Several days ago, a new sensor driver was committed, kate(4), supporting the temperature sensors on the AMD64 K8 family of processors, on both i386 and amd64 platforms. As johan@ asked me to write an article about kate, I looked around, and to my surprise, I discovered that kate(4) is now the 64^th driver that uses the sensors framework on OpenBSD! Two previous drivers that were committed are andl(4), the 63^rd driver, and fins(4), the 62^nd driver.

Taking this opportunity, I'd like to thank all developers for writing the drivers that allow OpenBSD users to easily monitor the health of their boxes, without requiring any complicated setups. As some messages in mailing lists indicate, nowadays it is not uncommon for users to chose their operating system based on the sensor support that it provides. :)

It it also worth thanking the many users that send in their dmesgs to dmesg@openbsd.org, which allows us to improve the i2c scanning procedures, write and test complete i2c drivers, as well as it ensures the continued sustainability of other hardware-related support.

How to join the celebration? Send in `dmesg` and `sysctl hw` to dmesg@openbsd.org, so that we can support even more sensors and even better!

Sending these test reports is easy: OpenBSD boxes come with the local sendmail support configured by default, so unless some firewall blocks your outgoing smtp connections, `(dmesg; sysctl hw) | mail -s "sensors celebration" dmesg@openbsd.org` is all that is needed for a minimal report. If you want the developers to be able to contact you, then you might want to follow some instructions from FAQ 4.9 — but don't forget to include `sysctl hw` output, too!

Hurray! And if you have an AMD K8, then don't delay in trying out kate!

Return-Path: <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Received: from ZenIV.linux.org.uk (zeniv.linux.org.uk [195.92.253.2])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 35si4235503nfu.2007.09.01.19.06.57;
        Sat, 01 Sep 2007 19:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
…
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 03:06:57 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
To: Casey Dahlin <cjdahlin@ncsu.edu>
Cc: "Constantine A. Murenin" <mureninc@gmail.com>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>, Jason Dixon <jason@dixongroup.net>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, jirislaby@gmail.com,
	alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
Message-ID: <20070902020657.GP21089@ftp.linux.org.uk>
References: … <46DA18C2.1000104@ncsu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <46DA18C2.1000104@ncsu.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 09:58:26PM -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote:
> Suppose you saw some other variant of *nix that had some code you wanted 
> to use, but there was a gaping security hole in it. Wouldn't you patch 
> it before you incorporated it? and would it be your fault if this fix 
> made the code not work with the original?
> 
> We took the code and fixed a gaping security vulnerability that appeared 
> within the opening comment. We DO care who does what with our code, and 
> we fully intend to cover our balls.

Who's "we" and would you mind showing your contributions to the tree?
git doesn't seem to find them in 2.5.0-to-current for some reason...

Return-Path: <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Received: from ZenIV.linux.org.uk (zeniv.linux.org.uk [195.92.253.2])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTP id d26si7430310nfh.2007.09.01.18.53.58;
        Sat, 01 Sep 2007 18:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
…
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 02:53:56 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@gmail.com>
Cc: "Constantine A. Murenin" <mureninc@gmail.com>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>, Jason Dixon <jason@dixongroup.net>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, jirislaby@gmail.com,
	alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
Message-ID: <20070902015356.GO21089@ftp.linux.org.uk>
References: …
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <43e72e890709011842m213b590ds141deb9657b979e7@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 09:42:54PM -0400, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
 
> We asked SFLC to work with us to make sure that everyone's copyrights
> were respected in the right places, and that the licenses various developers
> wanted for their copyrights were implemented correctly.  The patch I sent
> implements SFLC's suggestions in that regard.

You know, I'm rapidly losing any respect to both sides of that.  Eben
Moglen as source of advice in "is it OK to convert to GPL-only"?  And
you seriously rely on morality of that?  Theo's rants aside, if you
have to rely on SFLC for licensing decisions...  Ouch.

Date:	Sat, 01 Sep 2007 18:36:36 -0600
From:	Theo de Raadt <deraadt@cvs.openbsd.org>
Sender:	linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

When companies have taken our wireless device drivers, many many of
them have given changes and fixes back.  Some maybe didn't, but that
is OK.

When Linux took our changes back, they immediately locked the door
against changes moving back, by putting a GPL license on guard.

Why does our brother Linux take a file that is 90% BSD licensed,
and refuse to let us see the 10% he adds?

 vgapci0: <VGA-compatible display> port 0xec00-0xec07 mem 0xffa00000-0xffafffff,0xd0000000-0xdfffffff irq 16 at device 2.0 on pci0
+agp0: <Intel G965 SVGA controller> on vgapci0
+agp0: detected 7676k stolen memory
+agp0: aperture size is 256M
 uhci0: <UHCI (generic) USB controller> port 0xd880-0xd89f irq 16 at device 26.0 on pci0