RE: Where is FreeBSD going?
> -Original Message- > From: Wes Peters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 11:23 AM > To: Munden, Randall J; Brett Glass; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Where is FreeBSD going? > > > On Tuesday 06 January 2004 09:05 am, Munden, Randall J wrote: > > > > Honestly, I picked up the troll thread because I'm curious as to why > > someone would commit so much time in effort to trolling these lists. > > In my experience it's a good idea to explore the reasoning behind that > > type of dedication (faulty or not) for no other reason that discovery. > > On-the-other-hand some people accuse me of being obsessive about > > information. /me shrugs > > People who hate rarely require rational reasons for hating. > Attempting to > apply logic to that which is not logical is not likely to > produce useful > results. > Correct. s/reasoning/root cause/ That's what I intended. > -- > > Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket? > > Wes Peters > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Where is FreeBSD going?
> -Original Message- > From: Brett Glass [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 9:16 PM > To: Munden, Randall J; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Where is FreeBSD going? > > > At 04:00 PM 1/5/2004, Munden, Randall J wrote: > > >I think this is what is on my mind these days. I'm > preparing to load > >up some machines for production soon (I've already put it > off for too > >long waiting for 5-STABLE) and I don't like what I'm seeing -- with > >both the mud slinging here and the performance in the lab (mostly > >anecdotal). > > I don't think that *this* conversation is mud slinging. > What's happening on Slashdot, on the other hand, is. Right, I typed that wrong. This conversation certainly isn't mud slinging -- open, honest discussion can do nothing but good [no matter the outcome]. Honestly, I picked up the troll thread because I'm curious as to why someone would commit so much time in effort to trolling these lists. In my experience it's a good idea to explore the reasoning behind that type of dedication (faulty or not) for no other reason that discovery. On-the-other-hand some people accuse me of being obsessive about information. /me shrugs All I can do now is apologize for 'feeding the troll' or rather, sorry for calling attention to a subject that may be painful, cliché or overused to others. > > >> > >> FreeBSD also keeps falling farther and farther behind Linux > >> in the area of advocacy (and, hence, corporate adoption). > >> Again, this is a governance > >> issue. Many of the developers actually have an antipathy > >> toward advocacy, > >> since they dislike answering newbie FAQs and don't want too > >> many people to adopt the OS for fear that it'll overcrowd > >> their "sandbox." So, some of the criticism is actually valid. > > > >I noticed it too but I just chalked it up to being crazy > busy and not > >paying much attention. > > Nope, it's not because you're too busy. It's true. FreeBSD is > getting fewer mentions in the mainstream press, and fewer > commercial apps, lately. Linux is mentioned as if it was the > ONLY alternative to Windows. Work is needed to raise > FreeBSD's profile. Which leads me to query, given limited time an resources, what can I do? I've moved many a production server to fBSD over the last 10 or so years -- some of them literally -- by blathering nonstop about the virtues of the OS. So what else is there? Do I need to start writing documentation or publishing and pimping more Howtos on the intarweb? Should I brush up on my C and start patching? Frankly, I'd never given thought to providing more effort. The OS has always done it's own advocacy in my experience. > > --Brett > > ___ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/free> bsd-hackers > To > unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Where is FreeBSD going?
