Re: The future of NetBSD

Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Marc G. Fournier dixit: > > > And what I'm learning with bsdstats.org is that there are more then just > > those > > four ... GNU/kFreeBSD is reporting > > Now _that_'s funny ;) Yes, indeed. Some people are really wasting their time. > > are there any others?

Re: The future of NetBSD

Thorsten Glaser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marc G. Fournier dixit: > > > And what I'm learning with bsdstats.org is that there are more then just > > those > > four ... GNU/kFreeBSD is reporting > > Now _that_'s funny ;) -snip- > The five big ones are DF/Free/Mir/Net/Open though. Not as fu

Re: The future of NetBSD

If you're going to keep chatting about the bsdstats thing would you please stop cross posting to so many lists? It's very irritating. -- Darrin Chandler| Phoenix BSD Users Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://bsd.phoenix.az.us/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ |

Re: The future of NetBSD

Marc G. Fournier dixit: > And what I'm learning with bsdstats.org is that there are more then just those > four ... GNU/kFreeBSD is reporting Now _that_'s funny ;) > are there any others? DragonFly DesktopBSD PC-BSD 4.3BSD-Quasijarus ekkoBSD (dead) MidnightBSD (nascent) MicroBSD (once dead, but

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Daniel Seuffert (from AllBSD.de) today said he intends that your script to be installed AND ENABLED BY DEFAULT in every BSD release/snapshot, and he will definitively enable it in DesktopBSD 2.0. I will probably do the same for MirOS, as I currently

Re: The future of NetBSD

On 05/09/06, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think that binary only drivers are well enough. > Surely better than nothing but ... No fucking way. No support is FAR FAR better than a blob. Yes, really! Indeed! When something brakes, do you want it to continue to work as i

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, rouk ounas wrote: On 9/1/06, Gilbert Fernandes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have a dream. A dream of unification. Having one BSD. Merging the three projects and, why not, keeping incompatible stuff as options that would be either one or another. But when you tell yourself

Re: The future of NetBSD

On 9/1/06, Gilbert Fernandes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have a dream. A dream of unification. Having one BSD. Merging the three projects and, why not, keeping incompatible stuff as options that would be either one or another. But when you tell yourself that it cannot be done, you don't even

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 09:47:32 +0200 Timo Schoeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: : > Hi All! : > : > I agree totally with Mr. Peereboom. IMHO, BLOBS are not sustainable : > in the long run. If a manufacturer decides to retire a particular : > model (driver support included) while OS keeps on releasing

Re: The future of NetBSD

thus Joseph A. Dacuma spake: I don't think that binary only drivers are well enough. Surely better than nothing but ... No fucking way. No support is FAR FAR better than a blob. Yes, really! Don't forget that an open source team sometimes makes api changes that might break a "binary only" dr

Re: The future of NetBSD

>> I don't think that binary only drivers are well enough. >> Surely better than nothing but ... > > No fucking way. No support is FAR FAR better than a blob. Yes, really! > >> >> Don't forget that an open source team sometimes makes api changes >> that might break a "binary only" driver. And com

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 08:55:42 +0200, "Andreas Klemm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 06:50:00PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > > > > >On 31/08/06, Marc G. Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >>Just a stupid comment

Re: The future of NetBSD

> I don't think that binary only drivers are well enough. > Surely better than nothing but ... No fucking way. No support is FAR FAR better than a blob. Yes, really! > > Don't forget that an open source team sometimes makes api changes > that might break a "binary only" driver. And companies s

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 08:14:31PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Miod Vallat wrote: > > >>If the vendor is supporting the driver, and working with the community, > >>then one would hope that they would also fix the driver as bug reports > >>come in about it ... > > > >That'

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 06:50:00PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > > >On 31/08/06, Marc G. Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Just a stupid comment, but ... Linux is one kernel, multiple distributions > >>... BSD is, what, 4 kernels now

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 11:59:57AM +0200, Gilbert Fernandes wrote: > I have a dream. > > A dream of unification. > > Having one BSD. Merging the three projects and, why not, keeping > incompatible stuff as options that would be either one or another. > > But when you tell yourself that it cannot

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 05:30:23PM +0200, Timo Schoeler wrote: > > please stop this thread. you're like a whining child that didn't... > Weinen? Ich hast weinen nicht, aber du, du hast weinen ins eine Deutsche liste schreibt. Danke, du hast mir lachen gemachen. > > there is black and white. y

Re: The future of NetBSD

On 9/2/06, Marc Espie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The BSDs have always been about the code, not the organization. quoted for truth.

