On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 10:31:15PM +0200, ropers wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Loganaden Velvindron wrote: > >> If other BSDs worked this way, they would have been > >> successful in attracting a larger userbase. They > >> have the means to do it with their larger developer > >> community. > > On 28 August 2011 21:52, J Sisson wrote: > > This begs the question of whether or not their developer community > > would be as large if they held higher standards... > > Moreover, it also begets another question: > If FreeBSD and NetBSD really adopted the values and practices of > OpenBSD, then what would be their raison d'?tre, given that OpenBSD > already exists? >
Having a rock-solid -current doesn't mean the src will be the same. The BSDs have some diverging technical goals, and this reflects in their commit activity. This would certainly help them to identify bugs early in their release cycle. > (Incidentally, it occurs to me that the previously quoted War and > Peace^W^W^W link > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2011-August/011412.html > (which I didn't read in its entirety) is basically an attempt to > marshal people into making FreeBSD adopt the values and practices of > Linux....) There's no way this could happen right now. FreeBSD doesn't have the huge commercial backing of IBM/Oracle/HP/<$GIANT_LINUX_VENDOR>. The vast majority of BSD developers are doing this in their spare time. One differentiating factor is the quality. It's well known that BSDs are ``more technical correct.'' They can only consolidate their userbase by putting up quality releases that would make it hard for users to move to Linux.