> -Original Message- > From: Brett Glass [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 2:53 PM > To: Munden, Randall J; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Where is FreeBSD going? > > > At 12:40 PM 1/5/2004, Munden, Randall J wrote: > > >Right. What concerns me most is the rise in the incidence of trolls > >all trolling about the same subject or along the same vein. Would > >someone please explain what is going on? As a production > user of fBSD > >this is troubling. > > It's probably one of the Slashdot "BSD is dead" trolls. The > fact is, though, that there ARE things about FreeBSD that > could stand improvement. These days, when I build a box, I am > torn between using FreeBSD 5.x -- which is not ready for > prime time but is at least being worked on actively -- and > using 4.9, which isn't as stable as it should be because the > developers broke the cardinal rule of making radical changes > to -STABLE. This *is* a real issue for those of us who are admins. I think this is what is on my mind these days. I'm preparing to load up some machines for production soon (I've already put it off for too long waiting for 5-STABLE) and I don't like what I'm seeing -- with both the mud slinging here and the performance in the lab (mostly anecdotal). Perhaps I've just become spoiled by each new -RELEASE being ten times better than the previous one or perhaps I'm just becoming a bit neurotic with age but I'm not seeing the progression of improvement I've come to expect (or perhaps only imagined?). Don't misinterpret the above, I <3 fBSD and I'll not soon replace it with anything else. But I do like to look ahead to see what's coming. > > FreeBSD also keeps falling farther and farther behind Linux > in the area of advocacy (and, hence, corporate adoption). > Again, this is a governance > issue. Many of the developers actually have an antipathy > toward advocacy, > since they dislike answering newbie FAQs and don't want too > many people to adopt the OS for fear that it'll overcrowd > their "sandbox." So, some of the criticism is actually valid. I noticed it too but I just chalked it up to being crazy busy and not paying much attention. > > --Brett > > ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Where is FreeBSD going?
Right. What concerns me most is the rise in the incidence of trolls all trolling about the same subject or along the same vein. Would someone please explain what is going on? As a production user of fBSD this is troubling. --rjm-- -Original Message- From: Chris Doherty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 1:21 PM To: Munden, Randall J Subject: Re: Where is FreeBSD going? there is no "Maxim Hermion", and the email was sent from a free webmail site. please ask Google before feeding the troll. :-) chris On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 12:43:08PM -0600, Munden, Randall J said: > This makes me wonder if it isn't time for a new -core. > > -Original Message- > From: Maxim Hermion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 12:30 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Where is FreeBSD going? > > > I've been an avid follower of the developments in FreeBSD for around 5 > years now, so my overview of the entire history of "glue that binds" > FreeBSD together isn't complete. That said, I've come to be a bit > disappointed at how events in the last 18 months or so seem to be > pushing the project in a direction that has made things more > difficult, instead of more successful, that has shown distain for > experience and quality and made FreeBSD a platform for large ego's to > push their personal projects down > everyone's throat. > > The statistics sample from 2001 over a year was a cheap attempt to > minimize Matt's contribution to the project. The reason why he has > been mostly silent is probably one of the most prominent signs of his > superior maturity. The fact that the official defense (mostly fronted > by Greg, > atm) > he wasn't such a substantial committer is crap, for the most part. If > one wanted to go by the stats, Jeff Robertson (sorry if I munged the > spelling) > would be one of the key committers, and his UMA system isn't even > entirely ripe yet, it's just been committed within the sample > timeframe. That suddenly phk is at the top of the list, is simple a > result of his newest attempt to add another large chunk of bit rot to > the project that he can later claim not to have time to maintain > "unless someone is willing to pay for my time" (like the atm bits, the > half-finished devd monster, > et.al.) One can hardly get him to look at his malloc bits, that put > his name in lights at some point in the long past. > > Matt didn't contribute because he was convinced that that the smp > development direction that was chosen (my impression at least from the > archives and my fading memory) was overly complex, too complex for the > number and talent level of the contributers involved, and that it > would delay a release from the -current branch significantly. So he > was right. I'll almost bet that that was a constant sore for John, who > still hasn't gotten his long-promised, but little delivered re-entrant > work done, but he always had time enough to object to any other > commits that might help along the way. Strangely Julian and Matt could > work together. One might attribute certain commits to both Matt and > Julian (if that would matter anyway, since -core is interested in > proving the opposite statistically). > > If the issue here had anything to do with IPFW, then you all better > get out your C-coder hats and take a little more time to fix that > rotting pile of muck that has been the standard broken packet filter > interface for FreeBSD long past its possible usefulness. A packet > filter with no central maintainer which is subject to once yearly > random feature bloat through some wild university project from Luigi. > The brokenness that Luigi introduced (and the repository bloat through > backing out and recommitting, ad absurdum) was probably no less a > threat to security than anything Matt did. If the security officer was > to be blatantly honest with himself, ipfw would be marked broken for > either a full audit or full removal (just port obsd's pf or something > that someone actually actively _cares_ about). > > You've alienated Jordan, Mike, Bill Paul (for all I can see), > Greenman, you constantly rag on Terry, even though he's seen and done > more with FreeBSD than most of you, O'Brien is on the verge of > quitting (since he, like I, am not convinced that GEOM is anything > more than an ego trip that will never be completely maintained or > usefully documented). There are certainly others, too, that have > attempted to make technically correct contributions, but didn't fit > into the sort of paranoid "gle
RE: Where is FreeBSD going?