Re: The future of NetBSD

Gilbert Fernandes wrote on Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 11:59:57AM +0200: > I have a dream. A dream of unification. Having one BSD. > Merging the three projects and, why not, keeping incompatible > stuff as options that would be either one or another. Horrors! Options are mostly against the goals of Op

Re: The future of NetBSD

On 9/1/06 9:38 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately, looking at it from the vendors' side, I can at least see their point: what is the business case in creating and maintaining good documentation? They basically need *financial* motivation for taking an engineer off a project to write the

Re: The future of NetBSD

thus Brett Lymn spake: On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 01:47:59PM +0200, Timo Schoeler wrote: it's one of the most important issues that ever came up in the recent months on NetBSD MLs, and it's being ignored. No, Timo, it's not being ignored. not any longer, yes, as there come replies that back m

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 01:47:59PM +0200, Timo Schoeler wrote: > > it's one of the most important issues that ever came up in the recent > months on NetBSD MLs, and it's being ignored. > No, Timo, it's not being ignored. You just cannot accept the answer is something different to what you want

Re: The future of NetBSD

thus Marc Espie spake: On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 01:15:09PM -0700, Jon R H wrote: There is no way anybody can "win" from any of this! That's the worst part of it all! all BSD's will & are suffering! Nope. I don't see OpenBSD suffering from this, not for real. i back this :) The BSDs have al

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 01:15:09PM -0700, Jon R H wrote: > There is no way anybody can "win" from any of this! > That's the worst part of it all! > > all BSD's will & are suffering! Nope. I don't see OpenBSD suffering from this, not for real. The BSDs have always been about the code, not the org

Re: The future of NetBSD

-- From: "Nick Guenther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "OpenBSD-Misc" Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 5:31 PM Subject: Re: The future of NetBSD On 8/30/06, Charles M. Hannum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The NetBSD Project has stagnated to the point of irrelevance. It

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 12:16:59PM -0700, Spruell, Darren-Perot wrote: > From: Charles M. Hannum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 10:40:01AM -0700, Spruell, Darren-Perot wrote: > > > Like, what docs does a vendor engineering division give to the > > > developers who write the

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 11:40:14PM -0400, Daniel Ouellet wrote: > on it then on Windows. But it didn't pay as IBM didn't get support > calls. So, they let it die, without telling anyone obviously. It > was secure and stable for it's time anyway. Ever tried to by > direct from IBM > ... > secure or

Re: The future of NetBSD

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > What we really want is not just documentation, but support > from their > > engineers. The Linux community is starting to get this in > some places. > > Yes. In many cases, the reason a company doesn't want to > release documentation is

Re: The future of NetBSD

From: Charles M. Hannum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 10:40:01AM -0700, Spruell, Darren-Perot wrote: > > Like, what docs does a vendor engineering division give to the > > developers who write the drivers internally? They don't > give them bad > > docs. They give them func

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Friday 01 September 2006 19:40, Spruell, Darren-Perot wrote: > Like, what docs does a vendor engineering division give to the developers > who write the drivers internally? They don't give them bad docs. They give > them functional, useful docs. Does it need to be stated that any project > wanti

Re: The future of NetBSD

On 08/31/06 01:27, Charles M. Hannum wrote: The NetBSD Project has stagnated to the point of irrelevance. Stop whining and spamming to get interest for your broken project and start doing something interesting, this "future of..." has clearly nothing to do with that. "Shut up and code!" ins

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Friday 01 September 2006 11:27, Charles M. Hannum wrote: > On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 01:08:13AM +0200, Matthias Kilian wrote: > > They don't have to write device drivers at all, they just should > > write good documentation. > > Unfortunately, the "documentation" often isn't so hot either. I'll

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 10:40:01AM -0700, Spruell, Darren-Perot wrote: > Like, what docs does a vendor engineering division give to the developers > who write the drivers internally? They don't give them bad docs. They give > them functional, useful docs. Does it need to be stated that any project

Re: The future of NetBSD

Whyzzi wrote: On 31/08/06, Marc G. Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: what my point is, though, is if we aren't willing to accept 'vendor written drivers', then it is *we* that are limiting our growth but limiting what hardware we can run stably on ... Sadly, you've twisted the point in the w

