Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD Core Developer Thrown Out
SlashChick writes "From a discussion on the freebsd-chat mailing list, it appears that one of the FreeBSD core developers, Matt Dillon, has been barred from committing any changes to the FreeBSD kernel. Dillon was one of the developers 'responsible for making FreeBSD 4.x the most rugged and stress-proof free operating system in existence,' and also contributed to fixing the Linux VM. Unfortunately, there has been little explanation from the FreeBSD core team about why Dillon was thrown out, leading to speculation and worries about the future of the FreeBSD kernel. Does the Slashdot community have any more insight into this situation? Would someone from the FreeBSD team care to elaborate and assuage our worries?" CD Update: Greg Lehey from the core team has infact elaborated in this comment.
but I would think that the reason he was barred would be for the same reason most people are:
Differences in opinion. Maybe I am wrong (NEVER!) but that would be my guess.
Sent from your iPad.
Great, as if there aren't enough BSD branches, here's another disgruntled deveoper that might pull a De Raadt and roll his own.
On that note, it's more likely would get adopted by one of the other BSDs, and not really need to start his own. I'm sure OpenBSD can use the help.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
One thing the BSD developers need to know is that they have no justification in keeping this secret. It is aboput the users after all.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
People choose FreeBSD, NetBSD, *BSD, anything else because, for them, it fits the bill. I'll be the first to say that I love to push Linux anywhere I see it can make a difference but I'll be honest, I've done my fair share of pushing XP, *BSD, OS/2, 98, NT, OS X, anything that will get the job done for the user. FreeBSD and any of the BSDs for that matter are excellent backend systems. Rock solid, stable, not a lot of fluff, they are there and that's all that needs to be said.
:)
Linux boxen can be made just as stable, just as reliable, just as "there" as any BSD. I guess in a round about way I'm saying it comes down to preference and familiarity just like anything else. I'm familiar with Linux (11+ years familiar). I'm not as familiar with BSD (only about 5 years now) but I know a good deal of its strengths and weaknesses and I'm happy to say that there are places I would put BSD right now and not one of the Linux distros (barring Slackware or my own) just because of extra work involved that should be unnecessary.
Ok, done ranting.
Cliff
sigs are like a box of chocolates, they all suck remove the underscores to email me
Firstly, the FreeBSD Core team (the use of "core developer" in the title of the article could be misleading) have given a lengthy explanation of this decision on the developers private list. This is where the explanation belongs and where it should stay. The reasons and the action are internal to the project and don't need to be aired in public.
Secondly, Matt is not the first, nor the last I dare say, high profile developer to leave the project. It didn't mean the death of FreeBSD then, it doesn't now. No single developer, no matter how talented and hard working, is irreplaceable. While Matt's technical contributions will certainly be missed, the claims of "imminent death, film at 11" are the same baseless FUD that came out when Mike Smith left or would have come out when John Dyson left (had Slashdot been around).
Thirdly, Matt is still free to contribute should he so wish. The only difference is that he will now have to contribute through PRs, at least for the near future, just as every other contributor started off doing, rather than directly committing himself. Whether he chooses to do this once the dust has settled is, of course, up to Matt.
Finally, long live FreeBSD! Can we please get back to worthwhile stories now :).
Suffice to say, the ends do not justify the means.
First, remember that there is no magic bullet. There are always tradeoffs with anything. Linux has definate strong points (new hardware support usually hits linux first; there are more developers for linux). FreeBSD has fewer developers, and doesn't support the newest hardware as quickly - but the (FreeBSD) network stack is extremely solid, and the system design is very clean.
So, you have to evaluate your goals in these kinds of situations. Are you out to get the newest hardware and features, or are you looking for a clean design and good performance.
There is a reason many sites (like Yahoo, imdb, cr.yp.to) use Open/FreeBSD to run their servers.
If that's not one of your priorities, but you're still curious: I'd still take a look at FreeBSD; the overall design is quite pleasant to work with.
Also, many of the exploits produced are usually done on Linux, at least initially. This could buy you a little extra lead-time when something malicious is released. It's not security by obscurity, but it is a fringe benefit.
As always, if you're truly curious as to which OS would suit you best, you should put a little effort into it, and do some research yourself. I'm not saying you shouldn't use Linux, and I'm not saying you should use FreeBSD. FreeBSD is not for everyone. Linux is not for everyone. Do the research, decide for yourself, and next time - when you feel the urge to ask "why use *BSD?" -- you'll be able to at least discuss what you do or don't like about either. Otherwise, you end up contributing nothing to the discussion.
I was told that I could listen to the radio at a reasonable volume from nine to eleven...
The only difference between the bitchy whining children in open source development and the bitchy whining children in closed source development is that the latter have signed NDAs that keep the pissing contests out of the public spotlight.
The FreeBSD core team has informed the development community in detail about the reasons for Matt's removal. We don't think it's appropriate, nor fair to Matt, to wash dirty linen in public.
When it comes to Free software, isn't "the development community" the same as "the public"?
This stuff raises more questions than it answers. Granted, I really don't care about the precise names behind FreeBSD, and I'll forget about this promptly I'm sure, but I hate to think the influential folks in the BSD community aren't engaging in some kind of power play or the keeping of dirty little secrets. There should be openness in the mechanics of the BSD as project, just like the code is open.
I'd like to think Free software is above the stuff that goes on in corporate boardrooms, but maybe not?
I'm sure this will get modded down, but that's a pretty gutless statement to make, and really isn't supported by the commit logs. Though, when it's time for Core to toss someone under the bus...
To be sure, there is plenty of history with Matt, much of it not great. He's simply not a team developer. However, I honesty hope there's more to this and this than there appears to be.
One wonders when Core is going to stop acting parents and start acting like leaders.
very few people, especially on this board, contribute to any open source projects (I would say far less than 1%).
So its hardly like the great unwashed masses are making linux what it is; the unwashed masses DO, however, make Slashdot what it is...
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
You wrote, 'When it comes to Free software, isn't "the development community" the same as "the public"?'
The two are not the same. I am a consumer of FreeBSD, by virtue of having a Virtual BSD Server from aplus.net. My use of that operating system in no way entitles me to know what transpires between the developers of that OS.
If I want to know the nitty gritty details of OS development, then I need to subscribe to the general mailing lists, read the code, and submit my own work.
Since I'm not prepared to do the above - I am quite happy to be a mere consumer in this case - I don't have any objection to people saying "this is a private matter, it doesn't concern you."
That the source code is available for your perusal is completely unrelated to the behavioral dynamics which govern the production of that code.
Free Software is not necessarily developed publicly. Every project is going to involve at the very least a few e-mails back and forth in private between people. And maybe that evolves into a more formal core team.
So what? Not everything is meant to be aired in public. You act as though you have some "right to know." Who or what twisted your mind into thinking that it is your "right" to stick your nose in everybody's business?
I think you need to go turn off the television and stop reading Slashdot for a while.
NOTE: Of course I was hoping someone kindly leaked the details in the comments, but I'm just curious. I don't expect to be given the details just because I have a pulse.