Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!caen!spool.mu.edu!news.clark.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.u.washington.edu!buckwild From: buckwild@u.washington.edu (Mark Tamola) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc Subject: Re: The Real reasons the *BSDs should cooperate, if not merge. Date: 28 Oct 1994 23:04:59 GMT Organization: University of Washington Lines: 96 Message-ID: <38s02r$gp7@nntp1.u.washington.edu> References: <38pb93$ls9@spool.cs.wisc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: saul1.u.washington.edu In article <38pb93$ls9@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, Jon Cargille <jcargill@grilled.cs.wisc.edu> wrote: >Up until now, the fact that there is more than one free version of BSD >for the i386 has been at most an inconvenience: it leads to extra work >for those who make binary packages available on the net, since they >have to make two versions; it's a source of confusion for new users, >who don't know what to install; it causes some delay for end-users in >terms of getting new features in their hands, since they might be >implemented first in the "other" camp, and take time to migrate over. I have to agree with this. I started using the *BSD's about a year and a half ago, and have been switching back and forth. Now, I have stuck with NetBSD, just because I was sick of switching. When I first learned of them, I asked the obvious question: "Which is better?", only to be shot down by the angry answer: "Neither! They're different", which of course didn't help me at all. I even tried to switch to Linux, but bagged that because I didn't want to have to get used to a whole new system. >Inconvenience aside, however, the split hasn't been a REAL problem for >many people. In the future, though, I see it becoming a true Achilles >heel for the user community. [...] >I think it's great to have commercial outfits take an interest in >releasing their products for *BSD. If we're really lucky, they'll >release binaries for both. However, they're unlikely to want to do >the extra work to produce releases for two close-to-identical OSes. >The fact that there's no easy way for them to release binaries for >both versions of *BSD may prevent some from releasing any binaries at >all. I think that this point is VERY important. Aside from learning about how an OS works, and also hacking in general, most people use an OS to do real WORK. How many of you out there still use DOS/Windows because, well, the public apps out there sometimes just don't cut it when you need to do real work. Sure, if you have lots of computer/UNIX/programming experience, you'll figure out how to compile a free program, and then you have to just deal with the imperfections of the program, because it is public domain, and the authors really don't have to support anyone if they don't want to. Commercialized tools/apps/what have you work because they can easily appeal to the AVERAGE user. FreeBSD is getting much more user friendly, but NetBSD is definitely not for the AVERAGE user. That's why Linux wins hands down, and that's why Linux will get probably all the commercialized products for it in the near future. I would definitely want more commercial apps and stuff for NetBSD, and I realize with the new development for compatibility with SCO products and maybe even Linux binary compatibility, this may be possible. But, what we really want is DIRECT support from the company itself that would be able to help you with NetBSD specifically. >The other possibility that they'll release their product for only one >of the *BSDs. The two examples I mention above have chosen this path, >and I think this is what most commercial outfits will do. >Unfortunately, this means that it's the users that lose: if you want >to run package X, you must run FreeBSD; however, if you want to run >package Y, you must run NetBSD. If you want to run X & Y, you simply >lose. This would definitely suck. What if FreeBSD somehow got Microsoft Excel, but NetBSD got Wordperfect? Well crap...I guess it's back to Windows... >Call to Arms: > >At the *VERY* minimum, I think it would behoove the *BSDers to move to >a single ABI, so that each OS could run binaries compiled for the >other. Personally, I still think everyone would benefit if the two >groups could get along well enough to implement either a partial >(kernel-only), or more substantial (whole-world) merge. Although I do not speak for the NetBSD core or FreeBSD team in any way, I think that the merge won't happen because of the very different personalities of the two teams. It's terrible to see that both of them are working for practically the exact same thing, but HAVE to be different from the other because of past differences or conflicts. I know that both core teams for the *BSD's do what they do because they just LOVE it. Otherwise, they wouldn't have even come up with the concept in the first place. Unfortunately, what may have started out as a love for BSD and a love for programming and hacking has turned into a "job". That "job" is to maintain a system for their users to use. That's what it all comes down to. Why don't the teams put their differences aside and finally work together for the USERS? We out here love their work, and want to do our utmost to support and use the fruits of their labor, but it's tough when it's divided between two great teams. Kinda like a love triangle :-). Well, just my thoughts, and sorry for the long discussion. -Mark Steven de Sagun Tamola -buckwild@u.washington.edu