It's been a long time, a long hiatus. Getting back, though, currently updating the support for OpenVMS, with some help from two VMS folks out there that play with boxes I don't have (incidently, if someone has an Itanium running OpenVMS to spare, I'll gratefully accept it ;-)).

It's a slow start, and there is no 64 bit support yet, although it's been asked for. There's a separate branch in CVS (yeah cough we're still there) for it though, and it requires a bit of work still.

Ref: OpenSSL

The following was announced earlier today:

You may have noticed that our website has a new look. That's because we've finally set up a proper legal structure to handle, in a more formal way, the sponsorship and consultancy support that sustains the OpenSSL project. Such financial support is important because some of us spend a large amount of time maintaining OpenSSL (unpaid) and rely entirely on ad-hoc consultancy work as a source of income.

The mission of the OpenSSL team has not changed one bit, though we are hoping that more financial support will enable more of us to spend more time maintaining, improving and extending OpenSSL. The software will continue to be available under a free and commercially friendly license and we will continue to provide support through the mailing lists. In fact we hope to provide even better community support as we are able to spend more time focusing on OpenSSL instead of paying the bills.

OpenSSL is widely used in commercial software products and for years now we have been approached by some of those commercial vendors to provide specific consulting services. The lack of a formal OpenSSL entity to perform the usual business functions has made that process harder than it needed to be. If you're a commercial vendor using OpenSSL and desiring assistance from the people who live and breathe OpenSSL every day, give us a call. We'll help you solve your specific OpenSSL related problems and you can improve and support the OpenSSL community at the same time.

For some reason (1), I went exploring the expression "Kilroy was here" and stumbled upon an Australian variant, Foo was here... I almost fell over laughing.

Must be early morning tiredness...

I'm tempted, though, to go scribble a "Foo was here" somewhere, just because.

There are 10 types of people, those who understand binaries and those who don't.

For a while now, I've been using SCons to build NetCrypto, and a few days ago, I stumbled upon CMake, which is basically a multiplatform Makefile creator, and I'm starting to wonder if I should switch. CMake looks pretty good and seems to do a pretty good job as far as I can tell, but that will actually remain to be seen. Thing is, to meet my goals, which is to have NetCrypto build on OpenVMS as well, whatever I use will need to be ported, and I've a hard time deciding which would be the easiest. Also, I've a hard time with Python, which is what SCons is made in.

Don't get me wrong, SCons has a cool concept with build recipes made in Python, but that also makes it hard to extend when needed, as there are a gazillion classes to go through when something goes wrong, and quite a bit of confusion when trying to debug anything and then ending up somewhere deep in a file system node layer and wondering how the hell you triggered that particular exception.

As far as I understand the docs for CMake, it basically implements some kind of script language to make configuration tests, define what goes where and just do it. Looks simple enough, and extending it is done by writing another of those scripts, often using very well defined file names.

So I don't know, it looks like CMake is a bit more mature. On the other hand, I shouldn't be surprised. After all, the latest release of CMake is version 2.2.3, while SCons is at version 0.96.1, with 0.97 being around the corner. It indicates that CMake has been through a lot more (or that Kitware Inc wants to make it look that way ), which in itself leads to a certain level of maturity. On the other hand, if you look at the timeline for both projects, it looks like they both started around August 2000, with Another way to look at SCons leaning on Cons and CMake leaning on something called pcmaker, which I know nothing about.

Basically, it's hard to decide, and I need to use something that I feel I can trust fully to invest my time in and to stay with for a while. Wallowing between the two is just counterproductive. I'd appreciate any help from outside people in this, especially good advice.

I've noticed how much monotone has changed my habits and views on version control. From being a fairly mature CVS user and hacker, I've now fully moved to use monotone as much as I can. It was most noticable a couple of days ago, when I worked on some project that's still versioned using CVS, and wondered why so many files were missing, until I realised I had forgotten to update with -dP... Those flags used to be second nature!

