Not sure what Microsoft's monorepo for Windows is like but it might be near 100M.
Beyond that I would guess some aerospace or DoD projects have a larger codebase, but they probably don't use version control consistently.
F-35 has 8 million LOCs. An equivalent C++ project would be Qt (~ 8 million LOCs and > 100k commits).
- adding/refactoring locking for improved SMP support
- dropping older architectures (VAX, etc)
- dropping older protocols/servers (e.g ISDN, decnet sorts of things, obsoleted proto-IPv6 versions)
- dropping/refactoring systrace
- rewriting or dropping various network routing daemons (apache HTTPD 1.3 removed from tree at this time)
- libressl replacement at this time
see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBSD_version_history
relatedly, in the openbsd world, Ted Unangst is well known enough for doing old/unused code audit+removal that there is a slang verb 'tedu' (his handle, usage e.g. "it got tedu'd") which means basically zapping old stuff. See 1st comment in the twitter thread..
It was already ubiquitous in 1997 when I got started working on open source software, so I took it for granted. I was surprised to find out 20 years later how new anoncvs had been and how fast it spread to other projects like FreeBSD and Apache httpd.
>If you think you've got a great way of measuring, don't be so sure of yourself -- you may have overcounted or undercounted.
By his own admission, his own counting method is probably flawed.
because he is, actually, smart? I'm in totally different field, devops, don't laugh :), but I religiously follow their approaches to security and design in general.
But "being smart" does not require you to be arrogant and condescending. Theo is, and seems to need to say "I AM SMART" all the time. Like "Hey, I found this thing where the manpage says X but look the implementation is actually Y. POSIX says X, so probably Y is a bug". Answer: "I AM SMART. I will fix this". Ooooo-kay. I didn't say you weren't smart.
> That's a lot of commits by a lot of amazing people.
It's made me contribute less to OpenBSD than I otherwise would have (luckily other people are more welcoming, and Theo isn't a bottleneck on all things), and it's not just me. Other potentially good contributors have stayed away. Now, of course, other bad contributors have stayed away too.
The other bad aspect to arrogance is that it misses out on research the rest of the world has done, because you think nobody else can think. OpenBSD got W^X years and years after Linux (though OpenBSD got it by default first), because (in their own words) they don't look at what Linux is doing. OpenBSD missed out on W^X for years, and it took one more release for x86 to get it, because they said it couldn't be done (even though it worked just fine on Linux).
Looks like it was the same with the intel branch predict bugs. They say they did huge amount of research over weeks or months, and then just ended up with the kernel memory maps containing... exactly what Linux chose. Why did they do this from scratch?
I wouldn't say I'm bitter, but resigned to just accept that OpenBSD's way of doing things misses out on exactly what they want to achieve because of this attitude.