Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 16th Jan 2014 23:08 UTC, submitted by jz

See the email thread on the misc list for more details.

In light of shrinking funding, we do need to look for a source to cover project expenses. If need be the OpenBSD Foundation can be involved in receiving donations to cover project electrical costs.

But the fact is right now, OpenBSD will shut down if we do not have the funding to keep the lights on.

If you or a company you know are able to assist us, it would be greatly appreciated, but right now we are looking at a significant funding shortfall for the upcoming year - Meaning the project won't be able to cover 20 thousand dollars in electrical expenses before being able to use money for other things. That sort of situation is not sustainable.

The OpenBSD project is the incubator for a number of other projects including OpenSSH and OpenSMTPD. If you use these or just want the project to survive, consider making a donation.

Thread beginning with comment 580854
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Cut Back?
by terra on Fri 17th Jan 2014 06:48 UTC in reply to "Cut Back?"
Member since:

Because they support multiple architectures which can not be virtualised at all?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Cut Back?
by Alfman on Fri 17th Jan 2014 07:14 in reply to "RE: Cut Back?"
Alfman Member since:


"Because they support multiple architectures which can not be virtualised at all?"

Kudos for thinking of that, I didn't. They probably use a cross compiler, but they might have other servers for actual testing.

Many pre-built packages for each architecture:
i386: 7976
sparc64: 6959
alpha: 6062
m68k: 3862
sh: 989
amd64: 7941
powerpc: 7483
m88k: 3951
sparc: 4823
arm: 5582
hppa: 6607
vax: 2226
mips64: 6739
mips64el: 6306

Still, qemu might be an option since it emulates many kinds of platforms, though I'm not sure how well.

Available targets: i386-softmmu x86_64-softmmu
alpha-softmmu arm-softmmu cris-softmmu lm32-softmmu
m68k-softmmu microblaze-softmmu microblazeel-softmmu
mips-softmmu mipsel-softmmu mips64-softmmu
mips64el-softmmu or32-softmmu ppc-softmmu
ppcemb-softmmu ppc64-softmmu sh4-softmmu
sh4eb-softmmu sparc-softmmu sparc64-softmmu
s390x-softmmu xtensa-softmmu xtensaeb-softmmu
unicore32-softmmu i386-linux-user x86_64-linux-user
alpha-linux-user arm-linux-user armeb-linux-user
cris-linux-user m68k-linux-user
microblaze-linux-user microblazeel-linux-user
mips-linux-user mipsel-linux-user or32-linux-user
ppc-linux-user ppc64-linux-user
ppc64abi32-linux-user sh4-linux-user
sh4eb-linux-user sparc-linux-user sparc64-linux-user
sparc32plus-linux-user unicore32-linux-user

If this really is a source of the problem, then perhaps it's time to retire some of the archaic architectures they're building binaries for? Just distribute the build environment so that users can compile their own binaries easily.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Cut Back?
by Alfman on Fri 17th Jan 2014 07:39 in reply to "RE[2]: Cut Back?"
Alfman Member since:

Hmm, in this email Theo de Raadt seems to be strictly against cost cutting solutions.

The email he replied to seemed well founded to me, especially if things are getting bad enough to threaten the whole project. It's nice to have everything, but they need to focus on the critical things that keep them viable. Hopefully this is realized before it's too late.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Cut Back?
by tidux on Fri 17th Jan 2014 13:49 in reply to "RE[2]: Cut Back?"
tidux Member since:

> They probably use a cross compiler

Actually they don't. They have a very strict no cross compiling policy except to bootstrap a new port.

Reply Parent Score: 3