Re: The future of NetBSD

From: Charles M. Hannum > On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 01:08:13AM +0200, Matthias Kilian wrote: > > They don't have to write device drivers at all, they just > should write > > good documentation. > > What we really want is not just documentation, but support > from their engineers. The Linux commu

Re: The future of NetBSD

I was happy to continue lurking and not trolling, but it appears some Open Source users still don't get it, and I figured perhaps by saying it again might enlighten a few more. On 31/08/06, Marc G. Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: what my point is, though, is if we aren't willing to accept 'v

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 01:08:13AM +0200, Matthias Kilian wrote: > They don't have to write device drivers at all, they just should > write good documentation. Unfortunately, the "documentation" often isn't so hot either. I'll give you an example. Even with both code and "documentation" from Rea

Re: The future of NetBSD

2006/9/1, Gilbert Fernandes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I have a dream. > > A dream of unification. > > Having one BSD. Merging the three projects and, why not, keeping > incompatible stuff as options that would be either one or another. Opensource is about choice. If you don't like something, when

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Gilbert Fernandes wrote: > I have a dream. I have a reality > > A dream of unification. A reality involving separation > > Having one BSD. Merging the three projects and, why not, keeping > incompatible stuff as options that would be either one or another. Having 3 differe

Re: The future of NetBSD

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 It would require people to not only do it for the sake of their projects, but for the whole BSD people. Even those who really piss you off in other projects. Because someday, those projects will live on without us. We'll pass on like everyone. Am

Re: The future of NetBSD

On 01/09/06, Gilbert Fernandes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have a dream. > > A dream of unification. > > Having one BSD. Merging the three projects and, why not, keeping > incompatible stuff as options that would be either one or another. > > But when you tell yourself that it cannot be done,

Re: The future of NetBSD

I have a dream. A dream of unification. Having one BSD. Merging the three projects and, why not, keeping incompatible stuff as options that would be either one or another. But when you tell yourself that it cannot be done, you don't even try it. It would require people to not only do it for th

Re: The future of NetBSD

Theo de Raadt wrote: [snip] > > We know one reason why we never got documentation. Bit by bit more > information has come out to show that the hardware design is an > embarrasment and there are countless bugs and shortcomings. > Surprising? Not really. Affects ONLY OpenBSD? Not a chance. That's

Re: The future of NetBSD

On 9/1/06, Marc G. Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Gilles Chehade wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: >>> >>> I doubt that'll be productive -- NetBSD, FreeBSD and OpenBSD have all >>> different goals... >> >> Even at the kernel level? Look at device drivers and vendors as o

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 20:03:04 -0300 (ADT), "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Miod Vallat wrote: > > >> I'd rather have Adaptec provide a source code driver for their cards > >> directly, then have Scott Long have to fight with unavailability of > >> documentation i

Re: The future of NetBSD

On 9/1/06, Siju George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And there is no real reason ( in my opinion ) in exerting some Sorry Typo :-( ^^^in not exerting^^^ pressure on vendors to release the documentation. Actually it is for their benefit :-) Hope this Hel

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 08:03:04PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Miod Vallat wrote: I'd rather have Adaptec provide a source code driver for their cards directly, then have Scott Long have to fight with unavailability of documentation itself ... if the driver works, what

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 10:57:20PM +, Miod Vallat wrote: > > I'd rather have Adaptec provide a source code driver for their cards > > directly, then have Scott Long have to fight with unavailability of > > documentation itself ... if the driver works, what do we need > > documentation for? >

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 08:03:04PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Miod Vallat wrote: > > >>I'd rather have Adaptec provide a source code driver for their cards > >>directly, then have Scott Long have to fight with unavailability of > >>documentation itself ... if the driver

Re: The future of NetBSD

Marc G. Fournier wrote: I'm curious here, but why did the *kernel* diverge for each project? Like, I understand (or think I do) the philosophy of the OpenBSD project, and that is high security ... but, wouldn't the security improvements that go into the OpenBSD kernel not be applicable to NetBS

Re: The future of NetBSD

Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Thu, 1 Jan 1970, Gilles Chehade wrote: Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Gilles Chehade wrote: mmmh ... you've got a point ... you just opened my eyes ... documentation is pointless when I have a blackbox doing the work. Maybe I'm missing something, and