The thing that attracted me the most about monotone was its off-line capabilities and the way it keeps track of history, which is essential to get merging working the way I want (contrary to the way I have to do it with CVS, with all the dealing with tags and all). I've also come to realise that the way it works leads to a different approach to work flow:

Maintainance branches:

many large projects that use CVS, for example OpenBSD and OpenSSL, use separate branches to maintain one or two "current" versions of the product while still being about to do "bleeding edge" development in the trunk. When you want to make a change (a bug fix), you might need to do it in a maintainance branch and then merge the results into the main trunk, which leads to the typical merge hassle with CVS. With monotone, it's a bit of a different story. First of all, you don't really have to deal with separate maintainance branches. Since a branch can have multiple heads, all you need to do it is to update to the latest release, make your change and commit, then tag it. If you want to merge the change with the other (or all the other) head(s), you simply merge. Of course, it might be more practical to have a separate branch for maintainance, but at least there is the option! There is no such option with CVS.

Looking at it as things to follow up on:

Just an hour or two ago, someone said there was a bit of an error in Makefile.am in the monotone source. I decided to take it on, and decided to do it in a slightly different way. Instead of just update to the head and make the change there, I updated to the revision where the error was introduced, made the correction, committed, which of course created a second head, and finally merged While being something of an experiment, it taught me another way to look at source development, as responses to very specific events. Basically, I treated this particular event as an email to follow up on, which creates a link between the other emailer (committer) and me, and a thread of emails (revisions) to follow. Kind of a different view, much more like people responding to each other than people dealing with a big blob called the source and whatever "magically" happens in it. A kind of social interaction between developers, maybe far away from each other.

There are times when User Friendly delivers real pearls of wisdom. Today is one of those days.

You know how you sometimes get completely ludicrous demands as a programmer, and end up working you ass off day and night for a week or so? Things like having a life just being a fleeting memory from past times when things were sweeter? Well, here's the way to handle it:

You've got to love it, just throw that ball back in the other court, elegantly and swiftly!

I've recently been told that I'm leaving no possibility to comment. While that was true a while ago, I actually recently changed that. Just look below, at that link that looks like an e-mail address. Yeah, that's it, there! You are oh so welcome to use that to send me a comment!

There's an exception, though; if you read this through some aggregator, you won't see the comment link. Sorry.

Now, some may wonder, why don't I have that kind of fancy public comment system like everyone else (or at least like LiveJournal et al)? There are quite a few reasons for that

1. I do not want to subject myself to the potential holes that may come with such a system.
2. Some people might actually want to send me a comment in private.
3. I do not want my blog to become a discussion forum. That has never been its' purpose and never will.

Now, use that link, comment away, tell me that I'm great or that I'm silly. Just because I make them private doesn't mean I do not want your comments sent to me!

And oh, it might be a good thing to tell me if you want your comment to remain private. I just might choose to pick a few, publish them and comment on them on rare occasion...

Last week, I spent all evenings and the whole darn weekend hacking (oh, and if you think I mean anything other than writing good software, you're a wanker... just so that's clear ). Haven't had the opportunity or even the courage to simply take the time for so darn long (I think last time was last summer or something like that)! And it was really great to get back to that. I finally found the energy to make some decisions on how to do certain things; among others about one thing that had been spinning around in my head for almost a year!!! Good I got that one through, it takes quite a bit of energy having that jumping around in my head!

Yesterday, I found myself in a very good mood, and could relate that to the greatness of the weekend. I just have to do this more often. It's quite obvious that hacking (programming, you wankers! ) is something I love, where I feel powerful and that gives me energy back.

I'm guessing that every few weekends or so should be enough to at least keep me afloat. Something regular, I think that's important. And I recall my SO saying that she needed some weekend of her own, so I could probably match that.

And maybe I should make sure I've one free working day per week.

More to ponder...

My friend elmindreda just showed me what kind of laptop she's going to shop. A build-it-yourself one. DROOOOOOL I had no idea such a thing even existed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy with my laptop. However, the next time I feel the need to get a new one, I'll definitely go for a built-it-yourself one. That way I'll probably get the exact specs I want instead of having to make compromises.