1. 3

    One reason I think sblg isn’t as popular as this kind of tool is the auto-theme part. Like, being able to do git clone to pull down a template Makefile, blog-template.xml, and article-template.xml with associated CSS files with some kind of unifying theme. Is that something that folks use, or does one usually start from scratch when designing a blog site?

    1. 2

      I don’t know, I don’t think themes (as in layout) are important, but themes (as in example code for all the structures supported by the tool) are important. My website runs on an ancient version of hugo and probably won’t build with a current one without serious changes, but it’s a SSG with only user-supplied input by me, so I don’t care.

      I made my own theme but tbh I don’t remember if I did it from scratch or just ported it from hyde, which I was using before that. I probably did it from scratch for hyde, as I don’t have any acknowledgements in that repo. It was enormously helpful to see good examples for hugo and be able to see examples in themes, as for example good RSS support was very important for me.

      But I’ve only once run some kind of “quick, I need a website!” thing off of any SSG, and then I used jekyll because it was a team blog that should just work without any tinkering and only minimal effort to use a basic theme.

      1. 1

        Oh, Nice. I haven’t heard about this tool. I was just testing some of the static site generators. So, I did a small google search and found Hugo, Jekyll, etc. are one of the good static site generators. And, I have heard about ssg (https://www.romanzolotarev.com/ssg.html) - static site generator tool.

        I can’t compare these tools because I think I am not the right person to do so. And, as I am not a very huge fan of the website development, I was searching for something where I just need to write my content that’s all with some good minimal visibility and readability theme support. So, I have picked Hugo and started testing it.

      1. 3

        Hi, I’m Neeraj and I mostly write about system security including topics like OpenBSD Internals, Kernel, Linux and other security or system related things that excites me :)

        Link: https://medium.com/@_neerajpal

        1. 4

          membar_producer() → Force visibility of all of the above changes.

          I believe this has to do with caching and ensures the new values will be up-to-date even when read from main memory by some consumer of this data, e.g. by the scheduler which could be running on another CPU. (I haven’t checked the code though so this is just a guess and might not reflect the actual semantics 100%.)

          Nice article!

          1. 2

            Yeah, I don’t know much about membar barrier operations but like I have read some blogs and some pieces of information that I found on google that it is something which is related to ordering-reordering of LOAD-STORE operations between on multiprocessor systems (in SMP). “The techniques for making memory visible from a processor core are known as memory barriers or fences. They make program state visible to other CPUs so they can act upon it.” – (From some blog that I have read)

            Thank you for your update on memory barrier I will update the same on the blog.

            Thanks for your feedback on the article. This keeps me motivated for going further to learn more and share my learnings.

          1. 6

            If anybody started reading this and was very, very confused, in the following word, the word “word” is really “passage”, and “passage” means “improved word”. Unlike, of course, just “word” as you know it to mean, in which case I’m referring to a word in a “passage”.

            “First of all, let me clear one important thing that pledge(1) and pledge(2) both are different things according to the man page of OpenBSD. Because parenthesis numbers indicate sections of a man page, like, (2) for system calls etc. So, here, parenthesis numbers are only to differentiate between the old pledge and new pledge or improved pledge, that’s all, nothing related to the parenthesis numbers of man page of OpenBSD.”

            I think there should be a filter for medium posts. Sigh.

            1. 1

              I don’t think that there are lots of confusions now. I know that first pledge(1) and pledge(2) were creating confusions, but then after that, I have changed the title and also written that paragraph for clarification. I too was thinking regarding this confusion, that how should I differentiate between the old pledge and improved pledge, so, I thought it would be great if I will try to explain what is what.

              But, if it is still confusing, then I apologize for my mistake. From on next time, I will keep these things in mind.

              1. 2

                It’s not your explanation that’s confusing—that’s just me being acerbic—it’s the notation itself. Consider using “pledge v.1” or “pledge v.2”, or better yet, “pledge 6.0” or “pledge 6.3” to refer to the OpenBSD version containing the described version. Then you can drop the explanations altogether and focus on the matter at hand.

                (And don’t forget pledge 5.8: tame!)

                1. 1

                  Oh yeah, you are right. I can also use “pledge v.1 or pledge v.2 “ or “pledge 6.2”, that’s nice. even I had asked for suggestions for this on Google+, but, no one gave.

                  Thank you very much for the clarification. I will update them. :)

            1. 1

              Hey, he stole my puffer! :D

              1. 2

                Yeah, Sorry for that, I should ask you first. I found it on google images. :)

                1. 1

                  Np! Was neat seeing it on a site other than mine. Welcome!

                  1. 1

                    Was neat seeing it on a site other than mine. Welcome! Thanks for the high-quality version image. I have updated the image. :)