Re: The future of NetBSD

(When do you stop putting people into Cc instead of just the lists?) Marc G. Fournier dixit: > source code drivers provided by a > vendor, and supported by them Yeah, and what if the vendor goes out of business, is bought or simply bankrupt? You're pretty much SOL then. //mirabile -- I believe

Re: The future of NetBSD

Marc G. Fournier dixit: > I'm curious here, but why did the *kernel* diverge for each project? Because kernel, userland, ports and attitude come as a package, they cannot be separated, for together they are the operating system. //mirabile -- I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just h

Re: The future of NetBSD

> > mmmh ... you've got a point ... you just opened my eyes ... documentation > > is > > pointless when I have a blackbox doing the work. > > Maybe I'm missing something, and if so, I do apologize to those on these > lists that I may have offended ... but ... having clean source code to a > dr

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, davide zanon wrote: The reason why merging is impossible or stupid has been said some million times... Different goals. I'm curious here, but why did the *kernel* diverge for each project? Like, I understand (or think I do) the philosophy of the OpenBSD project, and that

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Thu, 1 Jan 1970, Gilles Chehade wrote: Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Gilles Chehade wrote: mmmh ... you've got a point ... you just opened my eyes ... documentation is pointless when I have a blackbox doing the work. Maybe I'm missing something, and if so, I do apologize to

Re: The future of NetBSD

Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Gilles Chehade wrote: mmmh ... you've got a point ... you just opened my eyes ... documentation is pointless when I have a blackbox doing the work. Maybe I'm missing something, and if so, I do apologize to those on these lists that I may have offen

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Jeff Rollin wrote: On 01/09/06, Marc G. Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: so, should I then switch to Linux because they do welcome 'vendor written drivers'? If by 'vendor-written drivers' you mean binary-only drivers, then no, the linux kernel developers emphatically

Re: The future of NetBSD

On 01/09/06, Jeff Rollin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 01/09/06, Marc G. Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > so, should I then switch to Linux because they do welcome > > 'vendor written drivers'? > > > If by 'vendor-written drivers' you mean binary-only drivers, then no, the > lin

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Gilles Chehade wrote: mmmh ... you've got a point ... you just opened my eyes ... documentation is pointless when I have a blackbox doing the work. Maybe I'm missing something, and if so, I do apologize to those on these lists that I may have offended ... but ... having cl

Re: The future of NetBSD

"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Miod Vallat wrote: > > >> I'd rather have Adaptec provide a source code driver for their cards > >> directly, then have Scott Long have to fight with unavailability of > >> documentation itself ... if the driver works, what do w

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Jason Dixon wrote: If everyone had your attitude, there would be no *BSD. Settling for "good enough" means never making progress. Who ever said "settling for good enough"? I know I didn't ... if I settled for "good enough", I would have stuck it out with Linux years ago

Re: The future of NetBSD

On 31/08/06, Marc G. Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Pedro Martelletto wrote: > On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 06:50:00PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: >> Even at the kernel level? Look at device drivers and vendors as one >> example ... companies like adaptec have to write *

Re: The future of NetBSD

Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Gilles Chehade wrote: Marc G. Fournier wrote: I doubt that'll be productive -- NetBSD, FreeBSD and OpenBSD have all different goals... Even at the kernel level? Look at device drivers and vendors as one example ... companies like adaptec have to

Re: The future of NetBSD

On 01/09/06, Marc G. Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > so, should I then switch to Linux because they do welcome > 'vendor written drivers'? If by 'vendor-written drivers' you mean binary-only drivers, then no, the linux kernel developers emphatically do not accept them. They would much pr

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 08:01:49PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > In a perfect world, they all would ... this is not a perfect world, it is > one dominated by Linux or Microsoft ... I use Adaptec drivers on 3 of my > servers, because, in 4.x, they were rock solid ... in 6.x, they have a > pro

Re: The future of NetBSD

On 8/31/06, Marc G. Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Vendors should release documentation, not write drivers. In a perfect world, they all would ... this is not a perfect world, it is one dominated by Linux or Microsoft ... I use Adaptec drivers on 3 of my servers, because, in 4.x, they we

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Miod Vallat wrote: If the vendor is supporting the driver, and working with the community, then one would hope that they would also fix the driver as bug reports come in about it ... That's too many ifs to be realworld-compatible. And actually the only vendors I can think

