Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news.mathworks.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 00:49:44 -0800 Organization: Walnut Creek CDROM Lines: 90 Message-ID: <3340CC28.167EB0E7@FreeBSD.org> References: <331BB7DD.28EC@net5.net> <5g9hjp$api@flea.best.net> <5gmb58$6jd$1@news.clinet.fi> <5gn3ig$83d@flea.best.net> <5goqrq$5ak$1@news.clinet.fi> <5hd29s$e7t@fido.asd.sgi.com> <333C1614.ABD@sgi01.grn.aera.com> <5hhv1k$jh9@fido.asd.sgi.com> <333E3530.794B@sgi01.grn.aera.com> <333EA3EF.41C67EA6@consys.com> <333EE416.ABD322C@FreeBSD.org> <5hn00k$dio@fido.asd.sgi.com> <333F45A6.41C67EA6@FreeBSD.org> <5hpolu$9t2@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:38182 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:6531 comp.sys.sgi.misc:29570 Larry McVoy wrote: > Guilty as charged. You should reread your own words: I was mostly > interested in how Linux compared to the various vendor operating systems And it was software nepotism in it's finest hour, Larry, but let's drop it. Clearly we're not converging on a unified view of the same talk. :-) > So what's the issue? I'm "bad" because I point out jobs well done > across multiple operating systems and hardware platforms? Gimme a ^jobs^job^ When you're able to understand that, come back and we'll talk some more. > Because the *BSD people can't elect a leader. Let's see - the set of We need a Maximum Leader in order to succeed? God help us. And Linus succeeds as "leader" because he ONLY LEADS A PART OF IT. He doesn't have to worry about releases or presentation or marketing or any of a hundred different other things that the more centralized groups have to, he just does the kernel and disavows any and all interest in the other stuff. It's a lot easier when you have the liberty of picking just a single corner to paint, and Linux also *evolved* around this model and so it's become a natural shape for it. I don't know how you could divest responsibility to such a degree in the BSD world without causing an unholy snarl in the process, so we're comparing apples and oranges again (I'm seeing a trend here with you, Larry. Ever do any stage magic? :-) > anyone off. He's got millions of seats and you have millions of > arguments. I don't notice any arguing in the FreeBSD core group. We're fine when one of the other OS camps isn't firing their catapults at us, and since catapult fire seems to go with the territory (and I've seen more than a few rocks heading to and from the Linux kingdom, so don't try and tell me it's a *BSD exclusive), what's the point in complaining about it? You greatly exaggerate to make your point here, I'm afraid (but the wordplay it allowed you was cute enough so I'll give you half a point). > Come on - if you expect people to follow BSD, then 3 out of the 4 BSD > factions have to throw in the towel and go with you. You're just like I don't expect that to happen, but I do expect one to be progressively more popular than the others and eventually become the unifying force more or less by default. However you get to Rome is not important, just so long as you get there. I plan to get to Rome. :) > We do share the same goals. But you refuse to put the cause, that of > having a good Unix with us in 20 years, ahead of your own personal > agenda. That's sad. Once upon a time, BSD had a chance. By having You know, It's eerie how I can read these words, speak them back to myself and think "yeah, that's exactly how I would have put it to *HIM*" :-) Your premise hangs off the conclusion that BSD is dead and can't offer a significantly useful alternative to Linux. Or you say that it will somehow bifurcate development to the point that "UNIX dies", conveniently ignoring for the moment the facts: The engineers involved are not interchangeable (many have very specific tastes or they wouldn't be where they are now), the software licenses are not interchangeable and the user communities are not interchangeable. These are different groups put together to serve different purposes in an *expanding* market (go check, I'll wait for you) and I see no reason at all for them not to coexist. I'd say you suffered from a bit of a Cassandra complex, Larry, except that Cassandra was always right. :-) The fact that the general UNIX vendor community screwed the pooch in many various expensive ways is also hardly our fault - many of us were *inside* those very vendors at the time, screaming alone in the darkness for reason and sanity, and maybe we don't plan on making all the same mistakes that they did. OK, so we had a split which no one seems to be able to do much about right now, but the *BSD situation isn't the horrible, all-destroying blight you keep trying to make it out to be. Many developers are currently freely migrating between the NetBSD, FreeBSD and OpenBSD camps, funneling fixes in both directions, and sure it's a silly duplication of effort but a major impediment to progress? Hardly. The FreeBSD project has more work in progress than it knows what to do with, sometimes, even without all the cross-pollination going on. I think that both conclusions are completely wrong and biased overmuch by your previous (bad) experience with SunOS. So much so, perhaps, that you are no longer capable of viewing reality and the emerging shape of the market with sufficient objectivity? -- - Jordan Hubbard FreeBSD core team / Walnut Creek CDROM.