Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FreeBSD Core Developer Thrown Out

Posted by chrisd on from the maybe-good-maybe-bad dept.

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.

4 of 570 comments (clear)

  1. Similar to the Net/OpenBSD split by kwoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Oddly enough, it was a very similar event that led to the creation of the OpenBSD project. Theo started it after a (rather extended, IIRC) tiff with the rest of the NetBSD core team.

    If Matt decides to fork the code and start his own project, I think the technical world would be a better place for it. A fifth open source BSD might seem excessive to some, but there are still many ways for such a project to differentiate itself.

    --
    unixkb.com -- articles on practical Unix issues.
  2. Re:FUD by The+Bungi · · Score: 4, Interesting
    the use of "core developer" in the title of the article could be misleading

    No, actually it's indicative of elitism. It separates the haves from the have nots in the worst way possible. "You're not a member of the core team, you can't commit" as opposed to the way it's done in Linux, where the lines are well-defined but not labeled.

    Any projects needs leadership, but even avoiding dumb lofty titles and meaningless labels go a long way towards improving what is, in the end, a communist-type dictatorship that runs largely on good will (and I make no judgement regarding that, that's just what it is).

  3. Re:Little explanation? I think there's enough. by robbo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't know how the core team manages its repositories, or what their submission policy is, but I would interpret this move as analogous to revoking MD's write access to cvs. I'm sure he's 'welcome' to continue to submit patches, just like any other schmoe. And of course, he's always free to fork..

    --
    So long, and thanks for all the Phish
  4. Re:Little explanation? I think there's enough. by AxelTorvalds · · Score: 4, Interesting
    You're right the ends don't justify the means. That's why they shouldnt' take themselves so damn seriously. I'm not advocating abuse, but at the same time, it's software and it's not personal. What is important is what the end users do with it. It's far more important than the egos of a few developers. This guy had better be a raging prick, a few arguements or some abrasive characteristics doesn't cut it. In contrast their have been some amazing flames in Linux land and the guys who take part are amazing in their ability to not take it personally and the whole keeps improving.

    Of course that's the whole BSD movement, 2 developers get their panties in a bunch and instead of either one of them being big enough to compromise they fork. You can't tell me that the OpenBSD folks aren't doing things that all BSDs benefit from, same for FreeBSD and their amazing accomplishments. FreeBSD has been strong so far but it's sad to see them drop to that same level.