This makes me wonder if it isn't time for a new -core. -Original Message- From: Maxim Hermion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 12:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Where is FreeBSD going? I've been an avid follower of the developments in FreeBSD for around 5 years now, so my overview of the entire history of "glue that binds" FreeBSD together isn't complete. That said, I've come to be a bit disappointed at how events in the last 18 months or so seem to be pushing the project in a direction that has made things more difficult, instead of more successful, that has shown distain for experience and quality and made FreeBSD a platform for large ego's to push their personal projects down everyone's throat. The statistics sample from 2001 over a year was a cheap attempt to minimize Matt's contribution to the project. The reason why he has been mostly silent is probably one of the most prominent signs of his superior maturity. The fact that the official defense (mostly fronted by Greg, atm) he wasn't such a substantial committer is crap, for the most part. If one wanted to go by the stats, Jeff Robertson (sorry if I munged the spelling) would be one of the key committers, and his UMA system isn't even entirely ripe yet, it's just been committed within the sample timeframe. That suddenly phk is at the top of the list, is simple a result of his newest attempt to add another large chunk of bit rot to the project that he can later claim not to have time to maintain "unless someone is willing to pay for my time" (like the atm bits, the half-finished devd monster, et.al.) One can hardly get him to look at his malloc bits, that put his name in lights at some point in the long past. Matt didn't contribute because he was convinced that that the smp development direction that was chosen (my impression at least from the archives and my fading memory) was overly complex, too complex for the number and talent level of the contributers involved, and that it would delay a release from the -current branch significantly. So he was right. I'll almost bet that that was a constant sore for John, who still hasn't gotten his long-promised, but little delivered re-entrant work done, but he always had time enough to object to any other commits that might help along the way. Strangely Julian and Matt could work together. One might attribute certain commits to both Matt and Julian (if that would matter anyway, since -core is interested in proving the opposite statistically). If the issue here had anything to do with IPFW, then you all better get out your C-coder hats and take a little more time to fix that rotting pile of muck that has been the standard broken packet filter interface for FreeBSD long past its possible usefulness. A packet filter with no central maintainer which is subject to once yearly random feature bloat through some wild university project from Luigi. The brokenness that Luigi introduced (and the repository bloat through backing out and recommitting, ad absurdum) was probably no less a threat to security than anything Matt did. If the security officer was to be blatantly honest with himself, ipfw would be marked broken for either a full audit or full removal (just port obsd's pf or something that someone actually actively _cares_ about). You've alienated Jordan, Mike, Bill Paul (for all I can see), Greenman, you constantly rag on Terry, even though he's seen and done more with FreeBSD than most of you, O'Brien is on the verge of quitting (since he, like I, am not convinced that GEOM is anything more than an ego trip that will never be completely maintained or usefully documented). There are certainly others, too, that have attempted to make technically correct contributions, but didn't fit into the sort of paranoid "glee club" that core would like to have around them. You guys lack the talent to steer the positive from Matt into the project and let the crap fall by the wayside. I'm not saying Matt's rants are the most intelligent thing he's done, but he's sat by the wayside and watch the superstars beat up the code to a point where it's less stable, slower, and more bloated than it ever was. I, for one, can understand his frustration (as I can with Mike's, Jordan's, and a few others), although I find his method of expressing it extreme, I often wished he'd have just visited the offenders personally with a clue bat. All in all, history will judge if -core has made the right decision. I personally believe it was a decision made in weakness. The loss the project as a whole will suffer is greater than the bruised ego's the -core has had to deal with in its communications with Matt. Matt was an extremist, but he put up or shut up. I wish I could say that for most of -core. This is a personality confict in a technical project. I'd say that most of you take this just as personally as Matt did, but instead of insulting him in a moment of anger, you shoo
