Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!ix.netcom.com!enews.sgi.com!news.be.com!news1.crl.com!nntp.crl.com!usenet From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@FreeBSD.org> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.sys.sgi.misc Subject: Re: no such thing as a "general user community" Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 00:14:40 -0800 Organization: Walnut Creek CDROM Lines: 94 Message-ID: <3340C3F0.41C67EA6@FreeBSD.org> References: <331BB7DD.28EC@net5.net> <333EE416.ABD322C@FreeBSD.org> <5hn00k$dio@fido.asd.sgi.com> <333F45A6.41C67EA6@FreeBSD.org> <5hplcv$6lf@fido.asd.sgi.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: time.cdrom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2-STABLE i386) Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:38181 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:6530 comp.sys.sgi.misc:29569 Steve Alexander wrote: > Let me point out that I don't own a computer and have no real opinion about any > of the free UNIX versions, before making a few points... I work at I'll keep that in mind. :-) > - Your statement above would look a lot more compelling if it just said > "FreeBSD" instead of "NetBSD," "FreeBSD," and "BSDI." If Sure it could, but I already admitted we can't say that and so I'm hardly going to be dishonest and present a united front where none exists, right? I can't change reality to fit my vision of a perfect picture. > - An established code base is just as likely to be an albatross as it In theory, yes. In theory, a new code base could also be a festering breeding ground for new bugs and half-baked ideas. What are we proving? That the potential for evil exists? :-) Fortunately, FreeBSD's code base is no more an Albatras than Linux's code base is half-baked (there are a lot of good ideas there). > it seems like what you're really competing on is: > - performance (+ scaling) > - reliability > - hardware platform/driver support > - availability of third-party applications More or less, but these are also broad categories. What is "reliability" a function of, for example? The care taken during release engineering? The quality of the kernel? The robustness of the applications? Or maybe a combination of all 3? To get things right across the board requires the unified effort of many individuals and the application of sound development practices. That is why I took special care to note such "metadetails" as source code management and unified bug tracking - I can't imagine trying to do a coherent operating system release *for the long term* without them, it would simply be too much "grunt work" and I'd prefer to stay away from operating systems altogether than spend my time that way. Performance is also another broad category, with both microbenchmark and macrobenchmark numbers to compare and frown over for years to come. Suffice it to say that all groups are working hard on enhancing performance and that measuring effective enhancement is also difficult, so be wary of any quick claims about performance. FreeBSD is adding support for new hardware every day, and NetBSD still remains a very viable solution for those looking for a truly cross-platform solution. Sure, it would be nice if you could get everything rolled into one nice unified package, but it's not like having to choose between two highly capable BSD derived operating systems is any significant hardship. ;) And finally, as far as the applications are concerned, it's certainly FreeBSD's point of view that we should just run everyone else's applications and not make ISVs jump through any hoops they don't want to. I've run the Linux version of StarOffice, Word Perfect for SCO and any number of other miscellaneous apps for non-BSD systems on my FreeBSD box. Except for some early glitches which have now been fixed, they work just fine and making sure that they continue to work fine is definitely one of our stated goals. > So, why not show that FreeBSD can crush Linux on things like > performance, if that's the case. If not, what other Actually, I really don't truly care all that much if Linux or FreeBSD are a few milliseconds behind the other on any given week. It's like the land-speed record; someone is always trying to break it and the numbers change every year (my money's on Craig Breedlove again, BTW). What's far more important to me is that the FreeBSD project members continue to get along well together, find reasonable agreement on FreeBSD's common goal set and continue to use sound judgement in how and where they make changes to the system. Assembling a team of individuals with just the right combination of significant commercial experience and youthful vigor over these last 3+ years has been no easy task, and now that we've taken our lumps and learned many of our lessons the hard way it's hardly the time to say "well, we certainly did a fine job with this team and it seems to be working out nicely. OK, time for us all to quit and do something else. :-)" > were stable, the source control system used by the developers would > be the last thing that would affect my decision process. As a > customer, I just don't care. And as a customer, why should you? But as a developer, especially a volunteer one, I need to work with a group which fits my needs and expectations just as you as a user need to find software which is a similarly good match for you. The source code is where I'll be spending a LOT of my time, and it makes every difference in the world to me how it's organized and modified. -- - Jordan Hubbard FreeBSD core team / Walnut Creek CDROM.