Re: The future of NetBSD

This is the most retarded thing I heard in weeks. On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 07:28:29PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Gilles Chehade wrote: > > >Marc G. Fournier wrote: > >>> > >>>I doubt that'll be productive -- NetBSD, FreeBSD and OpenBSD have all > >>>different goals... > >

Re: The future of NetBSD

Marc G. Fournier dixit: > If the vendor is bought up, bankrupt, out of business, dead (like that person who ported g++ to Plan 9, whose window managers' copyright is now set in stone), etc... you're SOL9. //mirabile 9) wtf knows it -- I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens t

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Aug 31, 2006, at 7:01 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Pedro Martelletto wrote: On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 06:50:00PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: Even at the kernel level? Look at device drivers and vendors as one example ... companies like adaptec have to write *one* devi

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 06:50:00PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > Even at the kernel level? Look at device drivers and vendors as one > example ... companies like adaptec have to write *one* device driver, for, > what, 50+ distributions of linux ... for us, they need to write one for > FreeBS

Re: The future of NetBSD

> If the vendor is supporting the driver, and working with the community, > then one would hope that they would also fix the driver as bug reports > come in about it ... That's too many ifs to be realworld-compatible. And actually the only vendors I can think of which are working with the commu

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Pedro Martelletto wrote: On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 06:50:00PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: Even at the kernel level? Look at device drivers and vendors as one example ... companies like adaptec have to write *one* device driver, for, what, 50+ distributions of linux ... fo

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Miod Vallat wrote: I'd rather have Adaptec provide a source code driver for their cards directly, then have Scott Long have to fight with unavailability of documentation itself ... if the driver works, what do we need documentation for? To fix the driver. If the vendor i

Re: The future of NetBSD

> I'd rather have Adaptec provide a source code driver for their cards > directly, then have Scott Long have to fight with unavailability of > documentation itself ... if the driver works, what do we need > documentation for? To fix the driver. A given piece of source code can only been believ

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 19:28:29 -0300 (ADT), Marc G. Fournier wrote: > >I'd rather have Adaptec provide a source code driver for their cards >directly, then have Scott Long have to fight with unavailability of >documentation itself ... if the driver works, what do we need >documentation for? Plea

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Gilles Chehade wrote: Marc G. Fournier wrote: I doubt that'll be productive -- NetBSD, FreeBSD and OpenBSD have all different goals... Even at the kernel level? Look at device drivers and vendors as one example ... companies like adaptec have to write *one* device drive

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 06:50:00PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > Even at the kernel level? Look at device drivers and vendors as one > example ... companies like adaptec have to write *one* device driver, for, > what, 50+ distributions of linux ... for us, they need to write one for > FreeBS

Re: The future of NetBSD

Please don't Cc: people when you respond to mailing lists *sigh* Marc G. Fournier dixit: > for us, they need to write 1. Companies don't write drivers for BSD 2. Companies don't even release specs so that people can write drivers for BSD //mirabile -- I believe no one can invent an algorit

Re: The future of NetBSD

Marc G. Fournier wrote: I doubt that'll be productive -- NetBSD, FreeBSD and OpenBSD have all different goals... Even at the kernel level? Look at device drivers and vendors as one example ... companies like adaptec have to write *one* device driver, for, what, 50+ distributions of linux ..

Re: The future of NetBSD

> Even at the kernel level? Look at device drivers and vendors as one > example ... companies like adaptec have to write *one* device driver, for, > what, 50+ distributions of linux ... for us, they need to write one for > FreeBSD, one for NetBSD, one for OpenBSD, and *now* one for DragonflyBSD

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: On 31/08/06, Marc G. Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Just a stupid comment, but ... Linux is one kernel, multiple distributions ... BSD is, what, 4 kernels now? If we worked more together instead of as seperate camps, it might make thing

Re: The future of NetBSD

On 31/08/06, Miod Vallat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry, FreeBSD seems to want Linux's fame and fortune and is gladly > giving away its history of a stable, clean codebase to get it. The > winning logo was honestly the last straw for me, though, so maybe that > says something about me... Yes

Re: The future of NetBSD

On 31/08/06, Andy Ruhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 8/31/06, Charles M. Hannum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually, defining (poorly) the OS to include so much else has been a > > liability for NetBSD in many ways. It has massively slowed the adoption > > of new software versions (e.g. GC

