Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!news00.sunet.se!sunic!news99.sunet.se!news.funet.fi!news.abo.fi!not-for-mail
From: mandtbac@news.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Date: 5 Dec 1995 18:06:56 GMT
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
Lines: 102
Distribution: comp
Message-ID: <4a21o0$r3a@josie.abo.fi>
References: <489kuu$rbo@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> <49smvs$8gd@josie.abo.fi> <DJ2JEp.7Ky@nntpa.cb.att.com>
Reply-To: mandtbac@abo.fi
NNTP-Posting-Host: escher.abo.fi
X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950520BETA PL0]
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:29285 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:9836 comp.unix.advocacy:11748
John S. Dyson, in <DJ2JEp.7Ky@nntpa.cb.att.com>:
>In article <49smvs$8gd@josie.abo.fi>, Mats Andtbacka <mandtbac@abo.fi> wrote:
>>That's probably as close to the development of Linux as most people
>>care to get; not all of the development kernels even compile, as
>>they're released on that site. Probably if you wanted to get much more
>>up-to-date you'd have to start emailing the individual developers for
>>whatever patches they haven't submitted to Linus yet.
>But what happens if I want to participate as much as I do on FreeBSD? it
>appears that the development is kept from the user population... Hmmm...
If you want to participate you write something up and send it in for
approval, same as you do with *BSD; you become a developer. If you
want to criticize what the developers are doing without contributing
anything of your own, you look up the developers' email addresses in
the CREDITS file and whine to them until they procmail-filter you out,
or whatever.
To claim that Linux development is "kept from the user population"
you'd have to be either a convinced anarchist or plain daft, or both.
[...]
>Well core team is a misnomer -- and as I have said in other postings, the
>problems are logistical and perhaps legal -- regarding possible mis-commits.
>Since the development team .NE. host owner,
I've only seen the .ne. convention in the xBase languages - you
weren't thinking in C when you wrote that, right? :-)
> there are some potential problems
>with this. Also, there is the logistical issue of how to move the huge tree.
>On FreeBSD the CVS tree is not just the kernel, but the WHOLE thing...
...Which might be seen as a backdraw, too.
>>Actually, if I wanted to nitpick, not _every_ Linux kernel change
>>should go to Linus; for example, the ext2fs is maintained by Remy
>>Card, so patches to it should be sent to him. But yes, you're
>>essentially right.
>That means that he has full and exclusive control, perhaps like a benevolent
>king. Sure hope that he stays that way.
Likewise - as I alluded to, he might be a hard man to find a
replacement for. However, Linux itself would survive without him, even
if development might hiccup; the GPL is quite explicit on that point.
>Note that on FreeBSD, someone who would have developed such an
>important part of the OS, would more than likely have direct CVS
>commit access.
Essentially, the "core team" of Linux developers likely have fairly
unquestioned rights to modify their pieces; I rather doubt Linus would
have many objections to any given change Alan Cox might make to the
SMP support code.
In a way it's of course positive to have a single coordinating
authority, as well - changes that need to be reflected in many, or
even all, the subsystems can be made more or less in one go by that
person. I imagine such changes take a bit of committee work in *BSD
before you get all the concerned authors to go the same way, maybe?
>>Out of interest, what happens if I develop something completely new
>>for FreeBSD, some driver never seen before; with Linux, I could just
>>proclaim myself its developer/maintainer, send it to Linus and hope
>>it gets into the kernel. Who approves new stuff into FreeBSD?
>It is a complicated question, but rather than having to convince 1 out of 1
>person on Linux -- on FreeBSD you have to convice 1 out of 10 or so kernel
>people to champion your kernel change.
(as if Linus was such an unreasonable person when presented with
decent-quality changes to problems that need fixing... he's no tyrant,
y'know! plus, there's no nine other people to object stridently who'll
then need convincing as well, either.)
>It is almost always reviewed, and usually it is accepted. You see,
>FreeBSD is not meant to be 'owned' by anyone in particular,
Neither is Linux, although its kernel development is currently more
centrally coordinated than *BSD's; your point is essentially moot.
> and the FreeBSD maintainers (including core team) are
>developers AND caretakers.
And the Linux developers aren't...?
>>It probably isn't; in the case that Linus should lose access or maybe
>>just get himself a life, it's probably more closed, since he could
>>prove a difficult man to replace. But you'd have to be mildly daft to
>>consider either one "closed" when compared to most commercial
>>offerings.
>This whole thread (as I remember) started with someone accusing FreeBSD
>as having a closed development.
And he was using rather daft arguments, IMNSHO.
--
" ... got to contaminate to alleviate this loneliness
i now know the depths i reach are limitless... "
-- nin