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.
The devil made them do it.
Hey probably wanted to make a new variant, like ExpensiveBSD or UltraFreeBSD or CoolBSD
Or maybe he admitted to owning a copy of Windows XP?
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
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
yeh, I'm marking c++ lab exercises now, and I can tell ya, people that don't comment enough surely don't make it easy on those people that have to understand their code.
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.
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
They caught him using Windows XP at home.
... Gossip for Nerds, Stuff that chatters.
I know, its not even funny.
Everybody has a purpose in life, maybe mine is to lurk in slashdot.
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 :).
Um, Matt? There's a small problem... You forgot to put a cover sheet on your last TSP report, I'm afraid we're going to have to kick you off the development team.
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...
- Matt Dillon was never a "core developer". The FreeBSD project doesn't use that term, but it looks like a reference to the core team. Matt has never been a member of the core team.
- Matt has done some very good work over the years. His contribution to FreeBSD release 4 was invaluable, but it would be wrong to suggest that he single-handedly made the difference. Commit statistics on the orginal list show that he has not been very active over the last 12 months.
- I was not aware of his involvement with Linux VM. Nothing we have done will change this, though.
- 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.
- Matt has very little influence on the future of the FreeBSD kernel. That work which he has done over the last two years or so was mainly maintenance.
It's always sad to have to make these decisions. It's even more difficult to defend them when our hands are tied behind our backs.It seems to have started when Dillon made a clever hack and people got arguing over API problems:
...
...
The problem
The solution
NOT another solution
The flamewar starts..
and continues.