Re: The future of NetBSD

On 8/31/06, Charles M. Hannum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Actually, defining (poorly) the OS to include so much else has been a liability for NetBSD in many ways. It has massively slowed the adoption of new software versions (e.g. GCC), for one. It also contributed to the perception that a bette

Re: The future of NetBSD

> Sorry, FreeBSD seems to want Linux's fame and fortune and is gladly > giving away its history of a stable, clean codebase to get it. The > winning logo was honestly the last straw for me, though, so maybe that > says something about me... Yes, it means you are mixing purely technical points with

Re: The future of NetBSD

On 8/31/06, Marc G. Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Just a stupid comment, but ... Linux is one kernel, multiple distributions ... BSD is, what, 4 kernels now? If we worked more together instead of as seperate camps, it might make things a bit easier, no? Put together a *BSD "core" ... rep

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 05:44:00PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote: > Andy Ruhl wrote: > >On 8/31/06, Thorsten Glaser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>BSD is about an operating system, not about a kernel. > > > >Bingo. Good point. This point is lost sometimes. > > > >I believe NetBSD has the proper

Re: The future of NetBSD

I read in some business management book somewhere that took a Machiavelli approach that said: If you want to kill a project, send it to a committee. On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:01:11 +0800, Lars Hansson wrote > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > Put together a *BSD "core" ... representative from each camp an

Re: The future of NetBSD

On 31/08/06, Gilles Gravier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Andy Ruhl wrote: > > > > The reason why apache and perl shouldn't be included is because they > > are moving, 3rd party targets. They are better suited to pkgsrc. > > > And of course, GCC isn't... a moving 3rd party target? > > Gilles.

Re: The future of NetBSD

Andy Ruhl wrote: On 8/31/06, Thorsten Glaser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: BSD is about an operating system, not about a kernel. Bingo. Good point. This point is lost sometimes. I believe NetBSD has the proper philosophy in regards to the entire OS as well. I don't want apache built in, for ins

Re: The future of NetBSD

Andy Ruhl wrote: The reason why apache and perl shouldn't be included is because they are moving, 3rd party targets. They are better suited to pkgsrc. And of course, GCC isn't... a moving 3rd party target? Gilles. -- /*Gilles Gravier*/ *=* [EMAIL PROTECTED] *=*

Re: The future of NetBSD

Ahem... so no Apache... but why games, X11, compiler? After all, an OS isn't necessarily a development platform either. Or a graphics workstation environment either. Or a game platform either. As time goes by, the definition of what is part of an OS and what is a separate application evolves.

Re: The future of NetBSD

On Aug 31, 2006, at 6:06 PM, Miod Vallat wrote: BSD is about an operating system, not about a kernel. This is a common misconception. BSD is about people pissing each other, because they don't want to admit that other people can have different needs, goals, or ways of designing code, th

Re: The future of NetBSD

On 31/08/06, Marc G. Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Harpalus a Como wrote: > I'm just a lurker on the OpenBSD list, but I think Charles is right about > Linux. The code is better then people give it credit for, and considering > it's vast popularity and what all it's ac

Re: The future of NetBSD

On 8/31/06, Gilles Gravier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ahem... so no Apache... but why games, X11, compiler? So don't install the games set, the X set, or the comp set if you don't want that stuff. I think the point I'm trying to make is, apache is certainly not something *most* people will use

Re: The future of NetBSD

> > Put together a *BSD "core" ... representative from each camp and try and steer > > the *kernel* itself towards a more common BSD ... > > BSD is about an operating system, not about a kernel. This is a common misconception. BSD is about people pissing each other, because they don't want to adm

OT: The future of NetBSD

Original message >Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:01:11 +0800 >From: Lars Hansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: The future of NetBSD >To: misc@openbsd.org > >Marc G. Fournier wrote: >> Put together a *BSD "core" ... representative from eac

Re: The future of NetBSD

Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Nick Guenther dixit: >> Um. Wow. I think Theo wins. > > OpenBSD has had MicroBSD forked off twice, MirOS and ekkoBSD too. Ok I'll bite, since I can speak quite well (not definitively however) for ekkoBSD. I can't speak for the exact reason the fork happened (since I didn

  1   2   >