8 days passed from your comment, and it seems you was the only major oppose which of course you have changed your vote, so I will restore my merge edits manually without reverting.

Regards. -- FMM-1992 (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Puffy mascot openbsd.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Understanding cited Security criticisms

Two main criticisms are made of BSDs in general and of OpenBSD in particular, the first apparently from year 2017:

      "Bugs are still easy to find in those kernels, even in OpenBSD". 

and the other:

      "Two years later, in 2019, ... that while OpenBSD has some effective mitigations, a significant part of them are "useless at best and based on pure luck and superstition", arguing for a more rational approach when it comes to designing them. 

BSD kernel function bugs shown appeared less as manifestly incorrect software(1) than as potentially troublesome edge use conditions that belong more to calling routine checks. The citation did not quite relate to the second criticism which seemed to come from an off the record discussion not found in the cited slide presentation. The citation suggests nevertheless a level of futility "useless mitigation" (maybe the Xorg root exploit??) for whichever OpenBSD one the presenter had in mind but readers here shall not know which or know of.

(1) unless for say the TCP stack ipsec example the comparison (<) of xisr->sadb_x_ipsecrequest_len to sizeof(*xisr) is not of like-to-like quanitites in the struct secpolicy *key_msg2sp() function 'bug' example. Mkhomo (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Linux, Microsoft, Halloween Papers

We mostly know that Linux sold out, and became owned by corporations. Ever since returning from BSDCon 2000 in that same year I have felt there was an entity working against me. Please confirm that halloween documents isn't focused on BSD's. I've been heavily monitored for the last 23+ years, been poisoned, gaslighted and had economic setbacks. Right now I have a NetBSD macbook pro that has a NetBSD rootkit on it, two days after installing that. What gives? Freedom has never seemed so restricted in my life! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.145.79.170 (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• B-Class Computing articles
• Mid-importance Computing articles
• B-Class software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• B-Class software articles of Unknown-importance
• All Software articles
• B-Class Free and open-source software articles
• High-importance Free and open-source software articles
• B-Class Free and open-source software articles of High-importance
• All Free and open-source software articles
• All Computing articles
• B-Class Computer Security articles
• High-importance Computer Security articles
• B-Class Computer Security articles of High-importance
• High-importance Computing articles
• All Computer Security articles